Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2017

< 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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2017 [1].

Norwich War Memorial

edit
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The next in my series on war memorials by Sir Edwin Lutyens for those following along at home, this number six, and about halfway through the English memorials with FA potential. The previous two were both in York; this one is a long way further south and slightly further east. Sadly neglected in the early 21st century, it has since been restored to its full glory. Although not a large memorial dominating its surroundings, it's nonetheless quite an impressive one in my opinion. It was unveiled by a disabled ex-serviceman; that the committee had no trouble finding a wounded soldier for the duty speaks to the profound effect the First World War had on Norwich, which of course is a microcosm of Britain as whole.

This is a relatively short but comprehensive article, and as ever, all feedback is gratefully received. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support this shortly. Few small things....
  • Lead: Would prefer abandoned to "abortive".
  • Makes no odds to me, so done.
  • Norwich's war dead and by 1926 - comma or punctuation of some sort needed (imo)
  • Done.
  • an empty tomb (cenotaph) - remove the cenotaph clarifier - mentioned and linked already above
  • I think this is worthwhile as cenotaph isn't necessarily a widely understood term and Norwich's doesn't resemble Lutyens' other cenotaphs (which tend to be raised high on pylons, and many people think the pylon itself is [part of] the cenotaph). It's actually the reason I had the link there rather than on the first mention. I'm open to better ways of doing this if you can think of any.
  • Never heard of a flambeaux before, link pls. Also, it is how it sounds, no need to say "at either end can burn gas to emit a flame" - works from burning gas or sumfink.
  • and the City Hall in 1938. In 2004... Can you rephrase so the two years are not placed so close together.
  • Yep.
  • Gone.
Thanks very much Ceoil! Happy to talk some more about cenotaphs and flambeaux if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have only ready half the article so far, but cenotaphs are in my area of interest, if you have more. Flambeaux is my new favourite word. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • which was initially deployed - I have a real problem with the way 'initially' is used on Wikipedia, though more on music articles than in this instance. 'Originally', or 'at first'
Done.
  • Norwich, the county town - The city of?
  • Sorry, I don't follow. You're suggesting "the city of Norwhich, the..."? Or something else?
Say "the city (or town) of Norwich" rather than Norwich, the county town Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can add "the city" if you think it would help, but I wanted to keep the county town link to make clear the relationship between Norfolk and Norwich. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approximately 33,000 men served overseas with the Norfolks, though many more joined other regiments. Norfolk men presumably, rather than men in general
  • Indeed.
  • Thousands of war memorials were built across Britain after the war.
  • Sorry, not sure what you're suggesting here either.
Ok. In the aftermath of the war and its unprecedented casualties is fine on 2nd reading. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London - In rather than on? maybe in Whitehall, London, though yes that's an Americanism.
    • Well, Whitehall's the street and the Cenotaph is in the middle of it so "on" seems appropriate.
Ok. But can you say Whitehall street or road, as I assumed it was an area. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just called "Whitehall" (I know, that's Londoners for you!); Does linking it help? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A link perfectly solves. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are very picky, yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm running out of things to say, a good sign, so Support from me. This a very fine, worthy and interesting article. Well done Harry.
Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! If cenotaphs are your thing, you'll like what I have in store next. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments by auntieruth
  • almost ready to support.
  • question on this sentence Withers was selected at random from among the city's ex-servicemen who were natives of Norwich, had enlisted prior to the implementation of conscription in 1916, had served overseas, and had been permanently disabled as a result of their service I think I understand it. He was selected from a pool of the exservicemen who had all been natives had enlisted prior to conscription, and had...yadayada....? I had to read it several times though. auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MOSCAP violations. Also the total cost was £2,700 (1927); it'd be nice to have a conversion to modern value. Other than that I think it looks ok. --John (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
moscap violations? are you referring to the caps of the on the inscription? ....?auntieruth (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it either. Wot. Ceoil (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to guess that the issues are
* "The Royal British Legion " should be "the Royal British Legion";
* " Its place in the Memorial garden " > " Its place in the memorial garden ";
* " between the new City Hall and the castle." > "new city hall";
* "(on the Stone itself)" > "stone";
* "the Guildhall " > "guildhall".
NB "Market Place" is presumably the proper street name, as opposed to "a market place". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Market Place is indeed the street name. RBL cap the "t" but I've de-capped it anyway, likewise memorial garden. City Hall is a proper noun (it's the name of the building), as are Stone of Remembrance and Guildhall. But I think John's issue is with the inscriptions. Still, the inscriptions are in allcaps on the memorial itself, and they're quoted in allcaps in every single one of the sources (some inline like I've done, some as a blockquote). Personally I think it would be silly to make Wikipedia the sole exception, and sticking to the sources is a higher priority—the MoS is, after all, supposed to be a guide and no guide can cover every possible scenario. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic Market Place is not the street name, it is the name of the square in which the market is located. It is a proper noun though, as is Guildhall, City Hall etc Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, I still think that "on the Stone itself" should be lower case - the "Stone of Remembrance" is a proper noun, but "the stone" isn't - for comparison, one would say "in Norwich Castle", but "in the castle". MOS:INSTITUTIONS, part of WP:Capital, would seem to prefer "the guildhall"/"the city hall" or "the Norwich Guildhall"/"the Norwich City Hall"... I don't have a strong opinion on the inscription issue, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re inscription, if it is similar to proclamations, the instructions here do say not to capitalize it. And since the opposer left no instructions, what can we do?
I think if a building is named the Guildhall, it should be in cap. If it's called Fort Knox, our Guildhall, that would be incorrect. Go to the guildhall building, and turn left, not caps. Go to the Guildhall and turn left. yes. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings about Stone, so I've decapped it. I believe a strict reading of the MoS would disallow the use of allcaps for the inscription, but the MoS is a guide (the tag at the top says best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply) and I believe this is a small and reasonable exception where following the sources is preferable to following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the caps, and I take your point on the inscriptions. What did you think about my other point on the currency conversion? John (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my oppose still stands. I tried to see how this could be a valid exception to the MoS but it just isn't. MoS says not to do the ALLCAPS thing and MoS compliance is a FA criterion. --John (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your oppose but obviously I disagree with it. The MoS is guidance, not scripture, as it says itself. It would be impossible to write a style guide for every set of circumstances and every article. In this case I'm following the style used by the sources and I don't think the article would be improved by following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Sources look good.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment: As John has opposed on an MoS issue, I'd like to hear a few thoughts from other reviewers on this, if we can't find any other way around it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • we commented above. A lot of us did. He's using the source, and this is what the source says. He left no instructions on what kinds of caps he opposes--the caps for the inscription, or the caps for the names of buildings. The caps guideline says "common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." Not sure what else we can say about this. As the editor says, the inscriptions themselves are in all caps, as if they were a proclamation, and all the sources referring to the inscriptions use all caps. I'm wondering if we could put the inscription in all caps in a box and refer to it in the text? Would that be a work around? auntieruth (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recusing from coord duties to comment on this point (I may also be able to go through the whole article this weekend), following MOS is indeed part of the FAC criteria, but MOS is, as Harry and Ruth suggest, a guideline that may occasionally be honoured in the breach. In this case I would not be opposing over the allcaps inscriptions, but I would offer a suggestion/compromise, namely to make the caps small (and without quote marks), which has been employed for inscriptions on some FA-level coin articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- lightly copyedited now; not an overly detailed article but I didn't notice any obvious omissions; structure seems logical; happy to take Nikki's image review and Ealdgyth's source review as read; my only suggestion is the one above re. inscriptions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've seen this and I'll be back later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm inclined to promote this, but wondered if there was any response to either Ruth's or Ian's compromise suggestions? Given that this is a MoS issue (and I don't think we want any more disputes between FA and MoS if we can avoid it!) I just want to exhaust every avenue before we invoke IAR (which is what we would effectively be doing here, although I have no problem if that is the consensus). I also notice that there is no alt text for the images, and while it is not an outright requirement, I am very much of the view that FAs should follow best practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in on how far we've got with this? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry to be late to the party, I was just browsing. There are a couple of references in the article to Norwich being a town which is incorrect. Norwich is a city. I think before promotion this should be corrected. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the delay in getting back to this. @Ian Rose: I can't see a problem with small caps, so done. @Norfolkbigfish: "City" and "town" are often used interchangeably, but I know it's a point of pride for many places so I've changed the couple of instances of Norwich being referred to as a town. @Sarastro1: Sorry to have kept you hanging around; is there anything else we need before wrapping this up? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Tks Harry; actually this is the format I was thinking of, as used for inscriptions in the coin FAs I referred to: OUR GLORIOUS DEAD. It uses the "small" parameter rather than "smallcaps". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: As I mentioned above, I am going to promote this, although I am aware it is probably a technical breach of MoS. However, other than the one oppose, reviewers do not seem too concerned so I think this is justified. For what it's worth, I don't have any firm opinion either way. Any further discussion could take place on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2017 [2].

Pacific blue-eye

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second fish I caught and the first I kept in a fish tank. A common and hardy little critter. It's as complete as I can make it. Anyway, have at it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

edit

I'm very close to supporting this outright, just a few quibbles:

  • from a specimen collected in Sydney and taken to Vienna by the SMS Novara in 1858. You need to make it clear that the date 1858 was for the collection and not the taking to Vienna - presumably it didn't reach Vienna till the Novara Expedition finished in 1859. It might be worth briefly mentioning that it was colected on that expedition.
duly tweaked - the Novara Expedition is unfortunately a redirect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're usually very thorough, but I'll check - any information about its closest relatives in its genus?
Cant' find anything - we have infraspecific analysis but no infrageneric.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I figured if there was you would have included it, but I had to ask. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative names include southern blue-eye and northern blue-eye.[7] - why not make it explicit which subspecies goes with which common name - it is obvious but it would fill out a very short paragraph. Otherwise maybe move common names to after where you introduce the trinomials
Here's the (annoying) thing. I can't find a ref that explicitly states which name goes with what. Also, the species itself is the southernmost so the name "southern blue-eye" I cannot exclude being used for the species as a whole. I might have to try some offline sources.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • noxious introduced eastern mosquitofish I can find no evidence that this species is poisonous.
By noxious I mean highly invasive and deleterious to local species (which it is).... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise all good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Support. Happy with those answers (well, I still think noxious means poisonous). Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, term "noxious" meaning "destructive" applied to Tilapia fish Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

I bring no special knowledge of content to this review, but I can comment on prose, logic, and Manual of Style issues. I made a few minor edits to the article; please revert any you find to be misguided. Here are my questions and suggestions:
General
  • The date of Kner's description is given as 1866 in the lede and in the main text, but 1865 is the date in the infobox. Maybe they refer to different things, naming or describing, not sure.
'twas an error. Duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • ¶1 "British entomologist William Sharp Macleay named a "curious little fish" collected from the Bremer River, a tributary of the Brisbane River, by one Mr Jameson of Ipswich, Atherinosoma jamesonii in 1884, which was later classified as the same species by Australian ichthyologist James Douglas Ogilby in 1908." – A few too many clauses for comfort. Perhaps "In 1884, British entomologist William Sharp Macleay named a "curious little fish" Atherinosoma jamesonii that had been collected by one Mr Jameson of Ipswich from the Bremer River, a tributary of the Brisbane River. In 1908, Australian ichthyologist James Douglas Ogilby later classified it as the same species as Atherina signata."
'split sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "...though it has been split by some into northern signata and southern signifer, with the former found from Ross River northwards and the southern from the Calliope River south. The division occurs at a biogeographic dividing point known as the Burdekin Gap." – The gap isn't a point or a line. In addition to the link, it might be helpful to mention the width of the gap and perhaps briefly describe it.
have called it a "barrier", which it is. Looking for some more notes to embellish... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
having some trouble finding the dimensions of the savannah (as that's what it is). Might be better on target article page anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "were more highly variable than different to each other..." – Different "from" rather than "different to"?
Duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 In 1979, Hadfield and colleagues analysed the variations described and felt both species were more highly variable than different to each other, and that no characteristics enabled people to distinguish either species." - To eliminate repeating "variable", "variations", perhaps collapse this to "In 1979, Hadfield and colleagues analysed the variations described and felt that the species could not be distinguished from one another." Or something like that.
This was tricky. I tried rewording, how does that work? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • ¶1"Populations north of the Burdekin Gap become larger as they move further north, and exhibit no size difference between sexes." – This sentence might be taken to mean that a particular group of fish grows larger as it migrates north. Maybe "The size of Pacific blue-eyes found north of the Burdekin Gap varies directly with increasing distance from the gap and is the same for both sexes."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 "However, south of the Burdekin Gap, the species exhibits marked size difference between sexes, which becomes more pronounced as one moves further south." – The Manual of Style frowns upon using the pronoun "one". Maybe "However, south of the Burdekin Gap, the species exhibits marked size difference between sexes, which becomes more pronounced as the distance from the gap increases."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ¶1 Link dorsal fin and pectoral fin?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • ¶2 "of slower-moving water (less than 20 cm (8 in) per second)" – I'd suggest a pair of em dashes instead of the outer parentheses in order to eliminate double nesting of parentheses.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I have another nitpicky suggestion. The article has two one-sentence orphan paragraphs. My suggestion is to attach the one in the Taxonomy section to the end of the first paragraph of this section and to attach the one in the Description section to the section's other paragraph. My support stands whatever you decide. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, done. I hate one-sentence paras too...but was unsure where to put them... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx. I added "highly invasive" - "noxious" adds the meaning that it is desctructive to native species and ecosystems Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Please expand abbreviations in the references - i.e. NSW
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. (Note I reviewed this article for GA status, so I inspected refs closely then) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2017 [3].

Eve (2003 TV series)

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is is about ... a UPN sitcom that revolves around two sets of male and female friends attempting to navigate relationships with the opposite sex. The series was developed originally as a vehicle for Eve following the success of Brandy in another of the network's sitcoms - Moesha. Critical response to Eve was mixed; some critics praised its inclusion as a part of UPN's line-up of black sitcoms, while others felt Eve lacked charisma, and the series was inferior to other sitcoms. The show was cancelled following UPN's closure to form The CW.

I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). I primarily based this article on my previous work on Love, Inc., which successfully passed through the FAC process at the end of last year. I look forward to receiving feedback for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/Support by PanagiotisZois

edit
Lead section
edit
  • I'd replace "With an ensemble cast" to "Featuring an ensemble cast consisting of". Also remove the ":".
  • Seeing as the series was developed as a vehicle for Eve, and Eve did star in the series, I don't think it's necessary to say "developed originally".
  • Is there a specific reason UPN executives made Eve due to the success of Moesha? Is it cause both Eve and Brandy were/are famous singers rr was it due to both of them being black? If an explanation wasn't given then that's alright.
  • It was a little bit of both actually. I have added a small part to the lead to hopefully make this part clearer. Eve's appearance on the show also received comparisons with Queen Latifah's performance on Living Single, but I only included Brandy in the lead as that is the one primarily discussed by outside articles. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though it was picked up by UPN". Simply say "After being picked up". Considering UPN approached Eve in the first place, it kinda makes it sound like the show was in danger of never being made. Or I might be reading way too much into this. :P
  • "The show was set in Miami, but filming took place" -> "While the show was set in Miami, filming took place".
  • When writing The WB's full name, include a capital "T".
  • Did critics deem the show inferior in regards to UPN's other black sitcoms or just sitcoms in general?

Just so you know Aoba, I will offer additional comments; this are just for the lead section. Will move into the other sections as well pretty soon. I'm sure that once I've looked through the entire article, and any problems I find have been corrected, I will be able to support it.

  • Thank you for your initial comments. I am always the worst with the lead section (primarily because I wait to write them until I am done with the rest of the article). I believe that I have addressed all of your points and made the proper revisions. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Premise and characters
edit
  • Seeing as UPN's full name is used in the lead, just write UPN.
Episodes
edit
  • "with J.T., only to discover that he is afraid of commitment and has chauvinistic tendencies".
  • "but resists the temptation out of fear of ruining their friendship".
Conception
edit
  • Is it necessary to say "of her single"?
  • Put a comma after "approached Eve".
  • Remove "serve to".
Production and filming
edit
  • In "as one example of", does the author refers to other examples of the networks attempt to be diverse or is this the only one? In that case, it should say "as an example".
  • "Jake Austen identifies Eve as part of" not "was of".
  • Don't you mean "Bumper Robinson was originally scheduled to portray J.T."?
Critical response
edit
  • Remove the "has" in "Eve has received".

Alrighty then, these are all the things I found in the article that need reworking. Still can't believe the main body's problems are more-or-less equal to those of the lead section. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your review so far. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)|[reply]
@Aoba47: Alrighty then, after having those minor things being changed I can offer my support to this very well-written and informative article. (thumbs up) PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp

edit

Hi. This is generally a very well written article. Comments:
Premise and characters:

  • According to UPN, Eve revolves around "a woman whose fashion career is on the move[,] [b]ut her love life is a work in progress." It's slightly jarring to see "[,] [b]". Would "whose fashion career is on the move [but whose] love life is a work in progress" work? This would also flow more smoothly.
  • I a little bit disagree with Panagiotis, and would tend to treat each of the lead and main text as being "self-sufficient", such that I would spell out UPN's full name again in the main text. But I know it can be hard in FAC to juggle editors' conflicting requests, so I won't insist on that. But if you were to take on the "self sufficiency of main text" idea even partly, you might consider this article begins a little abruptly, as neither UPN nor Eve are introduced in the main text before we're already describing what a particular TV station is saying the show is about. But, again, it may depend how much mutual awareness you consider the lead and text are supposed to have. So if you disagree with me about this point, no worries.
  • Thank you for adding United Paramount Network. But I think I wasn't very clear. My suggestion was supposed to have two parts. The first part was to add United Paramount Network, which you did. But I was also trying to suggest the section begins a little abruptly. My reasoning was that if one considers the main text to be "self sufficient" then the show should be first introduced at a very basic level before stating what the network says about it—and not start piggybacking from the background information of the lead. However, I don't have a specific idea of what the basic introduction in the main text should be, or how other TV FAs handle this—only that it seemed a little abrupt to me. Unless you have an idea of how to make it less abrupt, I guess my suggestion isn't actionable, in which case we could forget about it. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Moisejp: I see your point now. I have removed the UPN part completely from that section and moved the link down to UPN's first mention in the body of the article so that should make it better. Hopefully, the edit cleared that up for you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeking a college degree": I'm not sure it's clear specifically what this means. Is he applying to colleges, or already in college and working on a degree?
  • Nick is described as "extremely picky" in both this section and in Episodes, so it is a bit repetitive. Also "picky" is possibly a little colloquial, and "extremely" is very strong, and may be subjective. None of these are major issues in themselves but they kind of add up as multiple minor issues. Alternatives for the two instances could be, for example, "quite selective" and "very particular about". These are just ideas, though. "Particular about" may not even be so much less colloquial than "picky", maybe only a little. If you happen to be happy with "extremely picky", could you at least change one of the instances to avoid repetition? Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above changes look good, thanks. More comments:
Lead:

  • Minor point: "The show was initially promoted by UPN as a part of its new comedy block, one of four new comedies developed by the network." This is given importance by being mentioned in the lead, but in the main text the three other new comedies are not named, while the four returning shows are named. This is kind of counter-intuitive, as what is given the extra detail in the main text is not what is included in the lead. Suggestion: name the three other new shows in the main text, rather than the four returning ones.
  • Very good point and I am not sure how I missed that one. I have added the names of the three other new shows (All of Us, Rock Me Baby, and The Mullets) to the main article. I am looking forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The supporting cast of Landry, Desselle-Reid, Hooks, and Maguire were described as "peripheral" as they were written to "servic[e] the highs and lows of the romance between Shelly and J.T." " Could you include who described it as such?
  • "Along with All of Us, Eve was the first time in which "the new network for African American adults has acquired the off-network rights to sitcoms currently airing on a broadcast network". " Did you have a special reason for quoting this rather than paraphrasing? It doesn't feel like a direction quotation is necessary here. Moisejp (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost done my first read-through, Aoba47. I probably will do a really quick second read-through to make sure I haven't missed anything, but I expect my points for this will be minimal.

  • "However, he did note that the series had the potential to last for several years." Is this relevant to the reviewer's critical appraisal? I don't think he's saying this is somehow an indication of quality and that it changes in any way his negative review; rather he's just saying there is a market for this kind of star vehicle regardless of quality. But this is a minor point—no worries if you feel the sentence is worthwhile to keep.
  • "Clark was critical of the episodes' titles, writing that they indicated an overuse of "outrageous clichés that boob-tube audiences would come to know and love once reality TV hit its boon". " Could you include a couple of the examples that Clark mentions? This would go a long way towards helping the reader get a feel for how the reviewer may have thought the titles to be outrageous. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to support now, thanks for responding to all my suggestions. Please look at the three minor comments above as well. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and provide comments. You have helped to improve the article a great deal and I greatly appreciate that. I look forward to working with you further in the future, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

edit

I support this nomination. Neat little article. It was a pretty good read. Just a couple of quick comments though:

  • "which is nearly derailed when he cries while they watch Casablanca on their first date" — How did their relationship derail by this? Just asking.
  • In the "Critical response" section, you mention it received "mixed reviews". Then in the accolades section, it says "negative reviews". Do be consistent about it. :-)

@Aoba47: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

ALT text is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the image review! I agree with your assessment of the Ali Landry image; it is unnecessary to use an image of an actor in such a negative manner, especially since she was only mentioned in two reviews and the addition/emphasis on the image would cause issues by giving undue weight to those two reviews. I think I primarily added it just to put another image, which is not a good move either. I have removed it completely for those reasons. I am also uncertain about the source of the crop, and if there is anything that I can do to look into that further, please let me know. Thank you again for your review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Have been really caught up in RL this past week, will go through this as soon as find some spare time. Most probably in the next couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries, take as much time as you need as this will most likely be up for several more weeks to receive more feedback/commentary. Hope everything is going well with you, and thank you for taking time out of your schedule for this. I am slowly getting better at being more patient with the process lol. Good luck with current/future projects on here and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't find much to point out, most of it looks good to me. It's comprehensive and fairly well written. I have made some very minor changes. The one thing that I'm a little concerned about is the repetiton of certain storylines in Premise and characters and Episodes sections. I think I can recall a few instances of having to go through some facts twice. ayou might wamt to take a look and see for yourself. NumerounovedantTalk 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think some of the info-box facts can use references to substantiate them. Like the runtime, composer(s), camera setup among others. I know some of them might not be the most important, but it's better to have the references there. Let me know if I missed something here. NumerounovedantTalk 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can definitely add references to the information in the infobox. I will try to complete it by the end of today and I will put up a message on here when I have completed it. My only concern about this is that is not really a common practice at least in my experience. I was able to pass Love, Inc. through the FAC process without doing this as all of the information is already cited in the body of the article. As I said previously in this message, I can and will do this, but I am not exactly sure of the value of it. I greatly appreciate your commentary, and I just wanted to clarify my point and hopefully get some feedback about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: I have added references for the camera set-up, running time, production company, and distribution company information in the infobox. The information about composer is cited through the show itself so I do not believe that a reference should be included in that context. Let me know if you believe any other instance should have a reference. Also, please read my message as I am a little confused by this as it is different than my previous experiences doing an FAC on television show so I would greatly appreciate your feedback on that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's not what I meant. What is was trying to say is that you might want to incorporate these facts into the article itself (See: Last paragraph here for instance). I just believe that some the aspects that are already in the info-box are left of most articles amd it's such a shame that despite having the facts in front of us, we'd rather not have them in the article. NumerounovedantTalk 22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Numerounovedant: Oh, that makes more sense lol. Thank you for the clarification. I have added information about the camera set-up and the episode time to the article. The production company and distribution companies were already in the article. Let me know if anything else needs to be added, and I apologize again for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good, Support. Well, I totally forgot, did you go through the plot sections? NumerounovedantTalk 07:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Sorry for the delay. I was feeling quite sick this weekend but it appears every reference is well written: There are wikilinks, archives and everything seems to be reliable source. Good job. I give a quick pass as I fail to see any issues.Tintor2 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: Hello. I just was wondering what you thought about the status of the nomination? I understand that it is probably best to keep this up for a few more weeks to get more feedback/commentary, and I was curious on what parts of the article you think should get more attention from reviewers (i.e. prose, structure, etc.) to better guide the process along. I hope you both are having a wonderful start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2017 [4].

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a case you may not have heard of if you are not an American lawyer. If you have, and you hear the name of this case, very likely you will respond with "the package exploded" or "the scales hit her" or similar, because it did and they did and this is a case you remember. I've tried to be sensitive to recent commentary on the case and give due attention to the people of Palsgraf.Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smurrayinchester

edit

What an odd case! From a modern perspective, the fact that no-one seems to have cared much about the guy who actually brought live explosives to a busy rail station seems very strange. A few comments:

  • In the intro, "assail" seems like too violent a word (although maybe it's normal in legal commentary).
  • "But in the process, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, apparently containing fireworks." Sentence seems to have got mangled in editing. The "apparently containing fireworks" should be earlier in the sentence, and presumably it fell and exploded.
  • "She testified to trembling for several days, and then the stammering started." As written, it sounds like the stammering started after the testifying.
  • "The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a judge who was greatly respected; he would end his life on the U.S. Supreme Court, the second Jew to serve there." "End his life there" sounds like he committed suicide there. "he would serve on the U.S. Supreme Court until his death" would be clearer. "The second Jew to serve there" is a dangling modifier (in general, I find the article's repeated mentions of the ethnic background of the judges odd, since it doesn't seem relevant to the case, but I guess it's no less relevant than the rest of their biographical history).
I felt Cardozo's Judaism was relevant and so mentioned it, I did not mention it in the case of Lazansky.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has cut it. I'm not putting it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not, sometimes feeling that foreseeability was a jury question." This feels like legalese that may not be clear to lay readers - it's not clear to me what a "jury question" means here.
Hope these are useful. Smurrayinchester 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, and images need alt text. Smurrayinchester 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think I've dealt with those. I agree it is an odd case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smurrayinchester, do you feel able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in case it wasn't clear, support. Smurrayinchester 07:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for that, and for returning.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've dealt with that. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

edit
  • Support subject to quibbles. A most interesting and informative account, and not just for lawyers. I have, as ever, a few minor points relating to style and presentation, and for many of these it's a question of personal preference.
Lead
  • The semicolon in line 1 of para 2 looks to me to be at a natural sentence-end, and should therefore be replaced with (what we Brits call) a full stop.
  • In the same para I feel that the penultimate sentence (beginning "Cardozo wrote...") might benefit from a split.
Facts
  • Some of the detail appears at first sight to be rather trivial and irrelevant. e.g. "on a warm summer's day"; Helen Palsgraf's exact address (why do we need to know this?): "having paid the necessary fare" – this presumably to establish that she was a bona fide customer of the railway but the casual reader might not pick this up. Later in the article we are told the office addresses of the respective lawyers Wood and Keany (the latter of whom is a purely nominal figure in the case) – again, why do we need to know where they had their offices? I also think that the information regarding Palsgraf's separation from her tinsmith husband would be better placed when you first introduce her into the narrative, rather than tagged on to the end of this paragraph.
It's to emphasize the point made by Noonan and his school, that Palsgraf has been dealt with by the legal community without regard to the human beings involved. Although Palsgraf comes on as fascinating to each new year of law students, it rests on a mudsill of very real human tragedy to Mrs. Palsgraf. Keany is purely nominal, but he is listed as counsel for the LIRR in the court's opinion, and I felt I had to treat him briefly even though he apparently did not personally appear. Such things are usual in the law, I tried cases for years against the County Attorney's office but never in court against the County Attorney himself, who was always listed as counsel of record. The warm day is needed as it is a possible reason the train was running with doors open, and also there is a legend that the day was very hot, which it wasn't. As for the paying for the ticket, Cardozo mentions it and he's pared down the statement of facts to the essentials (possibly not even that) so like any good lawyer, I cite precedent.
Trial
  • "...the Gerhardts also sued the railroad, with Wood as their counsel": since you mention this, it might be worth adding a brief note summarising the outcome of this action.
The source doesn't say but I doubt they had much luck. The 'decision in Palsgraf would have defeated their case. Any injury to Mrs. Gerhardt would be even more remote than the injury to Mrs. Palsgraf.
  • Perhaps clarify that Judge Posner's opinion is not contemporary with the case, but was expressed much later. I also wonder what particular status he had/has, which makes his comment particularly significant?
He is prominent enough that most lawyers would be on a "heard of him" basis, and I see this article primarily aimed at lawyers and law students. Who else would've heard of Palsgraf? And there's a link. I've made it clear he's later.
Initial appeal
  • The first para begins: "The case was then heard before the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, for the Second Department..."; the second paragraph begins: "The case was argued before the Appellate Division in Brooklyn on October 21, 1927." Are these two sentences describing the same process, or two different stages of the process? If the former, I suggest you move the date to the earlier sentence and perhaps ditch the second sentence altogether. Otherwise, a little more clarification of a two-stage process is needed.
"Heard" is a fairly broad term in the law, equivalent to "considered". I've rephrased
  • In the second paragraph the information that the court affirmed the lower court's verdict appears at the beginnong and at the end. The second mention is redundant.
Cardozo's majority opinion
  • Who is "Professor Walter O. Weyrauch"?
Holding and discussion
  • I find this heading a little cryptic. I assume that the word "holding" is legalspeak for the establishment of some point in law, as in "It was held that...", but the term is a strange one to us non-lawyers and I wonder if it could be phrased more demotically.

Otherwise, congratulations on a fascinating article. I'll add a sources review later, unless someone else gets in first. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review and support. I've made those changes or at least played with it, except as noted.

Support. A quite fascinating read. Just a couple of comments I hope you can clarify:

  • "The judge told the all-male jury that if the LIRR employees "did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do in regard to passengers moving upon their trains, then there can be no liability. " I understand this is a quotation but it seems to me—unless I'm missing something—that the judge said the opposite of what he meant to say. Logically shouldn't it be "if the LIRR employees did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees shouldn't do ... there can be no liability. " Or "if the LIRR employees did everything which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do ... there can be no liability. " If I'm correct, maybe it's okay for you to cut this first sentence, because the next sentence clearly spells out the case of where there would be liability.
I went back and looked at the trial record, and that's what he's recorded as saying. Your cut seems very sensible and I've made it.
  • "The plaintiff's brief also suggested that the failure of the railroad to call as witnesses the employees who had aided the man should resolve any inferences of negligence against it." My understanding of the first part of this is that the railroad should have called as witness the two train employees—and if the railroad was so confident of its employees' lack of liability, there would be no problem calling them as witnesses; hence, the fact that the railroad didn't does not reflect well on its presumed lack of liability. If so, why does the "failure [to do so] ... resolve any inferences of negligence against it"? Wouldn't it be the opposite, i.e., it increases inferences of negligence against it? Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes terms mean one thing to lawyers, another to everyone else, and I guess this is one of them on "resolve". Changed to "decide"; you are of course correct in our interpretation. The LIRR was apparently not even willing to invest the cost of the day's wages for two employees in the case. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

edit
  • isbn for Herzog?
  • Location for Noonan?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations, as I checked out the "violations" its flagging, and they are all quotations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I've added those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Notecardforfree

edit

This is a very nice article and I commend Wehwalt's excellent work with this. Palsgraf is an incredibly important case and it certainly deserves a top-quality article on Wikipedia. I will offer a few more comments over the weekend, but I have a few preliminary recommendations:

  • It would be nice to include a discussion about the case's impact on other areas of tort law, such as claims for emotional distress for people within the zone of danger, products liability, and strict liability (i.e. for inherently dangerous activities). I can help identify law review articles that discuss these topics if you like.
Certainly, if you like. It's not something I would want to go too deep into.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned that "some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not . . . ." Prosser and Posner seem to suggest that at least some states followed Justice Andrews' approach. Do you know if any other jurisdictions still follow Justice Andrew's view? It might be helpful to give a few examples of states that have adopted Justice Andrews' framework.
The Little article you link below has an excellent discussion of Wisconsin's approach based on Andrews. I've added something about that.
  • Have any subsequent New York Court of Appeals opinions attempted to distinguish or limit Palsgraf? If the answer is "yes," then you should probably mention this as well.
I don't have Shepard's, but according to the articles I added, Palsgraf was still good in New York as of a few years ago. Google didn't turn up anything on that. I've added that the new Restatement takes a different approach.
  • It might be helpful to include a background section that provides a general overview of the basic principles of tort law that were adjudicated in this case. For example, you may want to explain that tort liability for personal injuries (usually) only exists when the tortfeasor owes a duty to the injured party.
A good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something there.
  • For commentary on Prosser's assessment of Palsgraf, see Joseph W. Little, Palsgraf Revisited (Again), 6 Pierce L. Rev. 75 (2007).
That article is very helpful on a number of the matters you mention. I may not get to this until after the weekend, by the way, so don't take any inaction as my plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for your excellent work. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. I'll do some research and comment again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the point on Palsgraf's extension into other areas, where I will wait for your recommendations, I've done those things.
Thanks for your prompt follow up, Wehwalt. After further consideration, I think that tangential discussions about Palsgraf's extension to other areas of tort law would be too far outside the scope of this encyclopedia article, and this article already provides a comprehensive overview of this case (it need not explore every possible area of academic inquiry). Because this article meets all the Featured Article Criteria, I now officially support its promotion to FA status. I have a few remaining (very minor) editorial suggestions, but they are all stylistic and are not relevant to the FA Criteria:
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you begin with "Helen Palsgraf was taking ...." I recommend introducing Mrs. Palsgraf to the readers by saying something like "The case arose when Helen Palsgraf, the plaintiff, took her children ...." or "The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was taking ...."
  • In the final paragraph of the lead, you write: "Cardozo's conception, that there needed to be a duty of care toward the plaintiff a breach of which caused the injury sued for ...." Perhaps you can simplify the sentence by saying something like this: "Cardozo's conception, that tort liability only occurs when a defendant breaches a duty of care that they owe to a plaintiff ...."
  • In the "trial" subsection, you refer to Matthew W. Wood as "Attorney Wood." I would remove the "attorney" before his name.
  • At the beginning of the "Initial appeal" section, you should say that LIRR filed the appeal (some readers may think that Palsgraf appealed to get more money).
  • I would recommend removing the assertion that "William Andrews is only remembered today because he wrote an opinion in Palsgraf ...." It is probably fair to say he is best known for his dissent in this case, but he made other important contributions, for which he is remembered (see this biography published by the Historical Society of the New York Courts).
  • In the "prominence" section, you capitalize "Tentative Draft." Should this be lowercase?
On the others, I've gone ahead and taken your suggestions. On this, though, I"m inclined to leave it as is. We call Bohlen the Reporter for the Restatement, and the capitalization seemed needed there, so we may as well be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a missing "title" parameter in the citation template for the Little article.
I commend your excellent work on this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a most thoughtful review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

edit

Thank you for another law case made interesting. Only minor:

Background

  • "that state's case law a followed a classical formation for negligence", - looks like one "a" too many.

Not a law person, that's all I found. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, understood. I've made that correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 29 May 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) 18:26, 29 May 2017 [5].

Dire wolf

edit
Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Dire wolf (Canis dirus), an extinct species of the genus Canis and one of the most famous prehistoric carnivores in North America. The article has been nominated for Featured Article level because very recently it has achieved GA status, has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors, and has undergone Peer Review. The article receives on average almost 2,000 visitors each day, which is around half of the number received by the modern "Gray wolf" and "Coyote" articles, indicating Dire wolf's popularity. William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919

edit

I'll be reviewing from the "I'm not an expert, but prehistoric animals are cool" perspective, which I suspect represents a high percentage of the readers for this type of article.

The article gets around 2,000 visitors each day on average. I assume most of these visitors will fall into this class. Later in the year with the final episode of "Game of Thrones", I expect that number will reach a new peak.
  • Page numbers given with the footnote numbers are sometimes prefaced with a 'p'; sometimes they are not. No preference on my part, but it should be consistent.
All references are populated using WP:CITE templates. A closer examination will show that journal articles show simply numbers, however books will show pp when referring to a range of pages or just a single p when referring to a single page. These are the correct citations as referred to in research articles.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the page numbers that appear next to some footnote numbers in the body, through the use of the {{rp}} template. The 'p' is added there manually in some cases. If you are varying this to match how the cite templates format p age references in the corresponding full citation, I would say that is unnecessary and distracting. --RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The distracting "p" is unnecessary and now removed.
  • The phrase "its extinct competitor Smilodon fatalis" would be better as "its extinct competitor, the sabre-toothed cat Smilodon fatalis" or something similar. I know readers can follow the link, but a brief aside to give the common name (on first mention, not necessarily every time) would be friendlier to the many readers who don't know species names. The article does this sometimes, but not consistently. For example, Canis armbrusteri gets a parenthetical with the common name on first mention in the body, but not in the lead.
Both Actioned.
  • From the infobox, I'm guessing that Canis mississippiensis was determined to be synonymous with C. dirus. But while the other variants have this explained explicitly, this one is mentioned as a discovery with no further explanation or follow-up.
The article is nearly 90kb in size, and there is a vast amount of information for a reviewer to store in memory in the first sitting. It should be covered under "and in 1912 Merriam formally recognized all of the previously found specimens under the name of C. dirus." I have just added the words "previously found" after your prompting to help highlight that Merriam had recognized all of the earlier specimens under this name.
  • The Evolution section is a bit of a slog due to the varying theories that often involve lots of recitation of taxonomic names. No specific recommendation or request about that from me, just pointing it out; maybe someone with more experience in this type of article will have suggestions.
I concur that the Taxonomy/Evolution section is the most complex part of the article. To some readers, it will also be the most interesting. (The taxonomic history and lineage of wolves is what I do here on Wikipedia and in wolf articles I usually limit myself to just that, however in the case of the Dire wolf I thought the material provided to visitors in the rest of the article needed a serious review.)
I have made edits to the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section to help restructure, simplify and clarify it.

About halfway through so far, so posting these notes and will circle back with comments on the remainder. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the early start. William Harris • (talk) • 10:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back at last for round two. The edits from your responses to me above and Cas Liber below all look good, so I only have a few additional comments:

  • Per the discussion with Cas below, I see a few instances of 'extant' were replaced with 'modern', including the first instance that had the link to Extant taxon. But several more instances are still in the article. I would think that either they should all be replaced, or the first remaining instance should have the link.
I have replaced extant entirely with either "modern" or "living" to make the reading a bit easier for our visitors.
  • I agree with Cas that the sentence about teeth fracture rates is a bit awkward.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • I also agree with questioning nine citations for a half sentence. Seems like citation overkill.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in the Extinction section. At the end of the first paragraph, it is "assumed" that dire wolf extinction was caused by megaherbivore extinction, but in the next paragraph, the cause of dire wolf extinction is controversial.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • Having a single sentence paragraph at the end is a little awkward. Perhaps this information could be combined with one of the other paragraphs in this section?
Now joined to the end of the preceding paragraph.

I made a couple of small edits; other than the few points above, I think the article is looking good. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and comments. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns have been addressed, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I was not completely happy with the Extinction section in the past but I think it really flows well now. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Suggest scaling up the map
Hello, the map has now been scaled up to 300px; please let me know if you believe it needs more.
  • File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_V).jpg is missing a description and date
Referred to the editor who uploaded it - I will follow up.
Seems the info has been added now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Canis_dirus_reconstruction.jpg: what is this based on?
Referred to the editor who uploaded it - I will follow up. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that artist is active here anymore, but per this discussion[6], you can just provide a source for something that makes it verifiable that the appearance matches known skeletal proportions and theories, even if you don't know exactly what he based it on. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I believe the ex-editor in the link is not the uploader, and he is addressing these issues now. I will forward your comment. I expect that he will either clarify the images or replace them. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right, I thought it was this image[7]. Yeah, it seems a link has been provided to the skeleton photo the first one was drawn after. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that Wang and Tedford ("Dogs:Their Fossil Relatives") had the benefit of Mauricio Antón's illustrations based on skeletal remains, the Ice Age wolf-related articles have the benefit of editor Mario Massone's illustrations. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Funkmonk

edit

Support - I had my say at the peer review[8], so have little more to add. Just to say something new, I'm always a sucker for showing type specimens, so if an old lithograph could be found, it might be a nice addition to the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chance would be a fine thing. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing I just thought of is that maybe we could have a size comparison image showing the size of the two dire wolf subspecies in relation to a human? Like the one in the description section of Smilodon? That may also help dispel the GOT myth that these wolves were somehow the size of lions... FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That type of graphic is well beyond my skills and software, unfortunately. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested, I can take a stab, we can discuss it on our talk pages if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let us do that. I think the exercise worthwhile, and because C. d. dirus has the same dimensions as the Yukon wolf - apart from weighing a third more! - the Yukon wolf would be the model and therefore the graphic could be applied to other wolf-related articles. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas liber

edit

Taking a look now - free time is patchy so might be coming and going. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We look forward to them. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not link extant in lead. Just say "living" in plain English.
  • In para 3 of the Taxonomy you can drop one mention of "two subspecies" - either remove There are two subspecies of C. dirus. or somehow trim the second mention.
  • A South American origin for C. dirus has been proposed. - redundant as repeated about three sentences later.
  • Attempts to extract DNA from tarpit specimens have been unsuccessful. - redundant as repeated soon after.
Agreed and addressed. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • These higher fracture rates were across all teeth but not more often the canines when compared to the modern carnivores. - reads awkwardly.
Simplified to: "These higher fracture rates were across all teeth, however the fracture rates for the canine teeth were the same as modern carnivores."
  • The extinction of the large carnivores and scavengers is thought to have been caused by the extinction of the megaherbivore prey upon which they depended - err, any reason why this sentence needs so many references?
Reduced to 2 secondary sources, and 2 primary sources by recognized "heavyweights" in this field.
  • ...but the cause remains controversial - are there other hypotheses? If not, why not just say "unclear"?
There are a few alternatives hypotheses given at the start of that sentence that I did not elaborate on as they were getting outside of the scope of the article and are general extinction subjects in themselves - links have now been added to these subjects. However, I have amended an earlier sentence to read: "One model proposed to explain the extinction of the large carnivores and scavengers is the extinction of the megaherbivore prey upon which they depended, and it is proposed that this also explains the extinction of the dire wolf in both North and South America." This now provides an introduction for the other models proposed in the following paragraph. I trust this covers it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I now support on comprehensiveness and prose. It possibly has more context than I would put in but not much, and it's no dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. We have removed some unnecessary sentences and simplified the verbiage used in other sentences. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

edit
  • Forgive the non-specialist query, but what makes a high quality reliable source?
The "About" tab at the website gives its background. Fossilworks is the portal housed at Macquarie University (Australia) into the Paleobiology database housed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA). The database is supported by the US National Science Foundation and UW-Madison Dept. Geoscience. (https://github.com/paleobiodb). It is a consolidation of a number of other databases, including the Smithsonian Institution's Evolution of Terrestrial Ecosystems database and the University of Chicago's Paleogeographic Atlas Project. However, it could be removed as the only real value it provides to the article is the Range distribution, which I could get from Dundas 1999 (and I assume that is where the database took it from).
That's probably fine - like I said, not a specialist. Better to get it laid out for others... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fossilworks references removed - they were a tertiary source and we have primary sources for the same info.
  • Current ref 36 - refers to the summary of the file page for the artwork - but that page gives no sources. So the artwork is unsourced?
This one could be solved in the way I indicated earlier, with sources on the file page that indicate what the image can be cross-checked against. In addition, the artist/uploader, Sergio de la Rosa, seems to have his works exhibited in Mexican museums.[9][10] FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ref removed from the article. From what I am seeing on Commons the artist is the source, your advice please? (I am not too fussed about this one; it could be simply removed from the article, but it does help highlight that we do not know what dirus looked like and we are not completely clear on its origin.)
I would think we'd want a source besides just the artist, unless he's a specialist in this sort of reconstruction of fossil animals? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That I do not know - artwork now removed.
  • Something's borked in ref 59 (Fox-Dobbs). I'm not seeing the link - just link syntax
The University of California - Santa Cruz appears to have just moved its website, leading to this. Now addressed with accessdate= added.
  • Same link syntax problem with ref 65 (Leonard)
As above.
  • Same link syntax problem with ref 89 (Brannick)
Sadly, that entire volume has been moved off-line. Link removed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review of the references. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

I went to the article with a view to perhaps tweaking the odd word before promoting but found I wanted to perform a slightly more extensive copyedit than I usually do before closing a nom, plus I have a couple of queries, so I think best I recuse coord duties on this one...

  • I haven't read every word by any means but rather have spotchecked the prose and copyedited accordingly -- pls let me know if I've altered meaning inadvertently or if you disagree with my changes.
Thanks for the amendments; you know we South Australians speak our own language down here......
  • The second sentence begins "It is perhaps one of the most famous prehistoric carnivores in North America..." -- "It is perhaps the most famous..." or "It is one of the most famous..." are both pretty common expressions but "perhaps one of" sounds a bit weak...
I borrowed the phrase from the article Smilodon. Both articles now amended!
  • That said, I didn't spot where "most famous" was mentioned/cited in the main body, only "most common", which is not quite the same thing (or did I miss something?)
Good find, from Wang 2008, now amended.
  • Following up on the previous point, under Behavior, we have "C. d. guildayi and Smilodon are the two most common carnivorans from La Brea, with C. d. guildayi the most common" -- I can't help thinking this could be expressed better, avoiding the "the most common" repetition among other things, although I admit nothing comes to me right now...
Much rationalized now.
  • The following paragraph you say "Smilodon and C. d. guildayi are the two most common carnivorans found at La Brea", which repeats what's already been said, per the point above.
Restated, no repeating.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; issues now all addressed. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've taken a while to return... Tks for those changes, I just tweaked a couple of bits. I still haven't been able to go through the entire article so wouldn't feel comfortable giving outright support, but no objections to promotion from a prose perspective.
That said, and putting my coord hat back on for a second, I think we'd probably want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing if, as I'm assuming, this is your first FAC nom. I'd have a go myself but I'm not sure how useful I'd be wading through some of these scientific journals... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian, there is no rush on this undertaking. Based on the useful contributions given above by the participants, the longer it sits here the greater the opportunity for additional comments. Regarding paraphrasing, editor Ealdgyth (above) has run "Earwig" over it (another tool that I never knew existed and now added to my collection) and appears to be happy with it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that helps, tks -- I'm happy to leave to Sarastro1, as coord, to decide if that suffices. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'd still like to see a spot check for accurate use of sources, which Earwig does not really do. I think we are clear on close paraphrasing though. I also noted that not all of the references are in numerical order; I'd just like to clarify that this is deliberate as I know some people prefer to put the references in the order that they appear in the sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your meaning: "not all of the references are in numerical order...I know some people prefer to put the references in the order that they appear in the sentence". Could you provide me with one of these sentences to help illustate this, please? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, here's one -- there may be others: "the dire wolf m1 was much larger and had more shearing ability.[23][48][11]". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyonge (2006) on page 313 says "the lower carnassial (M1).......the M1 of Ca. dirus had a greater shearing ability as it was much larger than that of Ca. lupus, especially the trigonid (Merriam, 1912; Kurte´n & Anderson 1980)" [Note that Anyonge uses the term "lower M1" - generally in dentition articles on wolves the lower carnassial is referred to as the m1, with the upper jaw M1 being just another upper molar.] Kurten (1980) figures appear in the table of the article titled "Canis lupus and Canis dirus compared by mean mandible tooth measurements (millimeters)", refer rows "m1 length" and "m1 trigonid length" showing dirus larger than lupus. Merriam (1912) page 223 "Upper and lower carnassials relatively large and massive", and page 230 "In M1, the trigonid portion of the tooth is generally relatively long and massive, or the heel region is relatively short compared with the large Recent wolves of North America." [Merriam also uses the term lower "M1" for the lower carnassial.] In the table, we have a link to the trigonid - it is used for shearing. In summary, all 3 writers have stated that the dirus m1 (lower carnassial) is larger than lupus and especially the trigonid (which is used for shearing flesh, flesh shearing is mentioned in the 3rd sentence under "Dentition and biteforce".
There would be some benefit in adding to the sentence "...and the dire wolf m1 was much larger and had more shearing ability due to its longer trigonid." We might even elaborate on that to aid readers understanding with "...its longer, blade-like trigonid". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm being slightly dense in understanding your answer, I think you've misunderstood slightly. The issue in Ian's example is not about content, it is that the references are not in numerical order: 23, 48 and 11 rather than the more customary 11, 23 then 48. Most articles follow the practice of placing refs in ascending numerical order throughout. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we are all talking at crossed purposes. I thought that Ian wanted to know which citations relates to the m1 being larger, and which relate to shearing ability - in this case all three citations relate to both items.
If the numerical sequence of the citations is an issue, then in scientific articles I always believed that the first researcher to say something should be cited first, followed by the second etc. However, I have had my work changed many times by others using automated editing processes who believe the latest work should come first to indicate currency. Therefore, most of my "multiple citations" follow this concept instead of my preference. Perhaps you could advise me if there is a WP:MOS on this. NB: The section Ian pointed out is not in sequence under either regime. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eight edits now made. I assume at FA standard the article will be well-defended. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber

edit

Will take a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 33 - source says, "As an added caution, we extracted DNA from the internal marrow of six asphalt-imbedded fossil bones from dire wolf, Canis dirus; in no case were sequences recovered that were recognizable as Smilodon" - which (when taken with the preceding sentences), suggests it means they were looking for the Smilodon DNA in the dire wolf fossils and stating they'd found none, rather than a lack of retrieving the dire wolf DNA. Unless there is another source that says something on this...?
  • FN 34 - true to source
  • FN 41 - true to source
  • FN 70 (used 6 times) - true to source

Looks alright but one clarification needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Doc. Nice spot checking but we cannot expect you to read every minute detail of each article. Please refer to page 9770, the paragraph just before the section titled "Results", which may prove to be a bit heavy going for the average reader if included in the article:
"For the dire wolf material, PCR amplification with primer 12S-3 (positions 1253-1279; 5'-CTATATACCGCCATCTTCAGCAAACC-3') was attempted unsuccessfully with 12S-2. Sequences of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I primers are 5'-AATTGGATCCGACACGCAGTTCGTGCGGTT-3' and 5'-AATTGAATTCGTCTCGCTCTGGTTGTAGT-3'."
The study compares sequences that are 358-base pairs in length of the mitochondrial encoding 12s RNA gene, which is generally used by researchers for species identification, and further detail of this usage can be found at: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep04089 (You're in my world now...) The researchers could not extract it from dire wolf, which is why it does not appear in Table 1 of the study with the other species that they were successful with.
I cannot find any other published reference relating to dire wolf DNA extraction. If there were enough useful segments available (i.e. lengths of data), we could ascertain its relationship with lupus. (Was the dire wolf really a gray wolf derivative?. We will need to wait until later this year for J. Meachen's analysis of her "Dire wolf/Beringian wolf hybrids" recently discovered in Idaho.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fine. I missed that but it is a dense article...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it is not an easy article to wade through and some aspects are skimmed lightly, such as this one. Thanks for the "check-up". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm not an expert on alt text, and I think most of the images would be fine with simply the caption. However, I think it is worth looking at this for a couple of the images. Alt text is not an explicit requirement but it is good for FAs to follow best practice in all areas. I don't want to hold this up over this issue, so I will promote but if the nominator needs help with adding alt text, RexxS is the best person to ask, either on the article talk page or by asking him directly. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 29 May 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) 18:14, 29 May 2017 [11].

Final Fantasy VII

edit
Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Final Fantasy VII. The seventh overall entry in the Final Fantasy series and the first entry for the PlayStation, it is generally hailed as one of the most important and best-remembered video games in the history of the medium. This article was delisted as a Featured Article in 2008 due to quality concerns, and has since been lingering at GA level since then. With the arrival of Final Fantasy VII Remake and the 20th anniversary of Final Fantasy VII, it was suggested and decided to make a push towards bringing this article back to its former place as an FA. Along with myself, this project has been a collaborative effort with @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, Sergecross73, Deckiller, and Brayden96: our work has included grammar work, reference maintenance, and the expansion/trimming/tidying of multiple sections. I hope they will also help bring this article through the final stages to FA status. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. -- MCMLXXXIX 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: I've added alts to all images. They can be improved if needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! By the way, if you don't add a signature, pinging won't work. -- MCMLXXXIX 20:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my bad. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "A high-definition remake is in development for the PlayStation 4.": Potentially an ASOF issue here, but I don't take a position on those.
  • "casting magical abilities": Doesn't sound right ... how can you cast an ability?
  • "planet's lifeforce": linked to Gaia hypothesis, but it's nothing like that hyphothesis. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avalanche": For this word and maybe others, sometimes you capitalize and sometimes not. I don't have a strong feeling about this if there's a clean break from one style to the other, but some reviewers will see it as a mistake, so you probably want to fix it.
  • "storyboards": A good habit to get into is to ask yourself every time you see quote marks: why the quotes? I don't know why these quote marks are here ... were they not storyboards? Were they sort of storyboards? Unless I'm missing something, the readers won't know what you mean either.
  • "While sprites proved more popular": With the staff? What about them was more popular?
  • In Reception, there's a {{vague}} tag.
  • In Reception, the logical quotation (WP:LQ) suddenly goes all to hell. Only put a comma or period inside the quote marks if it's there in the original, and if the quote is substantial; a good rule-of-thumb is that a clause (with a verb) is substantial.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I learned a lot of video game history here, and it wasn't hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: I've done my best with your comments, and done some further work of my own. Many thanks.
Looks good, though I haven't checked the LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Looks pretty great, no real complaints about most of the sections. That said, A few questions, mostly on the plot / characters. Notably, I see some things sourced to Ultimania, which is always a little awkward... when Ultimania explicitly lays out something vaguely hinted at in-game, it's fine, but some Ultimanias are also known for having "writer headcanon" that never actually made it into the game. My *personal* stance would be to be skeptical of including Ultimania content that isn't referenced in-game, but this is admittedly weird because FF7 has a famously erratic English translation, so maybe some of this stuff was in the Japanese version? Who knows.

  • Cetra: I'll admit I'm misty on this because the game is misty on this, but they're a "human tribe"? The game sure acts like they're aliens, or a different species, or something, but FF7 is also a game where a lot of key characters are just flat wrong in their understanding of the Cetra/Jenova/Planet backstory (Hojo, Sephiroth), so who knows.
  • Reeve: I don't think his last name (Tuesti?) is ever mentioned in-game, and if it is, it has no relevance - basically trivia. I'd say remove it. Also, since when is he a Turk? Maybe the Compilation retconned him to be a Turk, but he never claims to be a Turk, never orders them around, etc. He's the Head of Urban Development who deals with all the Midgar infrastructure stuff in-game if you want to talk about his role.
  • Sephiroth's mother: I realize that you need to keep this short, and that Sephiroth *thinks* Jenova is his mother, but Sephiroth is wrong about this! Lucrecia plot is pretty minor and basically a footnote in-game, but if you're going to include it, something like "In an experiment at Nibelheim, an infant Sephiroth was infused with Jenova cells by Shinra scientists Hojo and Lucrecia, his parents."
  • "Cloud became an infantryman" - Maybe sneak in "low-ranking" in there, or some even less flattering term? He's an MP, basically a rent-a-cop on the prestige scale.
  • Localization: Is Aeris vs. Aerith really an example of a "disconnect" / mistake? It's not uncommon for localizations to entirely invent different names that aren't even close to the original, so it could easily have been an intentional choice (that was later overruled). What did the source say on it? SnowFire (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: Thanks for the shoutout about Reeve. Cetra are treated as a distinct tribe, that's true, but it's never specified that they're not just a tribe of humans. I've removed the addition about Jenova being Sephiroth's "mother", which isn't really here or there when communicating the story to series newcomers. Most of the points above are non-essential to communicating the narrative. As to Cloud, it's just the fact that he was lying to himself that's important, not exact circumstances. As to your final point, it is explicitly described as a result of a lack of adequate communication. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fact that Cloud had "failed" but succeeded anyway is reasonably important - that he wasn't a big fancy elite SOLDIER but a grunt. I think "infantryman" still has too much prestige / honor to a casual reader and might read as someone expected to be competent. So my suggestion is adding "low-ranking" if you can't find a good synonym (admittedly, I can't, aside from using "MP" which is also misleading). If you really feel it reads better without it, you can keep it, but I still don't quite like it.
For communication: Checking the source, I'm not really sure the current passage accurately reflects the interview. It's conflating "lack of communication between JP team and international team" with "Aeris doesn't reflect Air+Earth, but Aerith somehow does," and the 2nd part is definitely not in the interview (Honeywell randomly muses "Earith" as a possibility). Maybe move to the "Legacy" section that some later versions changed the official localization from Aeris->Aerith, and cut that bit from "Localization"? SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SnowFire: I've conceded on the point about Cloud. But the fact of Aerith's name shifting with later translations seems too trifling for the game's "Legacy" section, whereas the fact the original translation happened denotes how challenging the localization was. I've rephrased it slightly to better reflect the source's text. Aerith's own article is a better place for that, and does actually go into it there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LGTM. Support. The only thing I'd add is that the list of awards won / mentions on best-ever lists borders on the excessive, and for 99% of articles I'd suggest chopping the list of awards a tad or moving them to a footnote, but FF7 might be a rare case where it's mostly justified, since I'm sure lots of best-ever mentions are already being excluded. It's still a little long, but not indefensible or anything. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need image and source reviews, unless I've missed them. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harizotoh9

  • Opening paragraph should have a sentence or two listing the staff who worked on it, their role, whether it was their first game, second, etc. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harizotoh9: Which opening paragraph? --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first paragraph in the lede. It's typical for movie articles to discuss the cast, but video game articles often neglect the cast. Also the lede and infobox should contain roughly the same information (not a hard and fast rule, more like a guideline). Also the cast and development are heavily discussed in the article, but not much in the lede. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harizotoh9: I've done some minor expansion to mention the staff, but not in the first paragraph. Such things are not normally mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead of VG articles. How the lead is currently structured is the typical way VG article leads are structured. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding that Amano did designs for FFVII, and then Nomura finalized them and produced the artwork used in promotion and in-game. At least that's my understanding. The article however, does not mention this. You can see a gallery of Amano's FF7 art here. Thus, it would seem wrong to give Nomura sole credit for the character designs of FFVII. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or did Amano draw Nomura's designs after Normua had made them? A little bit of clarification could help. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harizotoh9: Nomura created the designs first, Amano did promotional art and logo art. That's confirmed by multiple sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Each image looks like it is in a pertinent section, ALT text seems good for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've done my best to address the issues you raised in your image review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we are ready to roll then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
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) 22:09, 23 May 2017 [12].

No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF

edit
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name of this article might sound like a cure for insomnia but the story kind of belies it. The oldest continually operating formation in RAAF history, 1AD's heyday was before World War II, when it was not only responsible for aircraft maintenance but also for organising several pioneering survey flights in Australia and overseas. Its testing program during the war prefigured the work done by the RAAF's current research facility, ARDU. After the war 1AD got the RAAF's first jets ready for service, before losing first its airframe and then its engine maintenance responsibilities in the 1960s, and seeing out its days supporting mainly ground equipment. Thanks to everyone who participated in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and to all who stop by here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (There was very little to do, as usual.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks as always, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a very impressive article on what's now an obscure unit. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "when it assembled, tested and repaired aircraft ranging from Tiger Moths to Spitfires to B-17 Flying Fortresses" - perhaps indicate why this is a wide range of aircraft (eg, 'from Tiger Moth trainers to Spitfire fighters and B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers"
    • Fair enough, will do.
  • "the depot was organised into a headquarters controlling stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections" - this is a bit confusing. Do you mean "the depot was organised into a headquarters which controlled stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections"? (or "the depot was organised into a headquarters, controlling stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections"?)
    • Excellent point -- the former is correct, will tweak.
  • Given the low quality of the 'Supermarine Seagull of the Papuan Survey Flight' photo, could another option be substituted?
  • "By the mid-1930s, No. 1 AD comprised some 350 staff" - is it possible to compare this against the strength of the RAAF at the time? It seems to have been a fairly large chunk of the force (for instance, the ABS' Year Book Australia 1936 puts the entire strength of the RAAF at under 2000 personnel - which is also an interesting comparison to this unit's peak wartime strength!)
    • Good idea, I'll see what's in The Third Brother, otherwise perhaps could just use the ABS ref.
      • Hmm, re-checking the source for 350, it doesn't give an exact year for the figure, and according to The Third Brother the total strength went from 817 in 1934 to 1,955 in 1937, so I'm not sure how meaningful a comparison would be after all -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the war, No. 1 AD was responsible for introducing the first jets into RAAF service" - could more detail be provided on the unit's role here? Given its functions, am I right in thinking that the unit's aircraft assembly sub-units assembled and readied the jets after they arrived in Australia, and its Special Duties and Performance Flight then conducted trials? Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll see if I can find more detail... Thanks for reviewing, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Following up, per the article, by the time the jets were introduced, 1AD's Special Duties and Performance Flight had evolved into the separate Aircraft Performance Unit (ARDU from 1947) so the implication is that 1AD did assembly and/or modifications, and APU/ARDU did trials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good Ian, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Its dull title might make it a contender for a 1 April TFA though ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Peacemaker67 This article is in fine shape, my only query is about whether "Wing Commander Bill Anderson" should probably be just Anderson per WP:SURNAME. Alternatively, "Anderson returned to command the depot in the rank of wing commander from..." But not a biggie. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for review, PM, and the suggestion -- I've done something along those lines now. Cheers, 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Image and source review

  • all images are appropriately licensed
  • all sources appear to be reliable, a spot check was conducted of fn 2, 15, 31 and 32. No issues identified.

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that, PM. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 10 May 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) 21:55, 23 May 2017 [13].

Grey-necked wood rail

edit
Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rail that can be found in Central and South America. I came across it when I was updating pages with information from a new book I bought, and I wanted to learn more about this bird. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From JC

edit

Comments

  • Images look good:
  • No range map?
Shoot... I forgot that. Will request one. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is usually not found at elevations about 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) - about → above, I think.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link for "nominate"?
Done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • duller look - is this just in terms of coloration or are they genuinely more boring to look at?
Colouration—specified. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead comprises nearly a quarter of the readable prose in the whole article. Could stand to be shaved down a little.
Well, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole text, and, to be honest, it would be hard to shave much off without losing the representation of whole sections in the lead. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was eventually moved, although, to the genus Aramides, - "although" not needed... I don't see any real contradiction.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is in reference to how the birds of the genus Aramides resemble those of the genus Aramus. The specific epithet, cajaneus, is in reference to the capital city of French Guiana, Cayenne. - somewhat wordy. Any way to tighten this up?
I tried to make it a bit more concise, is it good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a minor style comment, but it's a little unwieldy to have three consecutive links in the last sentence of the "Etymology" section. Philosopher is probably common enough that it can be unlinked.
Ok, done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm accustomed to seeing ranges in weight and dimensions. Are these birds all 38 cm and 460 oz without much deviation?
Added range. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This moult occurs during the months from March to June. - "during the months from" → simply "from"?
I would prefer not, as otherwise there would be two choppy sentences right next to each other. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For berries, this bird will jump high to break of clusters of this fruit. - I think that should be "off", but I'm also a little confused about the jumping business. From where does it jump and how high?
I changed "of" to "off", but the source does not say from where it jumps and how high. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in addition to being selfish. - in what sort of behavior does this selfishness manifest?
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is adversely affected by destruction of its habitat. - seems a little vague, as I can't imagine a species that wouldn't be adversely affected by its home being destroyed. Are the biggest threats to its habitat man-made?
Removed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro says it's eaten by people in northern Brazil, but the "human interaction" section mentions both Brazil and Panama. Maybe just use "in some places" for the lead.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, some sections seem a little light on the info... I'd have liked to know more about its habitats, behavior, interactions with people, etc., but I'm willing to accept that it just hasn't been studied or written about in much detail. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it hasn't been studied much at all. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses. I'm satisfied with how my comments so far have been dealt with (though a couple ref errors have been introduced). Bird articles (and biology in general) are a bit outside my wheelhouse, so I'd like to wait for other editors to comment before supporting, but I don't really anticipate any major problems cropping up. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry—just fixed those. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments form FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll review this soon. Of all the images available on Commons, the current taxobox image doesn't really seem to show the bird well, neither in pose or colour. Sure there's nothing better here?[14] The article also looks empty in general, could maybe need some more images of it wading or such.[15][16] FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look good for the infobox? [17] RileyBugzYell at me | Edits
Oh, foreshoretening perspective isn't good for showing how the animal looks, a profile view with non-tinted colours would be best. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look good? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section looks very underdeveloped. I'm sure we know what it's closest relatives are, what family it is in, etc. I don't think the tiny subsections there are necessary either.
Well... I will add the family, but I can't find the closest relatives, oddly enough. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Google scholar? When I search this bird's name, the first article that comes up is called "A taxonomic review of Aramides cajaneus (Aves, Gruiformes, Rallidae) with notes on morphological variation in other species of the genus".[18] Seems like a pretty big oversight this recent source hasn't been used. I'd advise anyone to search Google scholar when writing articles here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What? I use Google Scholar but I did not see that. That is really weird. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there's a lot of stuff there that needs to be incorporated into the article (even a species split has been propsoed). Also, the ZooKeys journal is CC licenced[19], so we can actually use their media here if we want. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look good now? There honestly isn't much that is useful to add. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot more info that would warrant inclusion. There are mention of other species that were once considered subspecies of this (up to nine), that there has been much historical disagreement over how to classify the species and subspecies, that it is the most widespread member of the genus, the bird was named based on an illustration, and I could go on and on. I don't see a justification not to expand the taxonomy section quite a bit, given this amount of unused information. There is also a very long list of synonyms, though only one is listed in this article. There is also detailed information about its range, plumage variation, and song variation between subspecies, which is not mentioned here, but should be. You just have to read through it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm done. I didn't get really anything from the section on vocalizations, as I am focusing on the subspecies recognized by the IOC—the nominate and avicenniae. I did mention the other subspecies of dubious validity, but otherwise, not much else. Is it good? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Anything else? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back soon. In the meantime, I think it could be cool to show a wading individual[20][21], as they seem to feed much on items found in water. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with the former, because although the latter would likely look better, the former is more representative, as this bird feeds at night. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I see no indication it is night, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would list the binomial names of other species mentioned in parenthesis.
See below. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could be mentioned this is only one of several species in the genus, now you almost make it seem like it is the only member of the genus. But this may be solved if you list the names of the other species mentioned, so the reader can see they have the same genus name.
I fixed this, but without the solution suggested above, as I don't like to add the binomial names—it just makes it look cluttered, in my opinion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly large for a wood rail." But what is a wood rail? You have not defined this group until this part of the text. Is it any member of that genus? Or a family?
Clarified RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that should be stated in the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to taxonomy section. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with a grey upper." Upper what?
Clarified RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and lies east of them" What lies, the bird? Weird wording... It lives east of them?
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many single sentence paragraphs and sections that are left hanging, would look better if they were grouped with other paragraphs/sections. For example, why is the small sentence "This bird can be seen to perch in both shrubbery and even trees, something characteristic of the forest rails." not placed in the habitat section? Why are status and human interaction different sections instead of a section and subsection? And why is the voice section too sentences instead of one paragraph?
Done except for the sentence you mentioned. With that, I expanded the paragraph to three sentences. I am resistant to moving it to habitat because I cannot find a suitable place for it to fit in and because it is a behaviour of the rail, not a habitat. I would compare putting this in the habitat section to putting what they use to build their nest. I mean, one could make the argument that since a nest is what they inhabit, that it is part of their habitat, and that it should thus be noted what they use to build their "habitat". But, since nest building is, like perching, a behaviour, we put it in the behaviour section. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In captivity, this wood rail is territorial." As opposed to in the wild? Seems a bit odd.
In the wild, whether it is territorial is unknown. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "slightly glossly" Glossy?
Nice catch! Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "precocial" Could be explained.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the nominate" By this point in the intro, you have not stated there are two subspecies.
Added RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro says "and the precocial chicks can be identified" and " The chicks that hatch are precocial." The first mention of "precocial" is not needed.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes look good, last point I'd like to reiterate is that there seem to be a lot more synonyms that should be listed (see the taxonomy paper). Either list all or none, the current single synonym seems perplexing. If the list becomes too long, you can collapse it, like in red rail. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Done! Thanks for the review. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This bird" is heavily overused
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bird's large extent of occurrence, along with other factors—In the body text the only other factor seems to be the large population, why not say that?
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid repeating "large" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • some recognize up to nine—missing "authorities" or "authors"
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • subspecies avicenniae be split into its own species—better as split off as a full species
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other subspecies tentatively recognized include A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens.[5] Of these, one has become a full species, albiventris, the rufous-naped wood rail, while the others have become subspecies of it—for this to make sense it should be "formerly", not "tentatively"
Well... this is complicated. I will change the wording, but not all authorities recognize the full species mentioned. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
subspecies of it--> its subspecies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aramus and of the Greek oidēs, "resembling". This refers to the similarity between birds of the genus Aramides and those of the genus Aramus —make it clear that Aramus is just the Limpkin. If you want an etymology Aramus is from Greek aramos, a type of heron mentioned by Hesychius, Jobling 52, same page as Aramides
Good now? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
those of the genus Aramus—I still can't see that this makes it clear that Aramus is one species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I see what you mean. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—* It is found in Argentina...—new section needs a subject

Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Threats" —either say why these are threats or change heading to "Parasites"
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're nearly there, just a couple of minor tweaks indicated above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No other queries, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Ref 6 ("Rails, gallinules..." IOC World Bird List) lacks a publisher
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decide if you're going to include publication location or not - some of the books have them, some of them don't. It needs to be consistent
Fixed—I decided to keep them. The more information the better. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link publication locations in the references - it's overlinking there. (see ref 17 (Emery))
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Done! Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

edit
  • Intro is a touch choppy. It lives primarily in forests and mangroves of Central and South America. It also lives in swamps might be more elegantly stated It ranges from Central through South America, where it is found primarily in forests, mangroves and swamps. If the species is rare in swamps than the other two habitats this isn't clear from the main article.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is usually not found at elevations above 2,000 metres (6,600 ft), although some have been recorded at 2,300 metres (7,500 ft) above sea level. For the lead it would be better to state it is found from sea-level to XXXX metres, and sometimes above this.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bird, large for a wood rail, Maybe tell us how big it is or compare it to something like a chicken?
I (or maybe Cas) actually reworded this earlier. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • precocial chicks can be identified through their black - their precociality doesn't need to be mentioned here, hatchling will suffice. Also, can they truly be identified by those markings? Most rail chicks look very similar to my eye. Maybe just say that they look like x rather than can be identified by x?
Same thing as above. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer the question "can they be identified." Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: Oh, I see. Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is IUCN status at the end of the first paragraph in the lead and end of the article?
Because of the fact that the status and breeding don't go well together, and because there isn't enough of an article for 4 lead paragraphs, in my opinion. Additionally, I would likely have to split the breeding and status paragraphs anyways, since the breeding paragraph is just long enough, in my opinion. Thus, we would be left with 2 short lead paragraphs—the first one, and the fourth one. So, combining them is the best idea, in my opinion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm thoroughly confused by the taxonomy section - why is another species described as other subspecies tentatively recognized? Tentatively recognised subspecies is wording you'd use for a subspecies not widely accepted as a distinct taxon, not one doubtfully placed here. These are valid subspecies, not tentative ones. Also the sentence Of these, one is sometimes considered to be a full species, albiventris, the rufous-naped wood rail, while the others are occasionally recognized as its subspecies. It isn't clear which its is being refered to here - are they recognised as subspecies of the rufous naped or gray naped?
Well, a good amount of authorities recognize all of the subspecies mentioned as being subspecies of the grey-necked wood rail. Thus, "tentatively recognized" until more authorities switch over. To clarify this, I added "by some authorities". I clarified the next sentence. Is that all good? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still reads wrong. In fact Other subspecies tentatively by some authorities recognized include is almost yoda-like, why has the verb shifted to the end of the sentence? But again, recognised in this context would mean that the subspecies is considered valid. You must explicitly state that the tentativeness (and I wouldn't use that term) refers to the placement here, not the taxonomic validity. Example Other subspecies sometimes placed with this species include . Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed the wording to your most recent suggestion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps this is unfair but he subspecies epithet avicenniae honours the Persian philosopher Avicenna. do we know why it honours that philosopher? The paper is recent it should be possible to check. It's an odd person to honour for no reason.
Well, HBW honestly gives no clues on this one. Is it ok with you if I just keep it as is, or should I possibly add "who translated the works of Aristotle"? To what language, I don't know, so that might not be a good idea. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is meant is that Stotz, 1992, where the bird was named, should be checked. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower end of altitudinal range needed in distribution and habitat as well.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subspecies avicenniae is found in Coastal Brazil, São Paulo, south to Panama If you go south from Sao Paulo you don't reach Panama!
Oh, damn. Well, I certainly should update on my geography. :P RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bird can be seen to perch in both shrubbery and trees.[12] Not clear what this adds. Is this roosting?
Well, the source said "and even trees", so I thought that it must be important. For me, at least, it seems odd that a rail would perch. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence starting The grey-necked wood rail's nests might be better The grey-necked wood rail's nests are situated in trees and bushes, usually 1 to 3 metres (3.3 to 9.8 ft) off the ground, built on flat branches or in thickets.
Done. Also, with this, I combined the next sentence with it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the species territorial?
I can only find that it is territorial in captivity. Otherwise, I don't know. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: And I'm done! Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: I replied to your reply. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 04:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good now? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A further comment: In the lead Of the two subspecies, A. c. avicenniae is found in the southeastern portion of the range, - contrast with The subspecies avicenniae is found in Panama, south to Coastal Brazil, São Paulo. Given that Panama is in the extreme north west of the range of the species, the lead's statement looks very inaccurate. I take it that the subspecies is exclusively coastal, but I deduced this from the habitat requirements, not an explicit statement thereof. Also, coastal shouldn't be capped. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: Oops. Replaced "southeastern portion" with a more exact description of the range and carried out your other suggestion. Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: Actually, I just had to edit for source consistency—the bird only lives in southeastern coastal Brazil. I changed the lead and the distribution section to reflect this. Is it good? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a slight change to your edit. Also, I'm still not entirely happy with this whole section: Other subspecies sometimes placed within this species include A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens.[7] Of these, one is sometimes considered to be a full species, albiventris, the rufous-naped wood rail, with the others occasionally recognized as subspecies of the rufous-naped wood rail. My issues are twofold - one, it repeats something stated above - namely that the rufous-naped has been treated as conspecific in the past. Secondly it's still really clunky. So all it's really doing is listing the subspecies of a species formerly considered conspecific. So My first recommendation would be to throw it out entirely. If you don't, don't repeat in wishy washy ways the "may have been considered" - use more direct language when the rufous-naped wood rail is treated as conspecific other it includes the following subspecies..... But really, just don't include them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rewording it. I reworded the subspecies part—I think that it is best to keep it, as a lot of authorities still recognize the subspecies as being subspecies of the grey-necked wood rail. I also reworded the part about the rufous-naped wood rail. I want to keep that part just to make it clear to the reader that A. c. albiventris is the rufous-napped wood rail. Hopefully how I reworded it is better than before. Also, I will likely not be able to respond to replies too quickly, as I am traveling. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other subspecies sometimes placed within this species include A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens.[7] Of these, albiventris is considered to be a full species, the aforementioned rufous-naped wood rail. When that wood rail is treated as a full species, the other subspecies are recognized as subspecies of it. I think this still needs rewording. Maybe The subspecies of the rufous-naped wood rail, A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens, are treated as subspecies of the grey-naped wood rail when the two species are treated as conspecific. In this shortened form it could sit in the paragraph about the rufous naped. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll implement your wording, with a slight change. I won't be merging that paragraph though, as it would be odd to list the dubious subspecies before the actual ones. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: A few very minor points which I'd nevertheless like cleared up before we promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a duplicate link for French Guiana
  • We link water snake to a DAB page, which might not be the worst thing in the world in this case but which I just want to check was the intention.
  • Two of the images really could use some alt text; I think the captions cover the others, but I'm not expert. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done the first and third–what kind of water snake was not specified, so I will leave it as is. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to delink French Guiana (shouldn't all countries be delinked?) but then I noticed this which needs fixing: The grey-necked wood rail is found in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.[1] The nominate subspecies is found in all of the aforementioned countries except Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. It is, although, cut off by the Andes Mountains and lives east of the range in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Additionally, it is not found in the southeastern interior of Brazil. The subspecies avicenniae is found in coastal southeastern Brazil, around São Paulo.
If the species is found in Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago, but the nominate isn't found in those two countries, and and other subspecies is only found in Brazil, which subspecies is found In Trinidad and Tobago and Suriname? Not gonna remove my support but that needs fixing before promotion too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like that is due to the fact that some authorities recognize more subspecies than the IOC recognizes. I will remove those two countries. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HBW has nominate race in Trinidad and Suriname. Split races of refous-naped are all Central American, not South American. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well that was kinda stupid on my part. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:29, 20 May 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) 21:49, 23 May 2017 [22].

Kragujevac massacre

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) and 23 editor.[reply]

This article is about a massacre of nearly 2,800 men and boys carried out by the German Army in the occupied territory of Serbia during WWII. It was carried out in reprisal for the killing of 10 German soldiers and the wounding of 26 others in accordance with a set ratio of 100 hostages to be executed for each dead German soldier and 50 hostages for every wounded German soldier. Several of the generals responsible for ordering the massacre were tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit
  • Done.
  • Sure, done.
  • "Adolf Hitler began placing" - who is Adolf Hitler? I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I think it important that we specify "Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler" or something of that nature. There may be readers in parts of the developing world for whom Hitler does not have quite the same fame (or infamy) that he has in Europe and North America. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went with German dictator.
  • "Two days later, a group of pro-Western, Serbian nationalist Royal Yugoslav Air Force officers deposed the country's regent, Prince Paul, in a bloodless coup d'état, placed his teenaged nephew Peter on the throne, and brought to power a "government of national unity" led by the head of the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, General Dušan Simović.[" - This is quite a lengthy sentence. How about trimming it in two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split.
  • Not in this case, as it was only a puppet government, and not a puppet state.
  • It might be worth restructuring the lede a little. At present the article has one rather long opening paragraph, two medium length ones, and then a short one. Generally I think it best to start with a shorter opening paragraph, or at least to keep the lede paragraphs somewhat consistent; the excellent lede over at Gudovac massacre would be one to emulate on this front. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88

edit

My initial comment is about the extent to which the article uses exhibits from the Nuremburg Trials as sources. For example, much of the section entitled "Round-up" is sourced to a 20 October 1941 report written by von Bischofhausen about the events of 18-20 October (pp. 981 to 983). Von Bischofhausen of course was an integral player in those events, and his report is necessarily self-serving, pinning a great deal of blame upon König. I'm not entirely sure that it is safe to rely upon contemporary accounts by involved military officers as statements of fact about what happened. They are primary, not secondary, sources.

One other point about von Bischofhausen's report: he says that the villages of Mečkovac, Maršić, Grošnica and Milatovac were "mopped up", which I'm not sure is a euphemism for "destroyed" (the word the article uses).

I have also reviewed Misha Glenny's book, which I own, and that is represented accurately. Syek88 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously a likelihood that Von Bischofhausen's version of events is biased, but his account is only one version, it is contrasted with another one. It was also accepted by the Tribunal, so they must have given it some credence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the text to "mopped up". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a primary source though, is it not? Aside from that point, the citation is to 'Nuremberg Military Tribunals (1950). "The Hostage Case".', which is apt to miselad, as it suggests that the citation is a judgment or document promulgated by the court rather than an exhibit of evidence written by a witness. If the exhibit is to be used as a source, and I think that is very questionable, the author in the citation should be von Bischofhausen. Syek88 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Syek88 and Ealdgyth: I think it can be used carefully as a primary source as it provides some detail not available elsewhere, but on reflection, agree it was not clarified sufficiently that it was evidence tendered at the trial. I have removed von Bischofhausen's account of the earlier operation, as Glenny is probably sufficient there, and have now made it much clearer that this is just von Bischofhausen's version of events and cited his report to him. Here are my edits. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that just about works. I will try to have another read-through tomorrow. Syek88 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Syek88, did you still want to add comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise- I have gone almost entirely offline. Could I please have another 36 hours? Syek88 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have had one more read-through of the article and am happy to support. I have not had the chance to conduct a detailed review of the prose, but at a broad level the article reads well, I could not identify any grammatical clangers, and others have reviewed prose. A few weeks ago I was focused on sourcing, and I checked to see that Misha Glenny's book was represented accurately. The article is accurate and comprehensive. Syek88 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • I agree with Syek88 - it needs to be made clearer that the "Nuremberg" source is actually von Bischofhausen's testimony, not something that the Nuremberg Court put out. The reliability of using a primary source for information in the article I leave to the other reviewers, but I note that we really should use secondary accounts when possible.
  • Otherwise sources look good.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article. All of the concerns above seem to have been addressed, and I couldn't find anything else to nitpick, myself. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support comments by auntieruth

edit
  • wow, this looks very fine. I'll need another read through.
  • Syke above brought up a Sources, so I had a look at them. I don't have an issue with the "primary sources" because they appear to be used with some judiciousness. Certainly Bischofhausen's statements in his original report are useful statements to establish what he presented as the facts of the case to his superiors. The judgments from Nuremburg also are useful in establishing what the court ultimately believed to be the case and not, and the principal facts of conviction/acquittal. I suspect that not using these sources would raise more questions than using them does. Of course, it is preferred to use secondary sources, however, the secondary sources might also cite the same source as he's citing, so wouldn't it be better to use the original source, rather than to go through the layers of sourcing?
  • some of the authors should be linked: Pierre Bourgois, for example, and Nauman, Klaus. Both have articles of their own. auntieruth (talk) 21:19, 19 May 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) 21:23, 23 May 2017 [23].

Heathenry (new religious movement)

edit
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new religious movement whose practitioners seek to revive the belief systems of pre-Christian Germanic Europe, including the religions of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Goths. It has been GA rated for some time and was previously at FAC between February and March; it received no opposition but at the same time attracted very little attention at all. Hopefully this time round a larger number of editors will consider reading it and offering their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Generally the sources seem of good quality. Normally "Hardman and Harvey Paganism Today" would raise red flags because it's self-published, but it is held by a good number of academic libraries so shouldn't be that much of an issue.
  • Thorsons is an esoteric publisher, although I did not think that it was a self-publishing platform. However, the chapters in this particular book are written by academics or people with academic training and at least one of the two editors is a professional religious studies scholar. For that reason I felt that it was an acceptable source to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of linking Diana L. Paxson in the sources section.
  • I do find the lack of books such as Our Troth or Essential Asatru in the further reading section to be a bit surprising. Or the lack of them being used to cite practices/beliefs. It does tend to make the article look like it doesn't reflect what the actual groups actually say about themselves. Obviously we want to rely on secondary sources when possible, but totally not citing any of the actual groups for their own practices seems a bit odd. Kind of like not citing any Christian theology texts for an article on Christianity.
  • I really wanted to avoid the use of primary sources in this article. That is why it relies almost exclusively on secondary—and particularly academic—sources. Some of the authors of these academic texts are non-Heathen scholars, but others are scholar-practitioners, so there certainly is some input from 'insider'-based perspectives here. The main reason why I wanted to avoid primary sources was because they typically only present a particular viewpoint or perspective that is often not shared by other religionists. If we were dealing with a small, homogenous, religious group that has set doctrines then primary sources might be acceptable, but for a broader, heterogenous religious movement (whether Heathenry or Christianity) I think that using them causes more problems than it solves. In the case of this article, there was a big problem with an Ohio-based editor (since banned for repeated edit warring, disruptive editing, and sock puppetry) repeatedly rewriting the article using the primary sources that they favoured, thus pushing their own particular angle on what Heathenry was, or at least what it should be. By steering clear of primary sources we avoid the problem of pushing particular doctrinal differences and also do not have to deal with the problem of selecting which primary sources can be used and which can't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you don't even list them in the further reading section. Nor do you have any "official links" to websites. And there are some general heathenry sources that cover it for beginners without going into specific groups - at the least some of those could be listed in the further reading. It is very odd to read an article on a living religion and not have any links/books BY those practitioners at least listed in the further reading/external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will try to review the article in total later - my husband is Asatru/Troth so I happen to have some knowledge. (Note, I am NOT heathen myself, but you do learn a good bit just by being in the same household.) I'll do a spotcheck of sources then - just ordered a couple of the works through ILL.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Definition:
    • "Some Heathens also adopt ideas from the archaeological evidence of pre-Christian Northern Europe and from recorded folk tales and folklore from later periods in European history. These textual sources nevertheless.." archaeological evidence isn't a textual source, but the second sentence implies that they are. Not sure how to reword this better, but it is jarring.
    • "Other practitioners who emphasize a hard reconstructionist approach.." probably best if you define "hard reconstructionist" above in the sentence "The ways in which Heathens use this historical and archaeological material differs; some seek to reconstruct past beliefs and practices as accurately as possible, while others openly experiment with this material and embrace new innovations."
    • "and sectors of the Heathen movement have perpetuated misconceptions about the past" ... perhaps a couple of examples in a note?
  • Gods and spirits:
    • "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes toward polytheism changed." awkward - suggest "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes towards polytheism have changed." or "Such negative attitudes towards polytheism changed after the 1970."
    • "Heathenry is animistic,[56] with practitioners believing in nonhuman spirit persons commonly known as "wights" (vættir) that inhabit the world,[67] each of whom is believed to have its own personality."... I'm not sure that animism actually is held by all heathenry groups - I'm still getting a trickle of the article's sources in so cannot consult the works used to support this sentence yet.
  • Cosmology and afterlife:
  • Morality and ethics:
    • The article constantly use the past tense to describe what scholars say, which can occasionally lead to issues. An example: "Sociologist Jennifer Snook noted that as with all religions, Heathenry was "intimately connected" to politics, with practitioners' political and religious beliefs influencing one another." By saying "Heathenry WAS..." you are implying that it is not a living religion. You can avoid these problems by putting the scholars statements into present tense.
  • Rites and practices:
    • " Prospective members may undergo a probationary period before they are fully accepted and welcomed into the group, while other groups remain closed to all new members.[123] Such groups are largely independent and autonomous, although they typically network with other Heathen groups, particularly in their region." ... does the "such groups" refer to the closed groups or to ALL the groups mentioned in the preceding sentence?
  • Blot and sumbel:
    • I got lost with this sentence "The contemporary use of runes for divinatory purposes is however found more widely than within Heathenry, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." Do you mean that the use of runes for divination is practiced outside of heathenry? Or does it mean that the use of runes for divination is MORE widely practiced outside of heathenry? And did the use of runes spread from heathenry to other new age practices or did it develop in new age practices independent of heathenry?
      • I've amended this to the following: "Some non-Heathens also use runes for divinatory purposes, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." I don't really know whether the divinatory use of runes within the New Age developed independently of Heathenry or not; the sources does not specify this, unfortunately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Festivals:
    • "a tradition that they share with many contemporary Pagans." oooooh.... ouch. Wheel of the Year is very much witchcraft/wicca. LOTS of controversy in the overarching pagan community over equating "Pagan" with "Wicca/Witchcraft". Can we reword to state more clearly that other contemporary pagans do NOT share this idea of the wheel of the year.
      • I think that it is utilised be a lot of Druidic and Goddess Spirituality groups too, as well as more generic self-described 'Pagans'. However, I get your general point, so have refashioned this section of the sentence to the following: "a tradition that they share with Wiccans and a number of other contemporary Pagan groups". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Such festivals can be held on the same day each year..." which festivals are we talking about - the wheel of the year or ALL of the festivals mentioned before this?
  • Racial issues:
    • "religion of the 'Aryan race' that cannot rightly be followed" any reason you used single quotes here around "Aryan race" where you use double quotes everywhere else?
  • I spot checked a few citations to works and all were paraphrased properly and supported the information in the article.
Otherwise everything looks good. As an aside - when are you going to work on my own cultus: Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism? (no pressure! And yes, with the husband being heathen and myself being neo-Roman, it is occasionally interesting in the house!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Ealdgyth; I am working my way through them. It would be nice to work on Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism in future although I'm not sure that there are many academic sources dealing with it. I am currently focusing mostly on New Age, Rastafari, and Satanism, but may turn my attention back to certain modern Pagan groups in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep my eye out for sources for any of those articles. Don't worry about the scanty stuff available on RPR, when we go to bookstores, there are usually at least 10 shelving units of "religious" books. Of those units, we're lucky if more than 10 shelves are devoted to non-Christian topics. And usually it's a shelf of "wicca/new age" books. If we're lucky, we may see one book on heathenry on that one shelf. I've yet to find (outside of Amazon) any work on RPR/cultus deorum/religio romana. And of course, all the mythological books are full of Greek myths, which are not the same thing as Roman religious practices. It's like being invisible sometimes.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the images have alt text. Could you please fix this? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added alt-text to all of the images, 122.108.141.214. Thank you for the suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl:, is there another FA which uses the long dash to obscure author's names in the general reference list, when paired with footnotes? Were you advised to do that? I'm thinking that while this is a scholarly practice that I have definitely seen before (somewhere) in print, that it might be a bit obscure/technical for readers of WP and so might not be desirable for an article that is meant to represent Wikipedia's best work. If I'm reading the article, I have to click or tap twice to get to the source from a footnote - once to display the <ref>-based material, twice to get to the full citation from "Harvey 2007". Then I am faced with ——— (2007). Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism (second ed.). London: Hurst & Company. ISBN 978-1-85065-272-4. ... It's very elegant, but a person might want to know about Heathenry who isn't au fait with academia, and the column break between Harvey 1995 and Harvey 2007 is unfortunate. I think it would be better if the long-dash was removed on all references, so the full citation is seen no matter which "Author Date" you click/tap on. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. This is definitely something that I've seen in featured articles - at least, in those that I have got to featured status! (Vladimir Lenin and Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas being recent examples where I have adopted the practice). I've never had an editor raise the issue before; not that that dismisses it. Generally I think that the use of dashes does contribute to the aesthetic and organisation of the sources (it is a very common practice in academic literature) and thus would generally rather retain it. Does anyone else have any views on the matter? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the long dash is very common across all academic disciplines at all levels and in journal articles as opposed to books, otherwise I wouldn't have had as much trouble as I did recalling its use. Not all readers of these articles will be academics. Lenin has some interest for history students at high school, for example. Even if it is an aesthetic that you're accustomed to, can you see my point about it adding difficulty for a general audience? I don't think the use of the long dash is covered in the Wikipedia manual of style, which means that displaying the authors would help to future proof the article, when in five, ten or fifteen years, there are more sources to be added by other people who aren't as deeply steeped in the discipline as you are. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
122.108.141.214: I can certainly see that there is the potential for some readers to get confused by the dashes. I'll remove them if you really think it important, but personally I'm not convinced that they are a particularly serious problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Some images have both a fixed px size and an upright scale factor - should be the latter only
  • File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg: should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg, File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, could you please give me some pointers here Nikkimaria. The artefact depicted in File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg is an exact replica of a Viking Age artefact, while File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg is an actual photograph of such an object. Given the vast age of these items, there can be no copyright restrictions on them under Swedish law. Moreover, I am a little confused about File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg; what is it in this image that requires an additional copyright tag? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made some minor changes to grammar and wording, but feel free to revert anything. Woebegone (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review by 3family6

edit
"In claiming a sense of indigeneity, many Heathens—particularly in the United States—attempt to frame themselves as the victims of Medieval Christian colonialism and imperialism, ignoring the fact that they are primarily white, and thus members of the same ethnic community which has perpetrated and benefitted from colonial and imperial policies against indigenous communities in the Americas and elsewhere." - While I agree with this statement personally, this appears to be a statement of opinion in Wikipedia voice. I'd feel more comfortable with it if it were attributed to the source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A very good idea. I have now reformulated this sentence to reflect that it is the view of several academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Black metal is mentioned, but perhaps also a sentence about pagan metal, folk metal, and Viking metal?
I've added a sentence about Viking metal as I was able to find a citation to support the connection between the two. Unfortunately I've not been able to do the same for pagan metal and folk metal, but perhaps said citations will crop up in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For pagan metal, I found these sources that you can reference: Rountree, Crafting Contemporary Pagan Identities in a Catholic Society, pages 46-47 (note that this one is about heavy metal in general, but considers Gothic metal and pagan metal the most important); Weinstein, "Pagan Metal", in Pop Pagans, pages 58-75 (is about pagan metal, also discusses Viking metal, folk metal, black metal, and other genres in the context of paganism); [Granholm, "The Metal Band Therion and the Magic Order Dragon Rouge, in Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, pages 553-581] (primarily about the band Therion, but discusses the relationship of paganism to metal, and at one point mentions Viking and folk metal)Dostálová, "Czech Neopagan Movements and Leaders", in Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, page 168 (explores pagan metal, black metal, and the racist influence of Varg Vikernes); Aitamurto, Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism, page 54 (folk metal in the context of black metal and racism in Rodnoverie); Manea, "Primal Roots", in Proceedings of IAC-SSaH 2015, pages 185-193 (paganism and heavy metal).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 3family6; I've added some material from Weinstein and Dostálová. I was cautious about some of the other sources because although they discuss Pagan metal as a genre, they do not necessarily tie it in with Heathenry, but rather speak of modern Paganism generally or a different Pagan religion such as Rodnoverie. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I wasn't sure what you would find useful and what not, so I tried to give a variety of sources. What's in the article now looks good.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see any other issues in my review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, 3family6. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3family6, if you are happy with my responses to you comments, would you consider giving the article your support as an FA? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues are resolved, I now support this article. Back to my wikibreak.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FreeKnowledgeCreator

edit

Midnightblueowl asked me if I was interested in commenting on this article. Having just read it through in its entirety, I have a few comments. The article is well written, and there are only a few (mostly very minor) quibbles that I could make. I'll note the more important issues. In the paragraph beginning, "Various Heathen groups adopt the Norse apocalyptic myth of Ragnarök", the term "Ragnarök" is spelled both with and without an umlaut. The spelling should be consistent, unless there is some specific rationale (which I'm not seeing) for the inconsistency. The word "the" has sometimes been added before a person's background (such as sociologist or political scientist) and sometimes not. That is another inconsistency that should be dealt with.

One sentence reads, "Many practitioners avoid using the etic term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples." Now "etic" is of course linked, so readers can find out easily enough what it means by clicking on the link, but the initial reaction of the large majority of readers to that sentence is still going to be a blank stare. Even most reasonably well-read readers aren't likely to have any idea what "etic" means. Technical terminology has its place, but it is still best to use language that most readers are likely to understand, where this is possible. A sentence reads, "Some seiðr-practitioners make use of entheogenic substances as part of this practice, although others explicitly oppose the use of any such mind-altering drugs"; this is better than the sentence including "etic" as it gives the reader an explanation of what the unfamiliar term "entheogenic" means without their having to turn to another article. On the issue of factual accuracy, one sentence states that, "Others adopt concepts from the world's surviving ethnic religions as well as modern polytheistic faiths such as Hinduism". That Hinduism is polytheistic is disputed, and there would be interpretations of Hinduism that do not see it that way. I realize that describing Hinduism is hardly the point of this article, but it is still as well to be aware of this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Well spotted on the Ragnarök spelling; I have ensured that that is standardised. I have also ensured that "the" is included in every instance where an academic is introduced in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the issue of "etic", I have removed the second appearance of the word and replaced it with "scholarly". I have left the first appearance of the term in situ, but have added "scholarly" after it; does this work in your view? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a drive-by comment: "Henotheism" might be the best descriptor in this article for Hinduism. It is an over-broad generalization of Hinduism, as that article explains, but I think it works for this article, since we're dealing with a collection of shared faiths that are devoted to particular gods but which, generally, grant that there are, or could be, other gods.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, you've modified the remaining sentence containing "etic" to read, 'Many practitioners avoid using the etic, scholarly term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples.' Some explanation of "etic" is definitely desirable, though I would have preferred a slightly different wording, 'scholarly term etic' rather than 'etic, scholarly term.' The grammar of the first wording seems better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "scholarly term etic" would work; what about "scholarly, etic term"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was only suggesting that the former word order would seem more natural to most readers - though it may actually be incorrect, as you suggest. The point is that the sentence as it stands, 'Many practitioners avoid using the scholarly, etic term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples', does not explain its unfamiliar terminology. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would linking to wikt:etic#Adjective be better than linking to WP in this case? I'm thinking of 'apposition' in the FA Mary Wollstonecraft as an example to follow here. While we have a WP article on etic, to just get the gist of it and then return to reading the article, Wiktionary might be more appropriate. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a Wikilink to the Wiktionary entry is certainly the best course of action here. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where the text might have to be interrupted just to explain the meaning of a word, and I do not see how that could be achieved without causing something of a mess. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could provide another feasible option. Could you please address my concerns above about the long dash used in the reference list? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been about five weeks since nomination and the article has three statements of support (and none in opposition). I think that all of the concerns raised have been dealt with, so if there are no further issues (anyone?), might I suggest that the article receive its little gold star? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this has had a pretty thorough review now and I don't think we need to delay any further. If there are any more issues that the IP or FreeKnowledgeCreator wish to raise, they can do so on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 23 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2017 [24].

Wipeout 2048

edit
Nominator(s): JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I got stalled on my previous nomination I have nominated this article in the mean time since I took steps to ensure it was FA-ready, or I hope so anyway! I believe that this article meets the well-written, well-researched and comprehensiveness aspects of the FA criteria. I think I overdone the reception section slightly but it has since been condensed and restructured to read as cohesive prose. I also think its reception is important because this game was a PlayStation Vita launch title and "tested the waters" of the console so to speak. Another fun fact is that the game acted as a testbed for the console and had an influence in its design. Sources on development weren't plentiful, but I'm confident I squeezed enough out of the reliable sources.

I'd like to make the Wipeout series a Featured Topic. All of the instalments are currently GAs, but if all goes well this should be the first of five—can't promise anything! JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images:
  • File:Wipeout 2048 Boxart.jpg: The non-free use rationale is fairly basic; I think some more stuff can be added. And the rationale for the other page the file isn't used on removed.
  • File:Wipeout 2048 gameplay.jpg: This file is being used to illustrate the gameplay not the game which is different. The current rationale would be appropriate if the file was used in the infobox header.
  • Verifying the fact that the game influenced the design of the console itself can be found in this source. Or did you mean verifying that the console pictured is the first model?
Good alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I think I should have cleared everything up, although I'm not that good with images. I wasn't too sure about the image of the PlayStation Vita—did you mean verifying the game's influence over the console or the fact that it was the first model in the picture? JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Please see the FAC instructions about when a nomination is archived. "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." My inclination is to remove this, but I don't recall you doing this before so would be prepared to grant an exemption this once. However, as this is the second time this has happened in a few days, I'm also inclined to be less willing to bend the rules in future. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'm so sorry, I was aware of this rule but for some reason I always thought it only applied to nominating the same article in the space of two weeks, not a different article. I always had that in my mind ever since my FAC failed back in 2012. I would be fine if you decide to remove this, but it won't happen again. JAGUAR  17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Tintor2
  • Why aren't the other games from the franchise linked in the lead?
  • I'm not sure about starting the article with futuristic considering it's not a genre and instead something like "racing game set in the future"
  • The reception section seems quite long. How about trimming or make a smaller section for one aspect of critcism like Final Fantasy XIII#Linearity?
  • That's a very good idea! Never thought of that before. I did condense and trim and section as much as I could, but I'm not sure if trimming anymore would sacrifice its balance. I think its reception is important given the fact that it was a Vita launch title and it also gained more-than-usual limelight because of this. Let me know how it looks now? If it's still too long, I would try merging some sentences. JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information about the sales?
  • There are some references needing archives like reference 20 "Hindman, Heath (14 February 2012). "WipEout 2048 review". Game Revolution. AtomicOnline. Retrieved 3 January 2017." It is needed for the source review.
  • Chris Roberts or other staff members could be in the infobox as director, designer, etc.
Comments from Aoba47
  • I think that the infobox image requires an ALT description. And I would think that the ALT description for the screenshot should be a little more descriptive than "Game screenshot".
  • Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (Set primarily in the year 2048, it takes place earlier in the Wipeout timeline than previous games and acts as a prequel); I think it is because I find it a little repetitious. The parts about the game taking "place earlier in the Wipeout timeline" and it acting "as a prequel" seems to conveying the same information in two different ways in the same sentence. You could cut this sentence down by saying: "Set primarily in the year 2048, it acts as a prequel to the first installment in the Wipeout series" or something along those lines.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, you give a good breakdown of the different car types, but do you have any information on the "prototype" car/ship. You include information on speed ships, agility ships, fighters, but not anything specifically for the prototype.
  • Sadly the source says "The last class of ship is the Prototype Ship, but I’m not going to tell you anything about those", and I was like, "oh, OK then". I have never played this game before so I wouldn't know, but I'll keep looking for a source which can shed some light on this. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the phrase "destroy other races", I assume you mean "racers" and not "races" (unless this game gets real dark and existential lol).
  • Quick question about "Zone mode"; are the racers kept at a high speed for the entire race, or are they pushed to a high speed at the start, but can still be slowed down to more "normal" levels by obstacles or player interactions (weapons, etc.)?
  • All racers are kept at extreme speeds the whole time, and it continuously accelerates. The player has no control over the acceleration—I've split and expanded the sentence to make it clearer. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to "time trial" may be beneficial, though I am surprised that the article has not been expanded to include information on time trials in the context of video games. I am only suggesting it as it may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader.
  • The time trial article does include "a similar race against the clock or time attack is often part of racing video games", which is better than nothing. I've linked it for unfamiliar readers. Even so, it is always the same concept. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but is there anything noteworthy to add about the DLC? Did any publications provide any details on the types of new tracks or ships added?
  • I've added a little bit more to the DLC section, but it turns out that there are only two DLCs. Both of which just add twelve ships and twelve tracks from Wipeout HD to Wipeout 2048. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is a clarification question, and I am pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to make sure. I am assuming there is very little in the way of plot or character/racer background and development in this game (which is common for a racing game), but I just wanted to confirm this with you.
  • There is absolutely no plot or narrative with any Wipeout game LOL. It's funny that all of the video game FAs I've bought up have had no narratives. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love using block quotes, but I am not entirely certain that the block quote at the beginning of the "Conception" subsection is entirely necessary or adds much to the actual article or reader's understanding of the material. I can see the quote being put into the actual text (with a direct quote or paraphrasing) rather than sectioning it off (in fact, the second sentence of the subsection seems to be repeating similar information to the block quote).
  • You're right, it doesn't add anything unique to the section. I wanted to include it because I thought it emphasised an important point, but I know realise that it repeats information. I've removed the quote box. I tried to find another quote to use but it all repeats the same information in the article. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link "launch title" twice in the article.
  • Make sure the references are put in numerical order (for instance, in the last paragraph of the "Reception" section, reference 26 should be put before reference 27). Same thing in the beginning of the "Criticism of loading times" subsection.
  • Wonderful work with this article. It has been a rather long time since I have played a racing game, so this article definitely made me want to play one lol. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Aoba47! I really appreciate it. I've addressed all of your points. The Wipeout series are the only racing games I'll ever play, and it's been a pleasure to get all of them to GA. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and I greatly enjoyed working with you. Good luck with your future projects, and I look forward to working with you further in the future. I support it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by ProtoDrake

In progress. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Right, here's my review.

  • US PlayStation external link needs updating
  • Refs 2-4, 6-9, 13-16, 26, 32, 34, 36. — these references need bringing in line with the prevalent "|work=|publisher=" citation format.
  • Refs 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 36. — link to site articles on Wikipedia.
  • Ref 2 doesn't work as it stands. The interview has been uploaded by GameSpot through their YouTube channel, so it can be replaced.
  • Info from sources checks out.
  • Checklinks shows all links are okay.
  • As many links as possible should be archived.

That's what stood out. Once all the issues have been sorted out, I'll give the article another lookover and verdict. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, ProtoDrake! I really appreciate it. I've addressed all the points. JAGUAR  17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: That takes care of my concerns. I'll give this article a Pass on source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I have taken care of all prose, source and image reviews—would there be anything else left outstanding? Thanks. JAGUAR  19:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: sorry for the extra ping—do you think this needs an extra set of eyes or another review etc? It looks like I'll be away from Wikipedia entirely in June so I'd like to give this my full attention before then. JAGUAR  12:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm only seeing two supports here, and I think we need more review before we can think about promoting. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte
  • The game, the ninth instalment of the Wipeout series, was the last developed by Studio Liverpool before its August 2012 closure. Not sure about this. I don't like how it goes "the game, the ninth". Seems clunky.
  • Developed with the PlayStation Vita, it was a testbed for the console. change to It was used as a testbed for the PlayStation Vita.
  • During development, Studio Liverpool staff sent feedback to Sony about how the game would play on the new console and some said that they had influenced the Vita's design. This sentence is a mouthful. Any way to reword it or shorten it?
  • both, not originally conceived by Sony, eventually made it onto the console. Your choice, but would saying "both ideas" instead of just "both" sound better?
  • Critics agreed that its graphics and visuals showcased the PlayStation Vita Showcased what from the PSV? The graphics? The specs? I've also made a minor change here, if you don't like it feel free to undo it.
  • The single-player game progresses through the first three years of the AGRC (Anti-Gravity Racing Championships): 2048, 2049 and 2050. Would this be better as The single-player game progresses through the first three years, 2048, 2049, and 2050, of the AGRC (Anti-Gravity Racing Championships. Your choice. Minor nitpick.
  • Was Sony Studio Liverpool known as Psygnosis at any time during development?
  • That's a good point. They weren't known as Psygnosis during development, but I didn't want readers to confuse them with a new studio as Wipeout was always their creation. Removed. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if they were known as that when they made the previous games, how about x, known as y during the development of the previous games... (on mobile, sorry about the shorthand ). This is a minor issue so I'm willing to support now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that sounds good. Added. JAGUAR  16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my first read-over, the rest seems fine. I'll support when these are fixed if I don't find any more issues. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: thank you for the comments! I've addressed all of the above. Thankfully this article was quite well refined before I nominated it, unlike my previous nomination. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm willing to support now, though I've left a comment above that might interest you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but ended up copy-editing and so I'm better recusing here. Just a few queries, then I'm happy to support this. If these are addressed before I return, I have no problems with this from a prose viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is the ninth instalment of the Wipeout series and was the last developed by Studio Liverpool before its August 2012 closure": The last instalment of Wipeout produced by them? Or the last game produced by them in total? If we don't know, or if there haven't been any more Wipeouts since, this seems a little odd to say, particularly in the lead.
  • This was the very last game made by Studio Liverpool before their closure. It was also thought to be the final Wipeout game until a surprise announcement of another one a few weeks ago, so in that respect I think this sentence feels a bit outdated. I've tweaked it so it should be clearer that it was Studio Liverpool's last game. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Studio Liverpool technical director Stuart Lovegrove, the game was developed in parallel with the PlayStation Vita and was a testbed for the console": It either was or it wasn't, I don't think we need the "according to" here.
  • "said that Sony Computer Entertainment involved the Liverpool studio early in the development of the PlayStation Vita and they had a "fairly good idea" of the console's capability." Who is "they" here? It could be either Sony or Studio Liverpool.
  • I removed "they" from the sentence. I think the reader would know that Roberts had a fairly good idea of the console's capability as the sentence starts with him. I could rephrase this again if you disagree. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the influence of Studio Liverpool on the console design, it would be nice to have corroboration from someone other than Eggleton, but I think we handle this well and go as far as the sources allow.
  • I've added a little bit of reflection from Lovegrove and Roberts regarding the Vita, but the interview mainly comprised of technical mumbo jumbo and is difficult to decipher for the laymen, including me admittedly. I like to think that I've made the most out of it, but it's always nice to keep things balanced. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and copyedits, Sarastro1—I really appreciate it! I've addressed all of the above. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A nicely written article, and quite an easy read. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 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) 21:47, 18 May 2017 [25].

Cyclone Althea

edit
Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most destructive cyclones ever to strike the state of Queensland in the modern era. A lot of the meteorological background and damage statistics are relatively straightforward, but this disaster is arguably most notable for having kickstarted Australia's initiative toward cyclone-resistant building codes. Although Althea was overshadowed by the infamous Cyclone Tracy just a few years later, its legacy can still be seen in the way homes are built in Queensland and across the country. I firmly believe this is the most comprehensive account of the cyclone available anywhere, on the internet or otherwise, and for that reason I'm nominating it for featured article status. As always, my sincere thanks for any comments and suggested improvements. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley

edit

I will start out with some quick comments, and then will provide more comments later (Note: If I stop reviewing at any time and if all of my comments were addressed or commented on, please disregard this or regard this as a weak support).

  • I see them on the infobox and it comes down to you using the Start and End date templates, which i assume automatically places the date format in the users preffered format which i personally kind of like.Jason Rees (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Time zone added. I usually like to mention local time for landfall since it's sort of a benchmark in the storm's history. In this case most sources usually emphasize that the worst of the storm struck on Christmas Eve, so I wanted to preserve that. Can remove if you think it's unnecessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does both "city" and "offshore" in the phrase "city and offshore", in the sentence "The landfall point placed the city and offshore Magnetic Island in the cyclone's powerful left-front quadrant," refer both to Magnetic Island? If so specify. If not, then what city are you referring to? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe try and specify the speed of the gale-force winds in the sentence "Because of the tight pressure gradient between Althea and the high pressure area to the south, gale-force winds extended well to the south of the cyclone's centre." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As specific windspeeds are mentioned later on in "Impact", do you still think it's needed here? That line is mostly meant to convey that the winds were strong over an unusually large area... I'll try to clarify. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "The strongest winds were likely situated under the contracting outer ring, which shrank from 55 to 39 km (34 to 24 mi) between 21:00 and 23:00 to become the dominant eyewall," the time system (like UTC) needs to be specified. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same sentence, "The strongest winds were likely situated under the contracting outer ring, which shrank from 55 to 39 km (34 to 24 mi) between 21:00 and 23:00 to become the dominant eyewall," it would be good to define "outer ring" and "eyewall" to all of us non-hurricane/cyclone fanatics. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "At 00:00 UTC on 28 December, the cyclone reached a tertiary peak with 10-minute winds of 110 km/h (70 mph), but as it turned more toward the south, increasingly cooler sea surface temperatures took their toll on the cyclone," it might be better to say "a third peak" instead of "a tertiary peak", as commonly used words are better if they reach the same level of precision. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better to give the time in the format you use for UTC (without "a.m.") in the sentence "At 9 a.m. AEST on Christmas Eve, Althea struck the coast of Queensland near Rollingstone, about 50 km (30 mi) north of Townsville." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "ten" (spelled out) in the sentence "Ten people in Townsville were reported missing during the cyclone: nine on three boats that were unaccounted for, and one whose car was found in a swollen creek," yet you do not spell out 10 elsewhere. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's actually correct as it is per WP:NUMNOTES, which says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures". I very well could be wrong though... that's one part of the MoS I've never been able to fully grasp. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, keep as is then. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe try for simpler language, like not "denuding", "The winds were strong enough to bend large steel utility poles and lift houses off their foundations, while entirely denuding trees of their leaves." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give specific percentages for totally demolished and critical but repairable damage, but you say "about" for the minor damages. This is in the sentence "One post-storm survey of 6,000 houses in Townsville found around 0.7% totally demolished, 1.7% with critical but repairable damage, and about 13% with minor damage." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Several months after the storm, the Townsville City Council reported that 200 houses had been leveled, 600 more rendered uninhabitable, and as many as 4,000 damaged," the quantities are too unlikely to not be an "about" value. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should be good. It might also be nice, to give the reader a sense of scale, to mention how about one in a hundred houses were destroyed, according to FN 19. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, added. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "War Service Homes Commission" and possibly say "about" or something to that effect in the sentence "Among the structures damaged or destroyed were 200 Queensland Housing Commission homes and 500 of the 700 War Service Homes Commission dwellings in Townsville." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What now is "horizontal beach erosion"; "Between Pallarenda and Rowes Bay, beaches receded by as much as 15.8 m (52 ft), with up to 12 m (39 ft) of horizontal beach erosion reported at Balgal Beach near the cyclone's landfall point." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Hydrodynamic model simulations predict that for a cyclone like Althea, the Great Barrier Reef would have very little dampening effect on the storm surge," does not have a very good transition, and it doesn't really make sense. Maybe say something like "Although the Great Barrier Reef has a general dampening effect on storm surges, this was not the case for those caused by Althea. Hydrodynamic model simulations predicted that for cyclones as powerful as Althea, the Great Barrier Reef would have a minimal dampening effect on the storm surge." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comma after New South Wales in the sentence "Damaging thunderstorms in the suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales, on 25 December were broadly attributed to the weather pattern associated with Althea," either needs to be removed or balanced out with another comma, say, one after December. Otherwise it reads weirdly. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify the country of the Prime Minister in the sentence "Prime Minister William McMahon soon traveled to Townsville to assess the damage and authorise the distribution of emergency grants for affected residents." I mean, foreign aid is a thing. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe say "Government of Australia" instead of "Commonwealth Government" in the sentence "The Commonwealth Government reimbursed Queensland for an estimated $5.5–6 million spent by the state on recovery," as I am sure that there is more than one commonwealth. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence "Only isolated instances of looting were reported after the disaster," the word "only" sounds a bit odd. Maybe drop it. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comma after Northern Territory in the sentence "The trend of more rigorous construction specifications in the country was bolstered when Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin, Northern Territory, three years later," sounds a bit odd. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last part of the sentence "The severe cyclones prompted Queensland to develop its first state-wide building regulations in 1975; the new Queensland Home Building Code was fully adopted by the mid-1980s," sounds a bit odd. Maybe drop the "by" and replace it with "in"? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A larger number compared to what? "Under the new regulations, roofs had to be securely anchored using larger numbers of bolts and reinforced fastenings." RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I also left a reply to one of your replies, and that seems to be all that needs doing. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments by Finetooth

This article reads really well throughout except for a bit of choppiness in the final section. I've suggested two sentence mergers that I think would help, and I have just five other minor suggestions.
Meteorological history
  • "the system reached tropical cyclone status around 06:00 UTC on 20 December" – Link UTC on first use?
  • "by the canopy of cirrus clouds" – "a" rather than "the" since the cirrus clouds have not been mentioned earlier in the article?
  • "increasingly cooler sea surface temperatures took their toll on the cyclone" – "Weakened" instead of "took their toll on"?
Aftermath
  • "At the end of December, it was announced that the state and federal governments..." – Rather than the passive "it was announced that", it would be better to say who did the announcing if you can. If you don't know, maybe "officials announced that".
  • "Emergency vehicles, specialised personnel, electric generators, refrigerators, food rations, and other critical supplies were ferried to the island. Medical officers rushed to limit the spread of gastroenteritis on Magnetic Island after several cases were reported following the cyclone." – Here's a pair that you might combine as "Emergency vehicles, specialised personnel, electric generators, refrigerators, food rations, and other critical supplies were ferried to the island, and medical officers rushed there to limit the spread of gastroenteritis after several cases were reported."
  • "Isolated instances of looting were reported after the disaster. Multiple local merchants were investigated for alleged price gouging." – Merge these two with a ", and"? I don't think either this combo or the first one would create a run-on sentence, but if you disagree, you might find another way to vary the sentence structures a bit more in this section.
Images Alt text
  • The four images in the main text need alt text.
  • Thank you for the review and very helpful copyediting, Finetooth. I've acted on your above points and tried to smooth out the "aftermath" section a bit to improve flow and reduce choppiness. I'm sure my alt text leaves much to be desired, but hopefully it's close to where it needs to be. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • I note that a large part of this article is sourced to 1972 newspaper accounts. These are basically primary sources - it would be better to see secondary sources used ... are there any?
  • The article does employ some recent sources, and there are plenty of "look back"-type pieces about the storm that I could WP:REFBOMB into the article, but it's impossible to write a comprehensive account of most historical natural disasters without relying fairly heavily on contemporary damage reports. I've never viewed that as a problem, as this isn't the sort of information that requires decades of analysis to validate; if a certain number of houses were destroyed in 1971, then they'll always continue to have been destroyed in 1971. WP:RS considers mainstream newspapers to be reliable sources, and my understanding of WP:PSTS has always been that independent primary sources are acceptable for use in supporting strictly factual claims without further critical commentary. Hopefully this doesn't prove to be a significant flaw in the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally it isn't, but here it's only being used to prove that a particular monument exists (evidenced through the photos here). As this is a straightforward descriptive claim that could be verified by anyone who wishes to visit the location, I believe the standards for sourcing are relaxed. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the source review. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp

edit

The article looks very good. I only noticed a couple of very minor points on my first read through—besides that everything seemed very good. Comments:

  • Impact section: "Total damage from Cyclone Althea amounted to just shy of A$120 million". "Just shy of" may be a little colloquial?
  • Costal Queensland: "Seawalls and coastal roadways were crushed by the pounding surf in places like the Strand and Cape Pallarenda." It may be a matter of preference, but may I suggest "such as" instead of "like"? It feels more precise and formal to me.

I'd like to read through one more time to see if I missed anything before giving my support. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reading through the article and commenting here. I agree with and have made the suggested changes. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now support. Below are two more minor suggestions that you can take or leave as you like:

  • "Total damage from Cyclone Althea amounted to just under A$120 million (1971), while three people were killed by the storm.[8] The normalised damage total for 2012, which accounts for growth and inflation, was estimated at $648 million.[9] Throughout the affected region, 257 people were treated for storm-related injuries, mostly inflicted by airborne debris." Would it make sense to put the casualties and injuries together, and the 1971 vs 2012 figures together?
  • "About 100 people rode out the cyclone in the dining room of a Picnic Bay hotel": Is "rode out" more colloquial than ideal? Something like "took safety for the duration of the cyclone" could be an alternative. Moisejp (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I see that Finetooth mentions images above but can I just clarify if this constitutes a full image review? If not, I think we still need one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • NASA and US government images - OK.
  • Sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • Flickr image shows no signs of problems - OK.
  • "fair-use" image: a significant feature that needs visual illustration to understand - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:46, 18 May 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) 21:30, 18 May 2017 [26].

Alloxylon pinnatum

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smaller than some articles I've worked on, it's about as complete as it can possibly be. I will answer queries quickly. I reckon it's within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Was just reading my comments in your last FAC ... when I was talking about the odds that people would assign meaning or something, I meant that that's the question I wanted you to meditate on to solve the problem, it wasn't meant judgmentally. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok, no offence was taken so don't sweat it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, looks good but had to change back one as they are general "protected areas" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

edit

Happy to support, but a couple of niggles, other than the annoying but unactionable fractional inches Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is glabrous (smooth) better than just smooth?
It means "smooth and hairless"...actually why not just say it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 500 kg per cubic metre— either give the imperial conversion or replace with a density
libs added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – The images used in the article have appropriate summaries and are properly licensed, so the image review is a pass. 1989 22:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments form FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll review this soon. At first glance, there are some short sections and paragraphs hanging alone with little content by the end of the article. Maybe it's just me who finds such layout a bit distracting, but could some of these be merged or placed together? For example, status kinda looks like it could group well with cultivation (both sections are about human interaction in a sense), and the short ecology sentence could maybe go with distribution? FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I moved the butterfly sentence to the Conservation status section as it is about another threatened species. Meleded another para elsewhere. One last small one I can't place though... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you're inconsistent in whether you refer to the subject by the common or scientific name?
I guess trying to make the article less repetitive by using both names? Have tried to use the common name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also some inconsistency in whether you spell out the binomial name or abbreviate it.
Should be solved now using the common name everywhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could anthesis and pinnate be explained?
"Pinnate" means lobed, which I added to the lead. The next mention adds about the lobes straight afterwards, so adding "lobed" here would look weird. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arranged in a corymb or raceme" What is any of this?
It's the arrangement of the flowers in the flowerhead. I'd try to explain but it'd be very wordy. The images on the target article are more helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "splitting of Gondwana" I'd add "the supercontinent Gondwana", most readers may not know what this is by name.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it's just me, but I can't stand when images interfere with the headers, could be prevented in the second image by right-aligning, but no big deal.
Agree is annoying. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "walked 300 km" Convert.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it near threatened? What are the threats?
frustratingly no sources specify. "near threatened" can be IUCN talk for "rare". It is sensitive to soil pathogens and much of its habitat has disappeared to agriculture, but no sources say anything really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 14 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2017 [27].

The Demi-Virgin

edit
Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This FAC is for a stage play, but this time one with less performance history than my previous nominations. Avery Hopwood's 1921 bedroom farce is insignificant as literature and outdated as entertainment. It is remembered primarily for the censorship dispute it generated when producer A. H. Woods was charged with staging an obscene exhibition. Woods beat the charges and strolled from the courthouse to the bank, collecting big profits from the controversy and paving the way for even more provocative shows. The article has been GA for a few months and just got a fresh GOCE copy edit, so I look forward to your FA reviews. RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had my say at GAC, and the article has only improved since then. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Response comments inserted above. --RL0919 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've read through the article twice and there is nothing I would change. It's very readable and well developed. Moisejp (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. --RL0919 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2017 [28].

Vermont Sesquicentennial half dollar

edit
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a half dollar with a rather complicated history, both in Congress and in the preparation. There were repeated battles in Congress over this coin, not so much because of its subject, but over the idea of issuing commemorative coins at all, and things then got hairy in the Commission of Fine Arts ... well, it's a nice coin, even if the catamount on the back's a little hard to explain ... enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

edit
  • "Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon sent a letter in opposition and three Treasury officials to testify against it in committee, arguing that the public was being confused as special coin issues entered circulation." The grammar around "to testify it" seems unclear to me. More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've played with it a bit, does it help?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swiatek and Breen noted, "it is a testimony to something or other in Vermont that there was never the faintest breath of suspicion at any time about anything connected with the distribution of the coins." " I wasn't sure if I missed some context here. Is there an implication that there were shady or unscrupulous actions taken related to the distribution of the coins? Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit of context to make it clear that this was praise for their ethics.

Support. It all looks good. I enjoyed this article. Moisejp (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad of that. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

This is an interesting and entertaining account of the only coin I've ever heard of that honors a catamount. I have a few questions and suggestions, nothing big, and I made a dozen small copyedits as I went along. Please revert any you think are unhelpful.
Lede
  • "declaring itself independent in 1777" – Perhaps add that it was declaring itself independent of Great Britain? Actually, it's not quite clear in the Background section that this means only Great Britain. Was Vermont declaring independence from New York and Connecticut at the same time?
  • Everyone, basically. They were not a part of the Continental Congress. I will add the word fully.
Legislation
  • "Greene had not always been a friend to commemorative coins, asking..." – Perhaps substitute "saying" rather than "asking" since what he says is not a question but rather a statement about a question.
  • "Mellon felt the public was being confused..." – Insert "that" so that it reads "Mellon felt that the public was being confused..."?
  • "The Treasury had sent three officials, Mint Director Robert J. Grant, Assistant Director Mary M. O'Reilly and Garrard B. Winston, the assistant to the Undersecretary of the Treasury." – Perhaps add "to the hearings" to make clear where they were sent?
  • "warning that there were six coinage bills before Congress, and the Mint had struck nine commemoratives..." – Maybe add "that"; i.e. "warning that there were six coinage bills before Congress and that the Mint had struck nine commemoratives..."
  • "She answered a number of questions..." – Delete "a number of" since any more than none would be a number?
  • "Vestal issued a report the same day, stating the committee..." – "stating that the committee"?
  • "Leach's attitude was typical as to whether commemorative coins should be stopped..." – Recast slightly for better flow? Maybe "Leach's attitude toward approving more commemorative coins was typical...".
  • "The House voted, and the amendment was added." – I'm finding it hard to keep the complications straight. I think it might help to say "amendment to approve the California coin" here.
  • "But Representative Johnson was there, and to applause from his colleagues moved a further amendment..." - Tighten to "But Representative Johnson, to applause from his colleagues, moved a further amendment..." since he had to have been there to move an amendment?
  • "and Vancouver, Wash." – I'm not sure that all readers will realize that by "Fort Vancouver" and "Vancouver, Wash." Johnson is referring to the same thing and not a coin for a fort and now a coin for a city.
Preparation
  • "that would make a coin one could take satisfaction in..." – Maybe "that would make a coin one could admire"?
  • "The Vermont commission objected, and the matter was compromised by the name being added." – Perhaps "The Vermont commission objected but agreed to the compromise of adding Ira Allan's name." The phrase "the matter was compromised" suggest a different meaning of "compromise" than the one I believe you intend.
Production, distribution, and collecting"
  • "there was never the faintest breath of suspicion at any time about anything connected with the distribution of the coins..." - This might be a bit too subtle. What could Swiatek and Breen be thinking of? Was the method of distribution unusual?
Images
  • The images need alt text. I'm not sure if it can be added to the coin images in the infobox, but the two in the main text could have it.
Thank you for the review. I've done those things where I haven't commented, though sometimes in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Jim

The very minor issues I picked up have already been listed by Finetooth, and I don't see any reason to delay support while those are addressed. As a Brit, I wasn't familiar with catamount, the only similar word I know being "catamite", a somewhat less subject for a coin than a cougar... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I shall not even essay a joke on the catamite matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs)

It seems like every image is germane to its location. ALT text OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. @FAC coordinators: to ping the coordinators that the articles has three supports rather than the two mentioned by the script. Not saying that's sufficient, just to let them know there's an error somewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 10 May 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) 21:45, 12 May 2017 [29].

Tube Alloys

edit
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project during the Second World War. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Support. I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (subject to resolution of the remaining issues with the images). I have read Ronald W Clark's book and this article augments it well with what we have learnt since his book was published in 1961. A superb article, well done. Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with minor comments:
  • "This prompted the United Kingdom to (re)launch its own project" - (re)launch felt a bit awkward here
    Changed to "relaunched" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "codename Operation Hurricane" - I don't think the italics are right here; later on, it is simply "Operation Hurricane", and I don't think we normally italicise op names?
    I wish we had a standard for codenames. Changed to "operation Hurricane". Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " French Secret Service" - could we link to the relevant article?
    Mais oui. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2017 [30].

Monnow Bridge

edit
Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Monnow Bridge. The bridge has some importance as the only fortified bridge of its type remaining in Great Britain. It also has some significance to Wikipedia as the symbol of Monmouth, the world's first Wikipedia town. KJP1 (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support from Hchc2009:

edit

Comments from me below; the article's looking good, and great to see a fascinating bridge like this at FAC. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, much appreciated. Article's been greatly improved by the process, and through your input. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some 500m above its confluence" - imperial equivalent needed
  • "Carries pedestrian traffic" (infobox) - capitalisation of pedestrian?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Begun, according to tradition, in 1272" - what sort of tradition? (local, oral, historical?)
  • Green tickY Done. With "local". Rowlands does mention the Victorian tradition which appears to have started it. Would "historical" be better?
  • "the borough was entitled to raise through Royal charter." - capitalisation of royal charter
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The archaeologist Martin Cook, in his 1998 volume Medieval Bridges, notes the significance of the date 1270" - I found it a bit odd to name the books the quotes were coming from in the main text; if a work was particularly important, perhaps, but I couldn't see why this (and similar examples) couldn't just read "The archaeologist Martin Cook notes the significance of the date 1270..." - it would be cleaner.
  • Green tickY Done. And elsewhere, I hope. I've left it in where it seems more integral to the text, e.g. Heath below. Could remove if thought better?
  • "The Monmouth antiquarian Charles Heath, writing in his Historical and descriptive accounts of the ancient and present state of the town of Monmouth published in 1804, recorded that the bridge's "foundation is so ancient that neither history or tradition afford any light respecting the date of its erection."[5] Heath drew directly from the earlier guide to The Antiquities of England and Wales written by Francis Grose and published in 1773" - if I understand this correctly, is the key point that neither Charles Hearth nor Francis Grose used the 1272 date?
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, by re-ordering. I've put Heath/Grose earlier, to emphasise their not using "1272" and followed with Cook. Better?
  • "An early account in the Flores Historiarum by Roger of Wendover may suggest that the wooden bridge" - I paused over the "may suggest"; I couldn't quite work out what the "may" was trying to say here.
  • Not done, yet. I think it is trying to say that even this, nearly contemporaneous, account is insufficiently clear to be certain Roger W is describing the precursor to the Monnow Bridge. Rowlands, with typical caution, says "..the text is not clear enough to refer to any bridge unequivocally."
  • "was added at the end of the thirteenth or start of the 14th centuries, some thirty years after the bridge itself was built." - worth being consistent on whether the article prefers "thirteenth" or "13th". Presumably the "thirty years" only works if you accept the "tradition" of the 1272 date? [NB: Cadw say "25 years after" the bridge on their website]
  • Green tickY Done. In terms of the 13th century correction. Does "twenty-five to thirty" give the necessary elasticity?
  • "A murage was a medieval tax, granted specifically to allow for the raising of funds to construct, or repair, town defences." - typically, walls rather than "defences" - you couldn't spend it on a castle, for example.
  • Green tickY Done. Replaced "defences" with "walls".
  • "including the construction of the gate-tower" - I'm assuming this is the same as the "gatehouse" mentioned previously? If so, worth using the same term
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "By 1315, this work was still incomplete or required repair" - as written, the paragraph implies that the "work" is the work on the gatehouse, as opposed to the wider walls etc., but I'm not sure that's necessarily correct?
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. Rowlands isn't specific as to what work was still to be done. I've removed the "this" to make it less bridge-specific.
  • "the circuit of walls/urban defences encircling Monmouth" - felt an ugly phrasing
  • Green tickY Done. Yes an "encircling circuit" didn't really flow. Have ditched "circuit" and made it read "defensive walls, keeping the link. OK?
  • "Leland's map shows walls only on the northern side of the town" - you haven't introduced Leland yet?
  • Green tickY Done. Double c*ck-up here. No introduction to Speed, and it's his map, not Leland's. Apologies.
  • "Kissack contends that the gate house was ineffective in defensive terms..." - the flow of this paragraph didn't quite work for me. We start with Kissack, a modern historian; we go back to 1902, and note it was used to raise tolls. We then say "Later historians dispute this," - but don't say who (presumably not Kissack). And we then go back to tolls again.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. I agree it wasn't clear and I've done a re-write and re-ordering. This starts with the tolls, and then follows with a, chronologically-ordered, run through the "defence versus revenue-collection" debate. I've also cited Soulsby/Rowlands for the latter, dual-purpose, view. Does this work? KJP1 (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from paying tolls on fair days" - could we link fair days?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The historian William Coxe in his two volume guide, An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire, published in 1801, incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that; "It commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh." - this sentence didn't fit well here for me; it wasn't telling us much, other than that Coxe was incorrect (and again, didn't accept the 1272 date!)
  • Green tickY Done. Agreed; it didn't flow/fit there. Have moved it up to the paragraph which discusses 1272, where I think it's more at home.
  • "Before 1830, the gatehouse was owned by Monmouth Corporation" - I don't think we've explained when the corporation first acquires it?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "transferred to the Duke of Beaufort as part of a property exchange" - could this link to the specific Duke of Beaufort, rather than just the title?
  • Green tickY Done. The 6th.
  • "but Rowlands shows that the apertures are clearly visible" - first time you've mentioned Rowlands I think.
  • Green tickY Done. Have now introduced him earlier.
  • "Until their banning, in 1858" - repeats the beginning of the paragraph (I think it only needs to explain that it was banned once)
  • Green tickY Done. By removal of the duplication.
  • "it was decorated with flags and lights to commemorate the coming of age of John Maclean Rolls" - could we give the year here?
  • Green tickY Done. 1891.
  • "In the late 1920s the top portion was replaced with twin electric lamps. " - the top portion of what?
  • Green tickY Done. Sorry, unclear. The top portion of the original light placed on the gate.
  • "In the 20th century the growth of traffic using the road, with resulting accidents and congestion on what was a humpback bridge with poor visibility and narrow approach roads, led to many proposals to by-pass the bridge." - a long and slightly twisty sentence
  • Green tickY Done. Rather like the road onto the bridge. I've re-worded but I'll leave you to judge whether it's better.
  • "The damaging impact of traffic on ancient structures had long been recognised; in 1721 The Society of Antiquaries had paid ten shillings "for setting down two oak-posts to secure Waltham Cross from injury by carriages." - no doubt true, but it felt like a digression in this paragraph.
  • Green tickY Done. By removal. It was a bit of a digression, but was my only Fawcett reference, a book I recently found! As the first secretary of the Victorian Society, she deserves a mention. Shall have to find another use for her.
  • "The bridge and gate was formally recognised as an Ancient Monument in 1923" - would "protected" be a better verb?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The new A40, built in 1965/66" - elsewhere the article prefers the "1965-66" style
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Monnow Bridge and Gatehouse has been a popular subject for artists, particularly since the development of the Picturesque movement in the later 18th century." - does Grose really work as a citation here? He can't really be commenting on the post-1780s? ;)
  • Red XN Not Done. He sort of does, at least for the early period. He says, "As a picturesque object they (the bridge and gate) have long been noticed by the connoisseurs." Thus, he's an early adopter! What do you think?
  • I don't think that statement really supports the sentence as written - he's writing in 1773, so not exactly late 18th century and pre-Gilpin's popularisation of the topic, and he doesn't actually say that they've been painted by anyone (the phrase would also apply to anyone enjoying the view with the picturesque in mind, for example). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I'll either find another source, or re-word.
  • Green tickY Done - by re-wording and losing the Grose quote.
  • "The bridge is 34.80 metres (114.2 ft) in length" - very precise (down to the centimetre)... not sure it was necessary to be that specific here?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The room in the tower measures 36 feet long and 10 feet wide" - metric equivalent needed (NB: the article should be consistent in which it prefers)
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "quarried within 10 miles of Monmouth" - metric equivalent needed
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " the machine cut " - "machine-cut"?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "In 1996, the bridge was included on a list of potential World Heritage Bridges by the UNESCO advisory body, the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Such bridges must be of "outstanding universal value" as "a type which illustrates a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments." - a) not sure that it being including on a potential list is that valuable (?); secondly, "such bridges" implies it is a statement about this bridge, but I think it is really refering to successfully designated World Heritage Bridges (of which this isn't an example)?
  • Red XN I see what you mean, and I appreciate the survey dates from 1996, but I am inclined to think it does serve to illustrate the bridge's importance and notability. I don't know how UNESCO goes about listing World Heritage Sites, except that it's probably slowly, and with a great deal of lobbying involved. But the ICOMOS survey, in the Medieval Section, brackets Monnow Bridge with, among others, the Ponte Vecchio, the Pont d'Avignon, the Pont Valentré and the Charles Bridge. Not bad company, if you're a fortified bridge. Looking a bit further, here, [31], it would seem that none of these four have been listed in their own right, but the other three do get in as part of The Historic Centre of Florence, Avignon & Prague respectively. Maybe that's the issue for poor old Monnow Bridge. I'm very fond of Monmouth but no-one could argue it provides the architectural setting the three cities give. I have re-worded, however, to take on board your second comment. Hope this is ok? KJP1 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think the quotation "Such bridges must be of "outstanding universal value" as "a type which illustrates a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments."" is helping here. The fact that Monnow Bridge was not made a World Heritage Bridge after 1996 means that we are really are saying that it was not of "outstanding universal value" etc. etc., which seems a strange thing to highlight. I think it would be better to note that the organisation considered the listed potential bridges to be "important types or technological turning points", which would be a more positive statement. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Done - re-worded as suggested. I do think the very fact that it was up for consideration merits a mention. And see below.
  • "Another, roughly contemporaneous, is the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France, which has been described as "the finest specimen of a medieval fortified bridge in the world." - I wasn't sure what the quote was telling us about this bridge...
  • Green tickY Done - sort of! I agree, but I'd be reluctant to lose it entirely, as it's a single-quote source. And the continental examples do provide context. Have tried to trim. See what you think? KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not convinced that we need to say that the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France, is "the finest specimen in the world." It doesn't tell us anything about Monnow Bridge - other than, I presume that it isn't the finest specimen in the world! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia would be very short of articles if we only wrote about "the finest" of anything! I absolutely agree that the implication of the source is that the Monnow Bridge isn't the best of its type in the world. But it is a very good example, and the only one of its type left in Britain. Having the context of the best of the type in the world seems to me to be helpful.
  • But what does the statement that "the Pont Valentre in France is the finest medieval fortified bridge in the world" tell us about the Monnow Bridge in Wales? There are always going to be the finest examples of anything (statues, bridges, castles etc.) If it was part of a comparison, it would make sense, but I can't see what it is adding to this article as a standalone fact. Why not just just say "European examples include the Frias Bridge, near Burgos, Spain and the Pont Valentré, at Cahors in France."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit Conflicting - Here's my further thought - Thinking a bit more, perhaps an analogous case from Wikipedia would be the J. Mordaunt Crook quote I used at the end of William Burges. Crook said that Burges's achievements; "place him as Pugin's only "rival as the greatest art-architect of the Gothic Revival." It's pretty clear that Crook actually thinks Pugin was the greater architect, and most other modern critics would probably agree, but I don't think that detracts from the scale of Burges's own achievement.
  • It tells us that there is a better example of a fortified bridge. Isn't that useful context?
  • OK - quote's gone.
  • "The rarity of Monnow Bridge and Gate is reflected in its status as a potential World Heritage site,[83] a Scheduled Monument[90] and a Grade I listed building" - I thought this was mixing up three things; scheduled monument status (pretty common in the UK); Grade I listed - rather less common; "potential WH site" - unclear how significant this is, until it is actually granted such status (and this was 20 years ago, so presumably it didn't make the cut?)
  • See comment above re. ICOMOS survey.
  • File:Monmouth Monnow Bridge 1930 from Town Side showing three cottages no longer there.jpg - to be a valid UK anonymous tag, the evidence of the due diligence checks carried out needs to be added to the file description (part of UK law if anonymous work status is being claimed)
  • Green tickY Done. Utterly clueless on copyright, as others could testify. Have changed image to one that's fine, I hope.
  • The replacement, File:Monnow Bridge (2).jpg, is justified under a life + 70 claim, which can't really work for an anonymous ~1900 work (we don't know that the photographer died before 1947); if anonymous and of this period, it need a valid UK anonymous tag, and evidence of the due diligence checks about the author etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: The File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg file is correctly licensed though, and would give a rare 19th photograph of the bridge. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Sold!
  • Sources - the capitalisation needs checking; I think the MOS prefers capitals in sources - e.g. " The itinerary of John Leland the Antiquary, in nine volumes" should be "The Itinerary of..." Hchc2009 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Could the web page citations give the author? It would make it clearer where the information is coming from. e.g. "Monnow Bridge and Gate". Castlewales.com. Retrieved 2017-03-29." is actually a quote from Rowlands, M.L.J (1994). Monnow Bridge and Gate. Stroud: Alan Sutton. ISBN 0-7509-0415-1.
  • Green tickY Done. I hope I haven't missed any.
  • At least one of the web page citations needs a page number reference: "CBA Research Report No. 61". Archaeologydataservice.ac.uk. Retrieved 2017-01-28.", for example, is a 234 page long pdf! ;)
  • Green tickY Done. I know, I've just had to wade through it again to find the relevant page. I've done this one but will look to see if there are more.
  • I'm not sure the publisher on "Yale Center for British Art, Lec Maj. "The Monnow Bridge, Monmouthshire". Collections.britishart.yale.edu. Retrieved 2017-02-09." is right; the website at the bottom gives its identity as "Yale: The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art", no mention of "Collections.britishart.yale.edu"
  • Green tickY - Done, I think, with "Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection".
  • "The noted architectural watercolourist Samuel Prout painted the bridge in the late 18th or early 19th century in a study now held at the Yale Center for British Art in Connecticut." - the citation attached to this just gives the date as "before 1814".
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Hando, Fred (1964). "Monmouth Town Sketch Book". Newport: R.H.Johns Ltd. OCLC 30295655. is formatted differently to the others (I think you're using Cite News as a template)
  • Green tickY Done. This dates from when I cited the South Wales Argus as an article, prior to having the book.
  • "Scheduled Monument - Full Report - HeritageBill Cadw Assets - Reports". Cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net. 1974-07-24. Retrieved 2017-03-11." - definitely published by Cadw, not Cadwpublic-api.azurewebsites.net, which is part of the name of their url.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " Henry Gastineau created a much reproduced image in 1819." - the citation here just says (unless I've missed something) "Monnow Bridge circa 1819. Engraving after a drawing by Henry Gastineau", without anything about being "much reproduced".
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Leland 1770, p. unknown." - unknown in that there weren't page numbers in the volume, or unknown in that we don't know which page it was on? I wasn't sure how to interpret this. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red XN Query - It's unknown, as in I don't know it. Worldcat tells me Charles Heath is actually unnumbered, so I used that for Heath. I just don't know what the numbering is for Leland, or indeed if he has numbering. Advice? KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged, I'm afraid. It can be found on line but not with any numbering. I'll go and have a look where I got it. In an earlier version, I had it in as a web reference, not cited as a book. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Done. Changed the Leland to the 1906 edition, which gives a page number of 46.
Really appreciate the time taken, and the detailed comments. Will work through today. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009, I think the Leland page number completes the issues raised, but do let me know if I've missed anything. Many thanks for the very detailed review. Greatly appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chiswick Chap

edit

The article is showing signs of polish since the GAN, and I don't have much to add now.

  • "having previously referenced the bridge in her wider study, The Fortifications of Monmouth published in 1896": if this minor aside is needed at all, it would be better as a sentence ("MEB-O mentioned the bridge ... in 1896, and wrote the first history ..."), or it could be a footnote.
  • Green tickY Done. Minor aside!! Do you know how long and hard I had to search for that bloody pamphlet! [Deep breath]. You're quite right and it's now a footnote.
  • "walls/urban defences" is an ugly construction. Why not just say "walls" or "town walls".
  • Green tickY Done. It was and it's now gone.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • There's a disconnect between the Ove Arup study "not progressed" and the sudden arrival of a new bridge in the next sentence and only 5 years later (if you'll forgive the zeugma).
  • You're absolutely right - I just need to work something up.
Yes, perfectly.
  • Does the mosaic pillar have any relevance to the article?
  • Red XN It's tangential, I agree. You'll recall I took out the earlier photo which showed the plinth and replaced it with a better view of the bridge as per your suggestion. Which was absolutely the right call. But I'd regret losing it entirely, as I don't think it's completely irrelevant. If you have a look on the article Talkpage, you can see it, with the specific tile depicting the bridge. Unfortunately, accompanied by graffiti. I could remove, however. What do you think?
Well, what does it add? That the council think the bridge a distinctive feature of their town?
  • Green tickY Done - plinth gone.
  • "tariffs could be levied" ... "five fat hogs": gives the impression that a load of 1..4 fat hogs would escape the tariff, surely an easily-exploitable loophole. I guess that Kissack's details are examples of loads on which tariffs had been levied.
  • Or five skinny hogs? In a lean year? The list is unbelievably exhaustive; "each hundred cat or squirrel skins" - did someone count them all?
I mean simply that we need to say something like "had been" rather than implying as it does now "were only permitted to be levied on", which can't possibly be right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Done - message received, I think.
Again, very grateful for these, and for the earlier GA comments. Will work through them today. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very much appreciate your support, here and for the GAR. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I've fixed a few ref formatting inconsistencies, but wonder about the AmEng date format used in quite a number of them; i.e, 2017/03/27. I appreciate that consistency is key here, but strictly speaking, a BrEng article should use BrEng formatting.
  • Would it be fair to assume that most will know what a "double decker bus" (20th–21th centuries) and "leased" (15th–19th centuries) are? If so, I think the links can be dropped.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • There is a mix of commas and non commas in sentences similar to the following: "In 1796, the bridge..." compared to "In 1796 the bridge..." etc..
  • - Will work on these.
  • Green tickY Done.
Very grateful for your amendments and for your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pepper

edit

Haven't gotten around to going through the whole article yet, but I plan to (at least for a grammatical once-over). However, I am already sensing a general trend with the writing style that I think should be improved upon for a FAC. Many of the sentences have an unnecessarily complex structure, and that makes reading difficult and comprehension a bit challenging.

Take this for example: Begun, according to local tradition, in 1272, the stone bridge replaced a 12th-century Norman timber bridge. From its construction, it played a significant, if ineffectual, role in the defence of Monmouth, in the medieval era, in the English Civil War and during the Chartist uprising. 8 commas in 2 sentences! I have a few problems with this set of sentences, such as the choppiness that comes with too many commas and the ambiguous use of begun (what begun? the construction? the tolling? if it was only the construction that began in 1272, it surely didn't replace the Norman timber bridge until a few years later). A potential rewording could look like "According the local tradition, construction of the Monnow Bridge began in 1272 to replace a 12th-century Norman timber bridge. Through the medieval era, the English Civil War, and the Chartist uprising, the bridge was significant in its role of defending Monmouth."

Another example: The historian William Coxe, in his two volume guide, An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire, published in 1801, incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that; "It commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh." Is it necessary to break up the meaning of the sentence with so much information about the guide which one could find in §Sources if needed? (The title is also incorrectly written here.) I would say "The historian William Coxe incorrectly described the bridge as pre-dating the Norman Conquest and recorded that "it commanded the passage of the Monnow and was a barrier against the Welsh."

I'll give a more thorough read-through as time permits (hopefully in the next few days) and will make a few minor grammatical changes myself for you to review. Let me know if you have questions! "Pepper" @ 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper - any and all suggestions gratefuly received. Anything that improves accessibility will be great. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, got around to it sooner than I thought. Overall, I think the content of the article is exceptional, though I still feel like sentences could be simplified and the number of grammatical issues lends me to not support until they are fixed. I started writing out all of the grammatical things I came across below, then realized there would be many of them. Would you like me to continue making suggestions on grammatical suggestions for your review, or shall I go ahead and make them myself? See examples just below:
Pepper - Many thanks for these. I'll go through and amend in line with your suggestions. Re. the above, I'm fine if you'd prefer to just go ahead and make them. I appreciate that can be less time-consuming than detailing them in the review. More generally, I don't think your comments heavy-handed, on the contrary, they will certainly help to improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a specific reason why you aren't referring to it as the Monnow Bridge? This seems to be the most common way to refer to bridges.
  • I think this is just the way people generally refer to the bridge. If you look at Bagnall-Oakeley, its first historian, and Rowlands, its latest, neither calls it The Monnow Bridge. I suppose it's like Tower Bridge, which again isn't described with the definite article.
  • In the first sentence, wouldn't it be more important to have the bridge's Welsh name rather than the Welsh name of the river it crosses?
  • Green tickY Done. It's in the infobox, but I've added it to the lead.
  • "Such bridge towers were common across Europe from medieval times but many were destroyed" - comma before but
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Beginning of the second paragraph could be reworded as I suggested above. If you'd prefer to keep it the way it is, remove the comma after Monmouth and add one after War.
  • Green tickY - Done, almost. The only bit I've kept is "ineffectual", as I think that leads into the debate about how effective/important is was as part of Monmouth's defences.
  • "It also served as a gaol, a munitions store, a lodge, an advertising hoarding, a focus for celebrations and" - comma before and to match the style of the rest of article
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "In the 20th century, it suffered increasing damage as higher volumes of traffic, and the use of ever-larger vehicles, led to a number of serious accidents." - don't need commas in a list of two items, so get rid of the last two commas in that sentence
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The existing bridge was completed in the late 13th century, traditionally in 1272 though this date has no supporting documentary evidence." - reword to avoid run-on sentence, perhaps break it into two: The existing bridge was completed in the late 13th century. It was traditionally thought to have been finished in 1272, though this date has no supporting documentary evidence.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Second sentence of 13th–14th centuries as recommended above - either way be sure to fix "An Historical Tour of Monmouthshire" to the correct title "An Historical Tour in Monmouthshire"
  • Green tickY Done - Hchc2009 also thought the full titles unhelpful, so I've taken them out, except where they seemed critical.
  • Similar for other books - the article is about the bridge, not the books. I don't think it's relevant that "Heath drew directly from the earlier guide to The Antiquities of England and Wales written by Francis Grose and published in 1773" though I appreciate that the history is complex and I wouldn't mind if you decide this is necessary to keep.
  • Kept, but slimmed down.
  • "However, this is unlikely as the gatehouse" - comma after unlikely
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " the wooden bridge, and the nearby Church of St Thomas the Martyr, were damaged" - don't need commas in a list of two items, remove both
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "The site of the battle is a matter of debate, however, as is the specific bridge involved; the local historian Keith Kissack" - could simplify to: However, both the site of the battle and the specific bridge involved are under debate. The local historian Keith Kissack....
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "In 1297 Edward I provided a murage grant in favour of Monmouth, in response to a request from his nephew Henry of Lancaster." Commas! In 1297, Edward I provided a murage grant in favour of Monmouth in response to a request from his nephew, Henry of Lancaster.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Do we need to describe what a murage is if it's linked?
  • Red XN - Personally, I think the one-liner helps, but happy to remove if others disagree.

Didn't really want to write out any more comma/sentence structure things, below are remaining thoughts

  • First sentence in 15th–19th centuries could be split into two, currently is a run-on
  • Green tickY Done. By splitting.
  • "In 1839, the gatehouse was garrisoned during the Newport Rising, the authorities fearing a Chartist attack which did not materialise." - not sure what this sentence is saying due to grammar, perhaps reword
  • Green tickY Done. Hope the re-wording makes it clearer.
  • "a double-decker bus attempted to cross the bridge into Monmouth, caused very significant damage" - damage to the bus or the bridge (or both)?
  • Green tickY Done. Both, I'd imagine. But I clarified as I think we're concerned about the damage to the bridge.
  • "the gatehouse was formally re-opened, on a weekly basis, in 2014." - does this mean the bridge is only open once a week? Clarify.
  • Green tickY Done - it is indeed only open once a week.
  • "In 1795 J. M. W. Turner sketched the bridge and gatehouse during one his annual Summer sketching tours." - missing word, comma after 1795, summer need not be capitalized
  • Green tickY Done.
  • The gatehouse stands 11.00 metres (36.09 ft) high. - specify if above the bridge deck or above water level or above ___.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • Are other examples of bridge towers necessary at the end of Architecture and appreciation? Perhaps as see also links - I find the discussion of bridge towers in general to be off topic.
  • Personally, I think giving a couple of other examples of the type gives a helpful context. There aren't any others in the UK, apart from Warkworth, and Frias and Pont Valentré are closer in design appearance to Monnow Bridge. But others may take a different view, and I'm fine to remove if they do.

Sorry for the heavy-handed review, but the grammar could use some work and is not currently FA-worthy. Regards, "Pepper" @ 04:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary. I'll go through to see I've removed all the unnecessary titles, and to do a further check on commas and general accessibility. If you had time to do so as well, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Working through it - came across a few more things:
  • Kissack describes the engagement as "the most resolute Royalist attack made (on) Monmouth" which saw eight of Kyrle's opponents killed and five captured." - something going on with the quotes, not sure what's a direct quote and what's not.
  • Green tickY Done.One set of quotes too many.
  • "bequeathed a sum of about £120, the rent from his lands and houses" - rent for how long? yearly?
  • Green tickY Done. "annually.
  • "The bridge was also used as a focus for significant local and national celebrations; in 1891, it was decorated with flags and lights to commemorate the coming of age of John Maclean Rolls, eldest son of Monmouthshire grandee Lord Llangattock; and as an unofficial advertising hoarding." - if you could reword this one for simplicity; breaking into multiple sentences is always a good way to go. I'm not sure if I understand the sentence enough to modify it without being sure that I'm not changing the meaning.
  • Green tickY Done by splitting.
  • Many thanks. Let me know what I need to do as a consequence.
  • Green tickY In an effort to save you a job, I've had a go myself. Hope I haven't missed any/many?
  • At the beginning of 20th–21st centuries, you say the conservation program went until 1902, but the example you give as the end of the conservation work ended in 1897. Clarify on these dates to make it match.
  • Green tickY Done. Internal works continued until 1902. Also moved the paragraph re. lights to improve chronology.
  • Green tickY Done. "downstream".
  • "The bridge is constructed of seven types of stone, predominantly Old Red Sandstone, quarried within 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) of Monmouth." - was all the stone quarried within 16km, or just the Old Red Sandstone? Grammatically clarify. "Pepper" @ 04:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY Done. "all" the stone.


Great, thanks for fixing that all. I fixed a few straggling MOS:LQ errors - it can be a tricky style requirement! Some last thoughts, and then I'll be happy to support:

  • I think you've made me more confused about "bequeathed a sum of about £120, the rent from his lands and houses" - are you saying that each year, the poor guy got paid £120 from the people living on his land and in his buildings, and then immediately turned over the money to the mayor so his people wouldn't have to pay the toll? (If so, sounds like he got ripped off.)
  • I've had another go. See if it works. You're right, except Jones was dead so maybe he cared less! I think what the source is saying is that, in his will, Jones left the revenues from his Bayliepitte rentals to the corporation in perpetuity, provided they give an exemption from tolls on fair days. It's a charitable bequest on behalf of his fellow citizens of Monmouth.
  • Consider changing the wording of "Until their banning in 1858, youths from both sides of the bridge would gather..." - I'm assuming it was the "occasions" that were banned and not the youths.
  • Green tickY - Done - by making clear it's the muntlings, not the youths, that were banned.

Really appreciate your input. It's tightened up the grammar and improved the clarity, to the great benefit of the article. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you have a support from me, with a closing remark. I was taught that in technical writing, starting by clearly stating the conclusion is a good way to provide the reader with a "sneak preview" of the what they will be reading. In encyclopedia articles, that fairly easily translates into 'start with a definition and the most important aspects.' What, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of the bridge? It's uniqueness? Age? Artistic value? Whatever it is, I think that's what the first sentence should contain. (And conversely, given that you most likely didn't answer "how far upstream the bridge is from the confluence of the Wye and the Monnow", that info may not belong there.) All the best. "Pepper" @ 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed - for the review and for the support. I take your point about the hook, and will give this a bit more thought. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

edit

I took part in the peer review and was then already pleased with the article, and some minor changes made. Reading once more, just a few comments:

13th–14th centuries

  • First we have stone bridge, building + date and it's sources, then wooden bridge, then suddenly the tower. How about a paragraph Before the stone bridge (you'll find a better header), about the wooden bridge and perhaps why there was a bridge at the location?
  • This one requires a bit of thought. I'll come back to it.
  • Green tickY Done - I hope. I've flipped the order of the first two paragraphs so that they all run chronologically: wooden bridge, then stone bridge, then gatehouse. I didn't want to re-write too extensively, but I hope it meets the need.
  • I like the order. Perhaps give the beginning an extra header, because 13th century doesn't match the timber dating ;)
  • Could the 1610 map go closer to what it depicts, - not the wooden bridge, but where it's mentioned a para later?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "As well as providing some defence ..." takes a long time until we know the subject of the sentence, - simpler? Especially since the defence function is questioned by some historians.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, by simplifying.

15th ...

  • "Since then, the structure has remained essentially unchanged, through regular maintenance and repair." I am not sure that I understand "through" here.
  • Green tickY Done. Hope it's clearer.

20th ...

  • "the cruciform arrow slit on the front, left, of the gatehouse was restored to make it symmetrical", again not sure how to understand, this time the "left".
  • Green tickY Done. Again, I hope it's clearer.

Architecture ...

  • "having a flat, "Caernarvon", head." - I may be wrong but think quotation marks AND commas are too much, just one might do.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • 'and "illustrate(.) a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments."' - (.) looks irritating (to me). How about 'and illustrate "a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments.' or 'and show/demonstrate "a significant stage in bridge engineering or technological developments.'?
  • Green tickY Done. Gone with the first.
  • "the other example being" - as there are only these two, how about "the other being"?
  • Green tickY Done.
  • "Such bridge towers were common across Europe and, to a lesser extent, in Great Britain, from medieval times." - what's the function of the comma before "medieval"?
  • Green tickY Done by removal.

Sources

  • I was taught to write "J. S. Bach", so believe it should be "Barley, M. W." etc.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, assuming I got your meaning.
  • I was taught to have isbn numbers all long or all short.
  • Green tickY Done, as short version, again, if I got your meaning.

That's it from me, good luck! A great topic, served well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda - your comments are much appreciated, here and at the Peer Review. I'll address these as soon as I can. One quick query - long or short isbns. Are these with or without hyphens? KJP1 (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now addressed, I hope, with the exception of the first, which requires a bit of thought. I'll get back to that this evening. I've gone with short isbns, assuming I was correct as to your meaning. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased, thank you! I should have been clearer about short vs. long isbn, - I didn't mean with or without hyphen, but ten digits or 13. I do without hyphens when in a rush, but with hyphens is easier to read. It's nothing I am particularly picky about, but have seen others requesting uniform style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I'll go through and make them uniform, with hyphens. But it'll have to wait until this evening! KJP1 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt, I think we're done, but let me know if I've missed something. Again, many thanks for your input here, and at peer review. It's much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my pleasure! Just one comment above, but however you solve that, it has my support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

edit

Leaning support, just a few things.

  • "Much of the medieval development of the town of Monmouth was funded by the taxes and tolls the borough was entitled to raise through Royal Charter." This does not appear to be mentioned or cited in the body.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope, by the addition of a sentence at the end of the 4th paragraph of the 13th-14th centuries section.
  • "However, this is unlikely, as the gatehouse did not come into the possession of the Somersets until the 19th century." I might add a "the duke's family," before "the Somersets"
  • Green tickY Done.
  • " "typical of the late thirteenth century and (.) developed from plain loops; the horizontal slits allowed an increased field of view from within." The parenthesised full stop is intended as an ellipsis or similar? Is this an ENGVAR thing?
  • Done. No, just a KJP1 error thing! Have re-worded to make it unnecessary.
  • "A depiction of the bridge in stained glass by Charles Eamer Kempe can be seen in the Memorial of the Boer War window in St Mary's Priory Church." I might add an "in Monmouth" to the end.
  • Green tickY Done.
  • You refer to "Monnow Bridge Gate" once. Is this just a variation on your usual terms? By the way, I'm not quite sure where the line between "Monnow Bridge" and "Monnow Gate" is, exactly, in the prose.
  • Green tickY Done. By replacing with "gate". I think it's a relic of earlier confusion with consistent terminology between Monnow Bridge, Monnow Bridge Gate, Monnow Bridge Gatehouse, Monnow Bridge Tower etc. etc. All of which really means one and the same thing, the bridge and the gatehouse upon it. Hope it's consistent now.
  • Do we know when the tolls stopped?
  • Comment - a very good point! I certainly didn't have to pay them, as a school boy, even when accompanied by five fat hogs. I shall see if Rowlands gives us an answer but I don't remember reading it.
Very interesting and I shall make a point of visiting it if I ever happen to be nearby.-Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, very glad you liked it; the bridge, and the town, are certainly worth a visit. Thanks very much indeed for your comments. All very helpful, and I hope I've addressed them satisfactorily. Let me know, if not. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Support very enjoyable. It sounds like it would be worth a visit just to see if school boys are still accompanied by five fat hogs. . .--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

edit

generally it seems like every image is in the ideal section:

Images could use ALT text. As an aside, is "Monow" an acceptable alternative spelling? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not in the 21st century, but was probably ok in 1818. Many thanks for the review - I shall look to pick these up tomorrow. I've left a note on your Talk page as I may need a little guidance. KJP1 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jo-Jo is suggesting that for File:Old map of Monmouth, Wales.jpg and File:The Monow Bridge, Monmouth. (3375370).jpg you need to replace {{PD-old}} with {{PD-scan|PD-old}}. File:Monnow Bridge (3).jpg seems to have come from the Monmouth Museum, at least from the user name, so that could be added to the source. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hchc2009, many thanks. I'll look to do these tonight, along with addressing Harry's comments, and then see where we stand. I think it will only leave a source review, subject to any further comments John may have. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Geni

edit
  • The bridge is one of only two surviving fortified bridges in the United Kingdom

Strictly no. There are a number of WW2 pillboxes on bridges such as The one at Putney Bridge tube station.

©Geni (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting picture, and an interesting idea, but I don't think it is was what Historic England, Coflein, British Listed Buildings, had in mind when they, not me, described Monnow Bridge and Warkworth Bridge as the only two remaining fortified bridges in Britain. I think the pillbox is a later, supplementary addition to the Putney Bridge. Added to assist in its defence, certainly, but not, I think, making Putney Bridge a fortified bridge in the sense meant. KJP1 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from John

edit

Oppose on prose. Needs a polish to meet the standard. We could start with the seven "however"s. --John (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John - Thanks for your interest in the article. I wonder if you could give a little more detail regarding your concerns. I think the progress of the FAC to date shows I'm more than willing to amend the article in response to editors' comments, but you haven't given me very much to go on. I can, and shall, look at the uses of the word "however" but, beyond that, I'm not sure how to respond. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed some "however"s and moved others. KJP1 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"However" isn't banned, but it's a widely mis/overused word and seven in a few thousand words is probably too many. There's a temptation to use it as a device for flow. I'm not sure what it is about "however" above the lots of other words that are misused but it's one that comes up fairly often at FAC. I'll have a look over the prose when I get chance. I meant to do it today but I'm nursing a hangover! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful and much appreciated. Quite happy to plead guilty to overuse, although I think part of the objection might relate to that old "rule" about beginning a sentence with the word - which is pretty obsolete these days. But a check over the prose would be of great assistance. Close textual analysis can be very beneficial for a hangover! KJP1 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're now down to two "howevers", I think, and one of those is a Rowlands quote, where he uses it to begin the sentence.

@John: - HJ Mitchell and I have addressed the seven "however"s. There's now only one and that's in a quote. I've also tried to smooth out some of the quotes, by removal or by merging. Could you let me know if you have any continuing concerns regarding the prose. If you do, it would be really helpful if you could detail them. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. The prose is much better now. I had a hack at it myself, and fixed the image formatting. I think the last outstanding problem is the date formatting; dates cannot be in YYYY-MM-DD form. John (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John: - Many thanks for the comments and the corrections in the body of the article. I'll look at the date formatting this evening. Just to ensure I get it right; the dates should be in YY-MM-DD form? KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! Thanks for putting together such an interesting and comprehensive article. I think it should be DD-MM-YYYY. Thee's a one-click tool that I usually use for this but it seems to be down at the moment. John (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - I shall try to do it manually, tonight or tomorrow. Thanks again and glad you found the article of interest. It is a fascinating little bridge. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was a hell of a lot easier! Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I figured it out. --John (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And appreciate the Support. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

edit
  • It might be worth noting the previous ambiguity of Monmouth's status in Wales, or at least its proximity to the English border
  • Green tickY Done. Have added an introductory para. in the History section, and a mention in the lede.
  • You use a lot of quotes. Everybody has their own writing style, of course, but you make much heavier use of quotes than I do in my articles. It can make the prose a little bit choppy in places and I wonder if some of them might be better paraphrased.
  • Green tickY Done, I hope. You're right, I've been criticised previously for my over-use of quotes. I'm fond of using them but have sought to merge/reword/remove all those that didn't seem essential. KJP1 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further fortification took place in 1839 What sort of fortification? And being so late, were they decorative or was there actually a use for a fortified bridge in the mid-19th century?
  • Green tickY Done, by removal. My confusion - Coflein's referring to the activity at the time of the feared Chartist attack, which I mention in the next para.
  • From 1889 to 1902, an extensive programme of conservation was carried out on the bridge, directed by Monmouthshire County Council So have the council got it back now? Because three paragrpahs up they're handing it over to the Duke of Beaufort. Okay, I see they get it back a few paragraphs later, so why were they spearheading conservation of a building that wasn't theirs?
  • Green tickY Done, by adding a bit from Rowlands. Even after ceding the gate, MCC retained responsibility for the bridge and also, it appears, maintenance responsibility for both. The Duke obviously struck a good deal!
  • You have This period of conservation ended with and then Concluding the 1889–1902 renovations in the next sentence.
  • Green tickY Done, by rewording.
  • Damage to the bridge and gate through accidents continued I would merge that sentence into the previous paragraph or move the last sentence of that paragraph into this one to keep the road accidents together
  • Green tickY Done, by merging as per first suggestion.
  • funding of £1.3M was secured from where?
  • Green tickY Done, it was local authority funding.
  • three machicolations I had to click the link; could really do with an explanation in the text rather than relying on the link
  • Green tickY Done, at first mention.
  • Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley describes them as "a very interesting arrangement" What does this add to the reader's understanding? If Mary Ellen Bagnall-Oakeley were a renowned expert her opinion might be worth quoting, but even then I just wouldn't bother for such a dull quote. It tells me nothing.
  • Green tickY Done, by removal.
  • "obstructed the portcullis had they been present" See what I mean about quotes? You don't need a direct quote there; because they would have obstructed the portcullis would do fine, and is that bit less wordy and easier to read.
  • Green tickY Done.

I'd suggest trying to work some of the quotes into the prose proper and I made a few edits which had the happy side effect of removing the last remaining "however" that's not part of a quote. If John has concerns beyond that, he'll have to elaborate and I'll see what I can do (I'm watching this page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry - many thanks indeed for the comments. Unfortunately, things got in the way last night, but I shall get to them in the next day or so. I get the point re. the quotes. I'm very fond of them, but this isn't the first time I've been accused of over-use! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 04:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, and now actioned. Sorry for the slight delay - real life intrusions. I hope the amendments meet the need. I'll now try and action the image copyright suggestions made above and ping John to see if he has any further issues with the prose. That will, I think, address all outstanding comments, although a sources review is still needed. KJP1 (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Harry, am out of the country from next week, and won't have access to the books. Be very grateful if it were possible to finalise this before then. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm happy that my comments have been addressed. I have a couple of books which cover the Monnow Bridge in passing (Martin Cook's Medieval Bridges, which is cited in the bibliography, and R Cragg's Civil Engineering Heritage: Wales and West Central England) and the article is consistent with the descriptions in those sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Harry - Very much appreciated and many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Nev1

edit

Support with particular reference to criteria 1b and 1c. Nev1 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very much appreciated, as was your Peer Review. KJP1 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit
  • Everything that needs a cite has one.
  • Excellent.
  • I fixed a few "p."s that should've been "pp."s
  • Many thanks.
  • You have "pp. 16–18", but "pp. 122–3". Should probably be consistent.
  • I'll work through these to make them consistent but it may not be until Friday. Out of interest, does MoS prefer one over the other?
  • This one is definitely fine. Although it is self-published, it was for many years the "official" on-line record for listed buildings in Britain. It's true that it has now been superseded by the Historic England site [32], but it has some useful additional details and much/most of the text on the HE site is a straight lift from the BLB site.
  • @Hchc2009: I'm a bit less sure about this one. It looks fine but I've pinged Hchc2009 who may well have a view. Given the text is taken from, and attributed to, Rowlands, I could probably re-cite the note to Rowlands if people preferred that.
  • Green tickY Done - with a cite direct to Rowlands.

Very grateful for the source review and the time taken. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • British Listed Buildings uses republished government sources (in this case, Cadw). I can't work out which source they got this one from within Cadw (otherwise I'd recommend simply linking to the original) but it was certainly reliable as of 2005.
  • CastleWales I'd be less confident about for the purposes of the Wiki... although the webpage in question does come from Rowlands, M.L.J. 1994, Monnow Bridge and Gate, Stroud: Alan Sutton Publishing Ltd. as you note. I'd recommend attributing to Rowlands, and then citing that it was reproduced on the webpage (which is where you've actually read it). I have no reason to believe that CastleWales would be misrepresenting Rowlands original text. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All right, with that done I'm happy to support as to sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from KJP1

edit

Note to the coordinators: I think we now have nine Supports and green lights from the Image and Source reviews. My sincere thanks to all who went to the trouble of reviewing and who thought the article worthy of support. If it were possible to conclude the FAC fairly promptly, it would be much appreciated, as I'm abroad from next week and won't be able to access any of the sources again until early June. KJP1 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, many thanks for wrapping this up so promptly. KJP1 (talk) 09:25, 7 May 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) 22:25, 6 May 2017 [33].

Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)

edit
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I am taking a short break from putting Russell family-related articles through the FAC process to put forth something different. This article is about an episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Voyager. It is the 14th episode of the first season and was first broadcast by UPN on May 8, 1995. In this episode, a Vidiian scientist Sulan (Brian Markinson) separates B'Elanna Torres (Roxann Dawson) into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded human in order to find a cure for a disease. The Voyager crew rescues Torres and restores her, while she attempts to reconcile with her identity as a half-human half-Klingon. It was developed as a character study to further explore Torres' internal struggle with her identity. Dawson was originally resistant to the episode, but later identified it as one of her favorite performances. It has also been the subject of racial criticism and study. The episode's final sequence garnered negative reviews from critics and fans for the lack of empathy shown to Torres by the rest of Voyager's crew.

I very much enjoyed working on this article, as it was one of my favorite episodes in the pre-season 4/pre-Seven of Nine parts of the series. I looked to other FAs on television episode, and incorporated my own experiences with my successful FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" while writing and revising this article. I was also partially inspired by the successful FAC for "Yesterday's Enterprise" to pursue this nomination. I believe that it satisfies all of the FA criteria. I look forward to hearing your feedback and growing as a writer and a Wikipedia contributor. Thank you in advance!

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit

Clearly some great work has gone on here, so well done. Just a few points:

  • Thank you for your help so far! I apologize if I am interrupting in the middle of a review, but I just wanted to let you know that I have addressed your comments. I look forward to hearing further from you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nana Visitor, who plays Kira Nerys in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" - "played", rather than "plays", given that we are discussing events in the 1990s. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her to understand her character well enough to play her" - again, a few too many instances of "her" in quick succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Faces" was first broadcast on May 8, 1995, on UPN at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time." Probably worth specifying that this was in the United States. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was first released for home media use on VHS in the United Kingdom in 1995 as part of a two-episode collection with "Cathexis".[29] The episode was first released on DVD as part of the first season release on February 24, 2004, in the United States.[30] This was followed by a release in the United Kingdom in 1996,[31] which was subsequently re-released in the following year.[32] " Something is wrong with the chronology and dates here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was positively received by the cast and crew, for its representation of Torres' internal conflict over her half-human half-Klingon identity. " - the comma here does not work. Instead I would put one after "half-human". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to deal with her internal struggles with identity" - repetition of "with"; perhaps "internal identity struggles". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fantastic work, Aoba. I'd like to see the above issues dealt with but there is noting here that I feel prevents this article from being appointed as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from adamstom97

edit

A few notes:

  • The Nielsen rating line in the lead has an extra '"' in it.
  • The phrase "In the episode's first draft aliens, using" reads oddly to me. I feel something more like "In the episode's first draft, aliens used" would be better.
  • The article doesn't have a full listing of the series regular cast anywhere, which I suppose is just being left to the main series/season articles. The only reason I mention it is that as someone who is unfamiliar with the show, the way some of the other cast members and their characters are discussed throughout the article was a bit confusing.
  • Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean, and I would be more than happy to hear suggestions on how to better convey the information regarding the regular cast. I could add in a separate section following the "Plot" section about the cast. I was primarily basing this article around other FAs on Star Trek episodes, such as "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Space Seed", and "The Man Trap". Aoba47 (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Adamstom.97: Thank you for your response. After giving the idea further thought, I am left a little uncertain about the value of listing the main cast in this particular case. I think it is beneficial for The Dirty Half Dozen and I really like the way that you have done it there. However, this episode is focused in on a select amount of characters from the show, with specific attention paid to B'Elanna Torres. Several major characters such as Kathryn Janeway and Neelix have relatively minor roles. My only concern would be listing a lot of cast members and characters' names in the lead and the "Casting and filming" section, and only a handful of them really having a major impact in the actual episode (since for all intensive purposes, it was conceived as more a character study). I hope this makes sense, and I hope that I do not come across as rude as I do greatly appreciate your feedback and suggestion. I will have to think about it further if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I completely understand. Perhaps you would consider just stating the actor and character together when introducing them in the prose throughout the article similarly to how you do so in the plot section? For instance, you have "Commander Chakotay (Robert Beltran)" in the plot section, and then the next mention of him is not until the casting and filming section where I had basically forgotten this since the article is mostly focused on Dawson and Torres. Would it be beneficial to start that sentence in the casting and filming section with "Robert Beltran, portraying series regular Commander Chakotay, said he felt..." and so on, just to give the readers a bit of help once they are into reading all the production info? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other then that, this is a great article and a good read. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reidgreg

edit

I did some copyedit on this article a few months ago, if that's a COI. In any case, here is some optional advice:

  • Infobox – Episode no.: The link on the numeral 1 could be confusing. Perhaps to better reflect the link's target, it could be piped over Season 1.
  • I am sorry, but I am having a brain fart moment. Could explain this part to me? I am sure it is good advice, and I would be more than happy to apply it to the article, but I just would like some clarification if that is okay. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. My issue was that Season 1 is not ideal linking. But the "Season" part is generated by the infobox, so a fix wouldn't be as simple as I had assumed. A workaround could cause problems, so I'm afraid I don't have any good advice on this one.
    No worries; I simply removed the link to avoid any unnecessary confusion for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox – guest appearances: hyphens shouldn't be used as separators (hyphens bring things together, dashes separate them). These should be replaced with en dashes (wiki: &ndash;) or, alternatively, colons or commas. If the en dash threatens an undesired line wrap, you could change the bulleted list to an {{unbulleted list}}.
  • Development: Torres into human and Klingon parts as part of an experiment, to improve the prose from the repetitive "part" while keeping to plain English, I'd suggest replacing "parts" with "individuals" or "halves".
  • Redundancies/conciseness: there's an "along with" which could be just "with", "spent some time considering" could be "considered", "was also available" could be "was available", "Harrisson also noted" could be "Harrisson noted".
  • Clarity: In Sulan examines the Klingon Torres as she experiences extreme agony from the Phage does as mean he examines her because she is experiencing agony, or that he examines her while she is experiencing agony? It's a subtle difference, but at the FA level is probably worth rephrasing – although there are other plot issues to be addressed first (see below).
  • Two other cases of as with the because/while ambiguity: Torres was more manipulative than Beauty from the fairy tale, as she uses her sexuality and the Klingon should receive more prominent attention of the two, especially as Torres struggles with that side of her identity throughout the series.
  • Production: Between Writing and Casting and filming, there are about six sentences that don't especially fit and might be moved to a new section, Production design. (This would be for the sentence about the jungle location changed to caves, tying in with budgetary concerns that had the episode produced near the end of the season, the set construction, make-up, and the Emmy nomination for make-up.)

There have been updates to MOS:TV in the last couple months, and these affect parts of the article. I would consider this optional, but here is my advice if you want the article to be MOS-compliant:

  • The Plot section is 545 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. I can see shaving off 50 words fairly easily, but 150 would mean some serious cuts. Let me know if you want specific advice on cuts.
  • Thank you for the comment. I would greatly appreciate some more specific advice on what to cut as I am having difficulty. I have removed and reworded some things, but I am having difficulty with finding what to remove without taking away the context for a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cut it down to 400 words. I would still be more than happy to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You did a good job reducing the plot! Some things I might change:
    • The second sentence is a little long and could be broken, with the part after the parenthesis integrated into the third sentence as: He infects Klingon Torres with the Phage, a deadly disease afflicting his species, to study her genetics since Klingons have a natural immunity.
    • A little further down, it might read better if you broke from the chronology slightly and tied together the two parts about her Klingon heritage, then the two parts about Sulan's attraction: Klingon Torres expresses pride in her Klingon identity, though she remembers hiding her Klingon heritage as a child. Recognizing Sulan's attraction to her, she tries to seduce the scientist and escape, but his desire to find a cure overcomes his lust.
    I believe those changes would knock it down to 380 words, which gives you a little room to add something back in. Nothing seems to be missing, though. (I suppose, just for fun, you could put in the stardate.)
    Thank you for the suggestions. I have revised the plot suggestions with your ideas. I am very happy with how the section turned out, and I prefer it now that it is more concise. I think I will leave out the stardate to avoid putting some so in-universe as one of the first things in the body of the article to avoid confusing an unfamiliar reader. I agree that everything appears to be covered so I am happy with how it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also recommended in TVPLOT to avoid having actor's names in the plot section. So, more reason for a short cast section (and that will also remove a quick 17 words from the plot section). Check MOS:TVCAST for recommendations if you want to go forward with that.
  • Removed actor's names from the plot section. I am still not 100% convinced on the value of a cast section, especially when it has not been done for featured articles on television episodes. I think that the article does not necessarily require one, but I would be more than open to hear your suggestions on this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with the way you've done it in prose as the actors/characters are mentioned. Cast lists tend to be used at main articles because they're easier to update, but there is a general preference for prose over lists and you've done a good job.
    Thank you for the clarification. And that makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the article has been improved over the past few months, particularly the Racial analysis section. Good work! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Reidgreg: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed all of them. I had a brief question about the infobox, and I would greatly appreciate any help with cutting down the summary as I am having some difficulties with figuring out what to cut. Aoba47 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help; I definitely need to familiarize myself better with MoS so I will read through it more thoroughly in the near future. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • The first image is properly sourced and licensed. The Comic Con logo is de minimis, so there's no copyright issues.
  • The second image has an appropriate fair use rationale.
  • The captions for the images are fine.
  • For the alt of the first image, he is looking straight forward.
  • "while the one on the right has straighter hair and a uniform with a yellow strip." You mean left?

-- 1989 14:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Paparazzzi

edit
  • On "Plot" section: "overcomes his lust The human version..." I think there must be a full stop after "lust"
  • On "Casting and filming" section: The prosthetics and make-up for the Vidiians was handled.... Shouldn't it be "were"?
Wow, I think you did an excellent job with this article. Since my comments are only two, and are really easy to address, I support this nomination. Congrats, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

edit
  • "He separates her into a full-blooded Klingon and a full-blooded" - Klingon is already linked in the lead section
  • In the plot section, I notice that only the Ensign rank is linked but the others are not. I have no problem with this and am probably just nitpicking here
  • "Dawson clarified that "The Human" did not have strength or courage while the Klingon" - does "The Human" need to be in quotes here? I just thought this because it isn't quoted later on in the paragraph
  • "The episode was also available on numerous streaming video on demand services, such as Amazon Video iTunes, and Hulu." - the episode, along with the series, is also on Netflix. Is it worth mentioning that?

I'm going to support outright as I'm certain this meets the "well written" aspect of the FA criteria. I know that I've come to the FAC quite late and consequently haven't found any glaring issues to raise since the article already has been polished. Excellent work! JAGUAR  20:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krish!

edit

Comments from Vedant

edit

Sorry for joining in late, I'll put up comments shortly. NumerounovedantTalk 13:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries; this FAC has only been up for a couple of days (five days at the time that I am posting this actually), and I am very happy to have received so much feedback so quickly (so technically you are not late at all lol). I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment: I find it odd that the article goes on explaining the Nielsen ratings in the Broadcast and release section. I think it's totally irrelevant, and the wiki-link to the ratings' page suffices for the people unfamiliar with the ratings system. Do you have a specific reason for adding this bit? NumerounovedantTalk 19:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I just wanted to add that bit to make the meaning of 6.1/10 percent immediately clear to the reader without having to click to a separate page in order to decipher its meaning. I figured the percentage may not be as clear as a straight forward number (i.e. "The episode was viewed by a total of X million people" or "with Nielsen ratings of X") so I just wanted to make it as user/reader-friendly as possible. I can remove that part and revise the sentence if you believe that it is necessary, as I completely understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have remove the extraneous information and revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • I think the first sentence of the second paragraph fits better at the end of the first.
  • "restore" sounds really odd in context of a person, I understand what it implies buy is there really not a better word?
  • Remember that this is science-fiction narrative so it is not realistic. I personally do not take issue with the word "restore" considering this context. The show uses the word "reintegrate", but that also can sound odd in reference to a person. I would be open to hearing your suggestions, but again remember that narrative in general is pretty odd in the context of a person to begin with (splitting someone into two copies of themselves). Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The characters' makeup was conceived by Michael Westmore to emphasize the difference between them" - Not sure what this means. It somehow makes it sound like Westmore had something to do with the makeup looking a certain way. If that is the case it could be rephrase otherwise they could work better as two separate sentences.
  • I believe"ratings share" is more appropriate for Nielsen score (rather than "percent")
Production
  • There is an awfully long quote in the section immediately after the "Phage" entry. See if you maybe trim/paraphrase parts of it.
  • I believe that the Emmy nomination for prosthetic make-up belongs in the reception section, but since it has more context here I'll it you to decide.
  • I feel better with putting closer the information on the prosthetic make-up to provide a fuller context rather than throwing it down in the "Critical reception" subsection, where it really doesn't flow or fit with any of the discussions going on there (which primarily focus on Torres as a character and Dawson's performance). Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with the use of "human"/"Human" when referring to Torres.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 06:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The section looks good to me. Just a couple of suggestions:

  • The opening sentence of the Critical Reception part can be better. Simply saying that the reviews were largely positive and following it with a review works fine, but the mention of the aspects that were praised (and maybe an extra review focusing on some more aspects) would elevate the part.
  • "Allen Kwan also cited the episode's final scene as a negative commentary on race in his article "Seeking New Civilizations: Race Normativity in the Star Trek Franchise". Kwan wrote that Torres'" - In such cases, use a pronoun instead of repeating the name.
  • ""Faces" and its focus on the character of B'Elanna Torres have been the subject of analysis on race." - I think that it would be more appropriate if you simply said that "The focus on the character of B'Elanna in the episode...". The current version suggests that the episode drew attention for more than racial storylines as well.
  • Revised. I used "the character of Torres" instead as I refer to the characters through their last names so I want to make sure that I am consistent throughout with this in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks fine. NumerounovedantTalk 20:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have my Support. Great work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 20:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tintor2

edit

All sources seem to be reliable whereas the urls are archive. The only thing that makes me wonder is how confusing Den of Geek takes to Dennis Publishing. Nevertheless, the article passes the source review.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the source review! It appears that Den of Geek is redirected to Dennis Publishing, and I can completely understand your confusion about this as it is a little jarring to click something and lead to an article with a different name. It seems that Dennis Publishing publishes Den of Geek along with several other items. I have revised the reference slightly to better reflect that. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I believe that this FAC has received enough feedback/comments to warrant promotion; it also received an image review and a source review. I honestly did not expect this to go so quickly. Thank you to everyone that commented on this! Aoba47 (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are almost there. I'd just like a little more of a look at the prose as I think it could be tightened slightly. If I can't find someone to have a look, I'll recuse and do so myself. In any case, there's no great rush as this isn't even two weeks old yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanguard10

edit

I enjoyed reading the article. I do not like to criticize others, especially when so much work has been put into this. However, consider the following points.

  • The plot section is completely without attribution. I do know that it is acceptable for any reader to watch a film or watch a TV show and then write a plot section in Wikipedia. However, the standard for a FA are very high. If Wikipedia lowers the standard and permits no citations because they are very hard or impossible to find, should such lowering of standards be allowed for FA's? I cannot answer this except to say that reviewers should think very hard before allowing an article to become a FA when a critical section has no citations. Perhaps somewhere out there is an episode review, like a movie review? If so, that could be the citation.
  • To the best of my knowledge, plot sections do not require citations as the episode itself is the citation. If a citation is absolutely necessary (and again I do not believe it is so according to Wikipedia policy), then I would cite the episode directly as an episode review would not be appropriate in this case. I am not entirely certain where the "lowering the standards" part is coming from as this is done for a majority of the FAs on television episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a TV episode is, in my opinion, extremely difficult to write to meet FA standards. As mentioned, the plot is extremely subject to interpretation. It would be far easier if one reviewed the written script and knew what was in Act I, Scene I; Act I, Scene II; Act II, Act III etc. To just have a freehand version without citations or just adding a citation as the TV episode is really against what Wikipedia is all about. One administrator wrote regarding another Wikipedia article "We'll need a direct source, not what you saw on TV, and it should be reported by more than just one news outlet." This comment was not about any article up for FA consideration but just a regular article. I fully realize that it can be very frustrating to the editor trying to bring an article to FA status. I don't know the answer. I will leave it up to the FA reviewers. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will just have to agree to disagree on this on this one. Citing the episode is enough support as if someone really wanted to check the information for accuracy, then he or she can watch the episode cited. Respectfully, I am not seeing the issue here regarding this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the information given has only one source and it is an opinion. For example, "Faces" was first broadcast on May 8, 1995..." has only one source but more probably exists and this is factual, so only one citation is fine. Compare that with "The episode was positively received by the cast and crew for its representation of Torres' internal conflict over her half-human, half-Klingon identity". That sounds like an op-ed and lacks more than one citation if even one citation. Political articles in Wikipedia are subject to a lot of fighting because opinions are gleaned from one source and then only one opinion is presented.
  • This was more of a topic sentence that reflected what was being discussed in the paragraph. I always use this resource when constructing "Reception" sections for fictional characters and television episodes, which suggests that "For each paragraph come up with an overall statement of what the paragraph will tell the reader, and use this to create a thematic opening sentence." I would just encourage you to remember the context and content of this article. This is not an article on politics, but an article on television, and the expectations and rules on style is different from political articles most likely. Hopefully, this makes my point clearer. Thank you again for the comment, as I do greatly appreciate you for taking the time to provide comments on this. It is always good to get more eyes on an FAC to get different viewpoints so I hope that I do not sound rude as I just want to offer my viewpoint and open a space for discussion with you as I do value your viewpoint as well. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sentences lack citations. I would recommend going through with a fine tooth comb and see that if a sentence does not have a citation, there is a reasonable explanation for why it's not needed or that the facts are not that important. Again, that is a high bar but FA's are supposed to be Wikipedia's finest work.
  • Everything in the article does have citation. I do not put citations repeatedly (i.e. if two or more sentences in a row are from the same source, then I use use the citation in the last sentence to avoid unnecessary repetition) so in fact everything does have a citation. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sufficient free-use images?
  • I believe there are enough images in this article. If you have any specific suggestions, then please let me know. I believe any additional images would be distracting from the actual content of the article. My reasoning is that I do not see any point in which more images would better illustrate any part of the article better to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be some information about actual production of this episode? There is mention of " It was originally going to be set in a jungle, but the location was changed to caves after director Winrich Kolbe calculated that the former idea would exceed the episode's budget.[8" but it might be interesting to expand this and even mention what the budget was.
  • To the best of my knowledge, there is not more information about this particular part of the episode and I do not have any information on the exact amount for the budget for this specific episode. I respectfully disagree with the claim that this article does not have enough information on the production of the episode when the article includes information on the writing, filming, and even some bits on prosthetic work so I do not fully understand your comment for this context. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-section "Separation of B'Elanna Torres" doesn't fit into Production. It is more of an analysis of the plot.
  • I respectfully disagree completely on this. The first paragraph focuses on Dawson's approach to the character and performance, the second paragraph focuses on how the scripts were written and given to Dawson and Biller and Dawson's perspective on the storyline, the third paragraph is about the use of a photo double, and the fourth paragraph is about the filming. I do not see how this relates to anything, but the production of the episode. Also, I would caution you to view this as "an analysis of the plot" when all of the information being presented is from people directly involved in the show, and not third-party critics or commentators. This section is somewhat similar to "The creature" subsection in the FA for "The Man Trap" in which it focuses on the production, filming, and cast and crew comments on a specific part of the episode. Hope this clears things up. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I know that writing an article to FA standards is very time consuming and difficult. I am not stating that this article should fail FA candidacy. I only say that there are some questions in my mind, some of which I present above. I hope it is acceptable to present these ideas in the hopes that the editors writing the article will take another look to see if it can be improved. Good luck in your quest. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vanguard10: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed them above. I respectfully disagree wth a majority of the points raised, but I greatly appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you. Just for clarity, I am the primary and only editor that expanded the article and brought it to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck! As mentioned before, I don't want to discourage anyone from getting an article promoted to FA status. It is a huge amount of work. Even if someone is not successful, that editor deserves a barnstar for all that article improvement made.
A final comment, consider a list of characters, actors who played those characters, director, and some of the production staff. This is an integral part of a TV episode, not just plot and some production information and analysis. qaStaHvIS yIn 'ej chep. (Klingon for "Live Long and Prosper") Vanguard10 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate that you took the time and energy to provide such extensive feedback, and stayed civil and positive while we discussed our differences in our opinions. You actually have inspired me a lot on how to better handles discussions in which editors may not see eye to eye on certain issues. If you look previously in this discussion (I am very fortunate to have received such amazing response, including yours), specifically the comments from adamstom97, then it can be seen that this idea for a character and cast list has been discussed and I think a fair compromise has been reached. This is still an interesting discussion to have though, and it may be helpful/beneficial to raise this talk page for the Manual of Style for television articles to gauge the opinion on using character/cast lists in television episode articles as I can see the value of it and it is always good to re-examine style guidelines to make sure that it helps all of the readers. Again, I hope I did not come across as rude for disagreeing with you as I really do appreciate your feedback and I have enjoyed our conversation. I look forward to working with you in the future, and seeing your future work as well. wo’ batlhvaD (For the honor of the Empire!) [Random side note, but you should check out the fact that they are going to be teaching the Klingon language on Duolingo if you have not already heard of it. It is interesting, and I have a special place in my heart for fictional languages through my linguistics B.A.) Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment is to have an objective and critical discussion about FA articles. If the criteria for promotion is to compare the article to Yesterday's Enterprise, which is a FA, then this one passes. If the criteria includes some of the topics discussed, then I leave it to the FA reviewers to make a decision. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gen. Quon

edit

A fun article to read. Some points:

  • Should Joy Kilpatrick be listed in the Guest appearance(s) section?
  • Added. I put Roxann Dawson's photo double as her role in the episode, but if you think something else would be better, then feel free to let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a free pic of Roxann Dawson that might work well in this episode, since it is largely about her character.
  • Just to be on the extra-safe side, I'd bulk up the "Purpose of Use" section on the FacesKlingonHumaTores.jpg image page.
  • I think the reference in the plot section is a bit superfluous. Since this is an article about the episode, and you're citing the episode to backup the episode's plot, it all seems unnecessary. But it's not a big issue, and it's up to you. If you do want to include a reference, I'd link to something like an official guide book, or the like. That's what I did for some of my FA episode articles (here's an example).
    Perhaps you can use the plot summary from the Ruditis book? <ref name=episodeplot>[[#ruditis2003|Ruditis (2003)]]: pp. 41–42</ref>
  • TrekNation is a fan site that doesn't really provide any references for its data. I found a reliable source that backs up the claim that the episode was the 77th ranked, and scored a 6.1, here:
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0EAF3FFED24C0EB4?p=AWNB|accessdate=May 1, 2017|work=[[Orange County Register]]|publisher=[[Digital First Media]]|date=May 17, 1995|page=F02}} {{subscription required}}</ref>
And for the source to back up the info about "Cathexis", I'd use this:
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/0EB52D74815B926E?p=AWNB|accessdate=May 1, 2017|work=[[Tampa Bay Times|St. Petersburg Times]]|publisher=[[Times Publishing Company]]|date=May 12, 1995|page=17}}{{subscription required}}</ref>
  • Do you have a citation for "'Faces' was first broadcast on May 8, 1995, on UPN at 9 pm Eastern Standard Time in the United States"?
  • I have added two sources (one for the day and another for the time). I actually got the time wrong so I greatly appreciate that you pointed this out so I could double-check this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, but I think page citations (e.g. Smith 1900, p. XYZ) should have a period at their end, to match with other citations.
  • There are several instances of dashes in the refs (e.g. 15, 31, the bibliographic entry for Delta Quandrant) that should probably be en dashes (that is, {{en dash}}).
  • Ref 12 (which points to The Star Trek Encyclopedia) doesn't have any page numbers, even though it appears it is a book source. Is this a mistake, or an issue with an e-book (I've been there)?

I hope this helps.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for adding in the sources as they are very helpful. I have addressed almost all of your comments. I will put in a source about the broadcast by the end of today. Thank you again for your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

edit

Recusing coord duties, I've copyedited that article so pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning, and that my wording is still supported by the references. One outstanding thing:

  • "The cast and crew considered the representation of the human and Klingon halves of Torres." -- this sentence just sits there; what exactly did they consider? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Thank you for the edits as they were very helpful to improving the article as a whole. Thank you for pointing out that particular sentence, as I am not sure how I missed that when reading through the article while revising everything during the FAC process. I think I was trying to make some sort of topic sentence like (The cast and crew paid close attention to the representations of the human Klingon halves of Torres during the production of the episode), but I left it as a sentence fragment for some reason and forgot to complete it. Looking through that particular subsection again, I do not believe the sentence is necessary as it is somewhat repetitive and I do not believe it adds much to the reader's understanding of this particular aspect of the episode's development outside of what is already in the subsection so I have removed the sentence altogether. I look forward to hearing your feedback on this and any other aspects of the article. I greatly appreciate your help with this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: If possible, I would appreciate an update on this. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 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, 6 May 2017 [34].

Joe Warbrick

edit
Nominator(s): Shudde talk 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the rugby union footballer who conceived of, selected, again captained the 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team that toured New Zealand, Australia and the British Isles. They averaged a game every 2.3 days while in Britain -- a ridiculous number -- and frequently had to field injured players just to compete with a full complement. The team was truly pioneering and consequently Warbrick was probably one of the most influential players of the 19th century. The article has been though GAC, FAC, and I've had the valuable feedback of a number of editors. I believe it's ready for FAC and look forward to any comments. Shudde talk 19:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The match was very ill-tempered, with each side accusing the other of rough play - do we need the "very" here?
exasperated his foot injury. - you mean, "exacerbated his foot injury", right?
I think it is worth putting a line in about the win/loss record of the England trip as reading it one is left wondering....

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've addressed those comments. I appreciate you taking the time to give it a read. -- Shudde talk 06:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

I'm commenting as an outsider to rugby, which I have never played. Despite that, the jargon of the game seems clear to me in the article, and I find Warbrick's story interesting and its abrupt ending painful to contemplate. I made quite a few minor copyedits as I went. Please revert any you disagree with. Here are further suggestions and questions:
Lede
  • "In 1888 Warbrick conceived of, selected, and captained the privately funded New Zealand Native team." – This closely mirrors part of the first sentence: "later captained and selected the 1888–89 New Zealand Native football team". Eliminate the repetition?
  • I have tried something. It's not drastic, as I like the opening sentence of an article to firmly establish why a subject is notable. But hopefully my changes reduce the repetition a bit.
  • "He played for Auckland against the first overseas team to tour the country – New South Wales – in 1882. – Rather than using an Easter egg link, I'd suggest recasting to something like "In 1882, he played for Auckland against the first overseas team, the New South Wales Waratahs, to tour New Zealand."
  • I don't think it's too much of an Easter egg, but unfortunately I can't use Waratahs to disambiguate. New South Wales didn't pick up the moniker the Waratahs until a 1927–28 tour. The team in 1882 was actually known as the "Cornstalks"! I have tried to reword.
Background and early career
  • "... ,but eventually included several New Zealand-born, and foreign-born, Europeans... – Delete the three commas for better flow?
  • Done.
  • "Joe Warbrick was their third of five children." – Smoother would be "Joe Warbrick was the third of their five children."
  • Done
  • " His father married again after Joe Warbrick's mother died, and had a further seven children." – More clear would be "After Joe Warbrick's mother died, his father re-married and had seven more children."
  • Done
  • "at St Stephen's Native School in Bombay" – Readers from afar may mistake this for Bombay, India, at first. Maybe "in the former town of Bombay in the Bombay Hills of New Zealand"?
  • I've played with this, hopefully acceptable now.
  • "By 1879 he was living in Wellington, and represented the the province three times that season." – Rather than the Easter egg link to "the province", I'd suggest saying "represented Wellington province as a member of the Wellington Rugby Football Union".
  • Your suggestion doesn't quite work, but I've tried something. See what you think.
  • I think in this case it should be too much of an Easter egg, as it's referring to them as an overseas team and not a state or colony.
Preparations
  • "whose national side had already developed a strong rivalry" − Another Easter egg. I'd suggest saying, "whose national side had already developed a strong rivalry known as The Ashes" rather than surprising the reader with the unexpected.
  • The rivalry is not known as the Ashes (unfortunately). So I have tried a note instead.
  • "publican" – I would suggest "pub owner" to avoid confusion with Roman tax collector, another kind of publican.
  • Publican is a very common term in New Zealand English. I doubt too many people, in the context of the article, will think he was Roman tax collector.
Retirement and later life
  • "Warbrick accompanied her and when they moved into position, barely two minutes after the party had moved, the geyser erupted killing them all." — I can't be sure whether this means two minutes after she and Joe moved or whether it means that the whole party moved closer to the geyser. Would it be better and still accurate to say, "Warbrick accompanied her, and barely two minutes later the geyser erupted and killed the entire party."?
  • Yes. Changed.
Impact and legacy
  • Yes. Added some information. Also added a link to the film online.
@Finetooth: Thank you for your comments and edits. I checked through them and they're all very positive so thanks a lot. Hopefully I've addressed all your comments. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 11:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Very interesting article. I'm switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article mentions Warbrick playing against Tynemouth, but the link points to Tynedale RFC. The latter club are based in Corbridge, which is inland, a fair way from Tynemouth - could you check back with your source and see which it should be? There is no article for a Tynemouth club and none seems to exist now, but there could well have been in 1888. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcp67: Thanks for your comment. That's very well spotted. The source says that they played Tynemouth in North Shields on 7 November 1888. I'm not sure if the club still exists but havn't been able to find anything. For now I've removed the link. -- Shudde talk 07:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
  • You have "Auckland" (unlinked) and "Auckland" (linked) in the second para, the first I presume is the Auckland, while the second is pipelinked to Auckland rugby union team. The odd back-to-front linking and possible easter-egg issue means this needs more thought.
    • They were officially known as Auckland Provincial Clubs at the time so this fixes it I think.
  • "first overseas side" - "the first overseas side".
    • Changed.
  • " in 1882. In 1884" maybe some elegant re-wording here?
    • Tried something.
  • "in the British Isles, " vs " to visit Britain," are those the same thing?
    • I'm not sure I understand your question here.
      • Well Britain is usually England, Scotland and Wales, while the British Isles includes all manner of other islands... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes well both are correct. They played in Ireland (I don't want to get into the Britain versus British Isles for Ireland debate even though this was 1888-89, so I usually stick with British Isles when Ireland is included to avoid upsetting anyone). But were the first to visit Britain. -- Shudde talk 10:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warbrick effectively retired from rugby after returning from the tour except for a single match for Auckland in 1894," - maybe "from the tour, with the exception of a single appearance for".
    • Changed.
  • "He was killed by an eruption of the Waimangu Geyser in 1903." unusual turn of phrase, I'd be more specific, many eruptions of the Geyser have taken place, what, precisely, killed him?
    • I'm not sure how many ways there are for a geyser eruption to kill someone. But he was killed by the superheated water ejected during the eruption rather than by some other injury. I have expanded this sentence.
  • His position in the infobox is given as three-quarter yet that's not even mentioned in the lead.
    • Added
  • Also, his "New Zealand No." is given as 17, so I'm assuming that he was the 17th player to represent the All Blacks? Deserves more than just a passing mention in the infobox considering the first XV would have been 1 to 15...
    • I don't think it does. They played a match in Wellington (basically a pre-tour match) prior to departure to New South Wales. This was the first official match and where the numbering system would have started. As mentioned in the text Warbrick didn't make it to Wellington before the team departed so wouldn't have been able to play. So he wasn't one of the first 15 players (in retrospect) to play for New Zealand.
  • Grafton is in the infobox, but nowhere else.
    • I have removed this, Hastings and Hawke's Bay County from the infobox. He was quite itinerant and could well have played for a large number of clubs, but they don't all warrant discussion. In these cases though they've been added without references, and so I've removed them.
  • Ditto for Hastings.
  • And Hawke's Bay County.
  • I'm also seeing some odd parentheses in the Points for the national teams section of the infobox.
    • A number of changes have been made to the infobox over the last few months. I've left a note on the template talk page requesting a fix, as I havn't been able to fix this myself. This particular problem occurred very recently.
  • "Joe Warbrick was the third..." is Joe the same person as Joseph?
    • Yes, the nickname (and common name) is mentioned in the first sentence.
  • "While living in Bombay in 1877 he started " would expect a comma after 1877.
    • Added.
  • " well north of " doesn't feel encyclopedic.
    • What would you suggest?
  • "a record he still holds" see {{as of}}.
    • I'd never seen that. Added.
  • "By 1879 he was living in Wellington, and represented the provincial team three times that season" what season? You only mentioned the year of 1879, what "season" are you talking about?
    • I've added a note but it's referenced as per WP:BLUE
    • Rugby seasons are the same as the year in New Zealand, winter being mid-year. I could say "in the 1879 rugby season" but that seems a bit unnecessary.
  • " He again played three matches for " awkward, why not "He played three further matches..."?
    • Changed.
  • "visit by Wellington to Auckland, was won by the visitors " visit ... visitors, reads clunky.
    • Modified.
  • "and his goal in the match was the only score; many Aucklanders claimed that his performance was the difference between the two sides." this is undoubtedly true, but it seems like a statement of the obvious. Is there more to this than I'm reading?
    • Yeah this is a tough one. I actually found it hard parsing this in a way I was completely happy with. I thought it was good enough as is, but your comment makes me think again. I had included a quote from the source in the note to help clarify, the quote reads "In the early days in Auckland they used to tell us that Warbrick was the main factor in a match won by Wellington against Auckland – the one played in 1880." So if you have any suggestions I welcome them, because I'm a bit stumped!
  • "New South Wales became the" find that odd that it's a link to a team rather than the state, plus it's worth clarifying that it's an Australian entity.
    • I think because the statement reads "New South Wales became the first overseas rugby team " it shouldn't be a surprise it's referring to the team and not the colony, but I have reworded to explain that they're a colony (not a state at this point right? or were they a dominion?)
  • " first a 7–0 and then an 18–4 victory over the tourists." tighten, to just " 7–0 and 18–4 victories over the tourists."
    • Done.
  • "is now officially regarded as the first New Zealand representative rugby side.[15] " that is referenced by a single source from a 1968 reference. Is there more than this?
  • Could link Napier.
    • Done.
  • "against Wellington, and also against New South Wales – who were again touring" against, against, again. poor prose.
    • Modified.
  • "The first British Isles side visited New Zealand in 1888." why be so clandestine? Spell it out, a Lions tour and all that, is actually interesting and would give the opportunity to explain a little of that Lions history plus remove some of the Easter egg linking.
    • I am generally reluctant to use the term Lions as they weren't known as that for another 35 years, but if you insist I will change it. As for history, I tried not to add too much because it's a bit beyond the scope of the article. A little bit is mentioned about the team later in the article (in the "Preparations" section) but mainly as they relate to Warbrick and the Natives. But I will add a little something promptly, however if there is something specific you are looking for let me know.
      • I have expanded this a little and also managed to insert the Lions moniker in there. Let me know what you think.

I'm about half-way, I need to sleep, let me know how you get on with these trivial comments, and I'll do my best to get back soonest for the rest of the (very interesting) article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments as usual. I've replied to, or addressed your points as best I can. Let me know what further suggestions you have. -- Shudde talk 18:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, kids are nearly in bed, dinner is nearly on, I'll try to grab half an hour later to review your responses and finish reviewing the rest of the article. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "In early 1888 Warbrick announced plans to assemble a Māori side to face the visiting British during their tour,[26] but he later revealed a plan" plans ... plan, etc, lots of prose repetition here.
    • Modified.
  • "Initially 20 players were selected for the side – which was named the " no need for the em-dash here. Maybe just nothing or at best, remove "which was" and replace with a comma.
    • Done
  • General thought - is it worth a footnote to describe the manners of scoring and their relative worth? Some people (association football, MLB, fans) would read this thinking "high scoring!" while some others (union, American football) would be thinking, "low scoring!"?
    • It's not a bad idea. It's actually stupidly complicated because scoring values differed in different countries. I will add a note promptly.
  • Link Surrey appropriately.
    • Done
  • "The side continued to play regularly..." last side mentioned was Surrey...
    • Fixed.
  • "they averaged one game every 2.3 days " this is statistically accurate, no doubt, but I would just prefer to see it as how many games over how many days.
    • I prefer a per week figure -- gives a better comparison to modern day rugby teams. So I have gone with that.
  • "Warbrick only played twice more in the following month,[50] " okay, so if you're going to say "only" then tell me how many games he could have played in....
    • I think this can be extracted from the three games per week figure. So I don't think it's necessary to be that precise.
  • Link "tries", and also (thinking back to a previous comment) we need to ensure our readers know what the scoring regime was. These days, as you know, five points for a try (four points when I was a player)...
    • linked.
  • "where they had won 49, lost 20, and drawn 5" just "winning 49, ..." is tighter.
    • Changed
  • "However due to injury Warbrick only appeared in 14" firstly commas missing here, secondly, reiterate 14 matches.
    • Changed.
  • "eight other members played" members of what? you mean "team-mates" or something.
    • I would hope this is clear as in the previous sentence "the team" was discussed. I can't see how this can be interpreted as something else.
  • "a conversion against Devon.[50]" conversion and Devon could be linked.
    • Linked
  • "traveled" or "travelled"? I'd say the latter, be consistent.
    • Modified
  • "Victorian Rules Football" pipelinked to "Australian Rules Football " which redirects to "Australian rules football", please don't do that.
    • Fixed
  • You haven't linked Queensland, this is probably not the place to do it, but please link it somewhere, first preferably.
    • Done
  • "but the Queensland controversy still hung over the side." although this may be true, no inline citation for it.
    • The next citation (at the end of the following sentence) verifies this.
  • "and dismissed taking any further action" is "taking" required here?
    • I think so.
  • "played an early match in Gore " what's an "early match"?
    • Changed.
  • Link Widnes (who you haven't mentioned at all).
    • Modified
  • "the Natives had not lost a rugby game in 31 matches – the side had won 30 and drawn one match over that time." various issues, no need for "the side had", MOSNUM fail, etc etc maybe "the Natives had not lost a rugby game in 31 matches, winning 30 and drawing the other." or similar.
    • Modified
  • "tour remains the longest in the sport's history.[41][73]" see WP:ASOF again.
    • While I understand the intent behind this request, I wonder whether it'll really improve the article. If we say "as of 2017 the tour is the longest in the sport's history" then it kind of implies that this has a realistic chance of changing. It could, but the chances are so incredibly low it's possibly misleading to suggest it may. The days of touring teams is nearly over, the Lions being the only real exception, and even their tours are getting shorter and shorter.
  • "Five years later he" later than what (it's a new section)? And should we have a comma there?
    • Changed
  • Link Taranaki appropriately.
    • linked
  • " an Auckland paper wrote" do you mean a "newspaper"?
    • Yes and changed, but is paper wrong here? Or is this just my New Zealand English?
  • "Warbrick married Harriet Burt with whom he had one daughter" when?
    • I actually only found this information recently, and the source doesn't specify a year (for either event)
  • " Chief Government Guide" don't link tour guide there.
    • I was asked to link this by another reviewer. I'll keep as is for now unless you insist.
  • "of the 1888–89 Natives – the first New Zealand team to tour the British Isles –" is the reiteration really necessary here?
    • The only reason I placed this there (and I'm happy to remove it) as to emphasis that this fact alone meant that Warbrick had such an impact. Had they been the second or third team would their impact have been as great? I don't think so.

"The film was played for New Zealand's national team – the All Blacks – during their preparations for a match against Australia in 2009." suddenly a little too much explanation, we already know they're called the All Blacks, stick with that.

  • Changed
  • "Williamson, Martin. "A brief history of the Ashes Part One: England v Australia 1861 – 1888". remove spaces around the date range.
    • Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I have replied and addressed your comments as best I can. Hopefully I haven't missed anything. Thanks again for your comment. -- Shudde talk 11:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

ALT text seems good for me, and each image seems to be in a pertinent section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for that! -- Shudde talk 17:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GermanJoe. Hopefully this addresses your concerns Jo-Jo Eumerus ? -- Shudde talk 17:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – The nominator asked me for a review on my talk page, and it looks like this area in particular is what still needs attention. I went through the sources carefully, and other than a few minor formatting issues that should be simple to fix, everything looks good. This is what I found:

  • A link-checker inspection revealed that the links are in working order.
  • All of the sources appear to be reliable enough to meet FA's "high-quality" criterion.
  • The last reference in the list shows its publisher as ESPN. Shouldn't this be ESPNcricinfo instead, as that is the site where the article appears, not the main ESPN site?
    • Yes I think I've been told before (at a pervious FAC maybe) that this is correct. However it's technically "ESPN Sports Media Ltd" and I suppose the "work" is ESPNcricinfo. So I've gone and changed it. Hopefully this is correct. -- Shudde talk 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gallagher and Irvine references should have their publishers italicized, since they are print publications. If you don't want to use the newspaper= parameter of the cite templates (as those are the only news sources that aren't from newspaper archives), work= does the job just fine.
  • Time for a slightly annoying one: the ISBN numbers should all be of consistent length and style. This means that they should all be either 10 or 13 digits; WP:ISBN says that the longer style is preferred. To make achieving consistency easier, you can plug the numbers into this converter, which will even hyphenate the ISBNs if you want.
  • Am I correct in assuming that the McCarthy and Swan books are too old for ISBNs?
  • In the Other section, I see two instances each of New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Ministry for Culture and Heritage as publishers. Pick one style and stick with it consistently. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to comment here by Shudde. I actually gave this a look over before it was nominated and made a few suggestions at my talk page. Reading it again the only sentence that comes across poorly is He was killed in 1903 after him and the party he was guiding had ventured too close to the Waimangu Geyser and it erupted showering the group with superheated water. The rest seems fine. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 4 May 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) 21:57, 6 May 2017 [36].

Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service

edit
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The iconic Hawker Hurricane I fighter saw service with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force immediately prior to WWII, then during the April 1941 Axis invasion of the country. Later, the Partisan leader Josip Broz Tito negotiated the creation of two Royal Air Force fighter/bomber squadrons staffed by Yugoslavs, one of which flew ground support missions for the Partisans in 1944–1945 using the Hurricane IV. The aircraft was retired from Yugoslav service in the early 1950s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Logical presentation, easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Placeholder -- I reviewed/copyedited/supported this very interesting article at MilHist ACR, but will give others a chance to look it over and perhaps suggest their own improvements before I walk through here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think two weeks is time enough... No issues with any of the changes made since I reviewed at ACR; I just tweaked a couple of bits that I felt could stand improvement. Structure, prose, and level of detail seem appropriate for FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Formatting looks fine (I don't think we need "England" after "London" in the locations but no big deal).
  • Sources appear reliable; as far as the Niehorster website goes, I was initially in two minds since although he's apparently published several books I'm not familiar with the publishers, but OTOH he is used to support pretty routine info and little enough of that anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believer this article meets FAC standards. No suggestions for improvement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments

  • "Of the locally built aircraft, twenty were completed by Zmaj; the Rogožarski plant did not produce any." - "only twenty" would make clear the gap between the intent and the actuality
  • Added.
  • "41 of the original 44 Hurricanes" - this had me going back to re-read how the total had got to 44 - could the 44 number be included in the previous section?
  • Added.
  • "The raising of Yugoslav Partisan-manned squadrons" - "raising" is technically fine, but would "creation" or read more naturally for the average reader?
  • I get that, but I think raised it pretty standard for "creation" of units
  • "In January and February 1945, much better coordination was achieved..." it's a long sentence...
  • Split.
  • "until it was withdrawn from service on 18 August 1952" - the previous section ends in 1951; is there any way of avoiding the superficial tension between the dates? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, that's why I say there's a "superficial tension". But the previous section is concluding the history of the aircraft in service, so you would expect a final sentence saying when it finished in service. The lead, btw, says "Hurricanes remained in service with the post-war Yugoslav Air Force until the early 1950s." - could you repeat that at the end of the "Yugoslav Air Force" section? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 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) 21:44, 6 May 2017 [37].

Battle of Hochkirch

edit
Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Seven Years' War battle at which the Prussian army was resoundingly defeated by the Austrians. It was a surprise attack; Frederick the Great ignored all signs that the attack was coming, and he lost big chunks of his army, several generals, and much of his supplies. See the article for details!  ;) This is one of a series: Battle of Kunersdorf (another Prussian defeat), and two of Frederick's resounding victories, Battle of Leuthen and Battle of Rossbach (still in puberty). This article is expanded, has passed GA, MIlHist A-class review, and I offer it to you for your consideration. Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, yada yada (I don't have my macros on this computer!)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • This is NOT my subject area - so I don't know if Bodart is considered outdated in the field or not. But he is over 100 years old. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the use, it's not even a "red flag" but it is a concern.
  • Same holds for Longman.
  • this has been the "classic" study of FTG for years; subsequent studies use it. I didn't rely on it much, using instead the more modern versions.
  • Same for Malleson.
  • Malleson study is included to balance what could be a Prussia-centric narrative. Ultimately, it's a bit of lurid story-telling, but I didn't quote those parts.
  • Same for Ralli.
  • Ralli created a guide to Carlyle's massive study of Frederick the Great. TC visited all the battle sites. I used the Ralli work because it's shorter, more accessible.
  • Asprey in the Bibliography lacks a publication date. fixed.
  • Same concern on age for Robitschek.
  • this is one of the first specific studies (at least that remains) of the battle itself.
  • Re above: in addition, all these historians (except Bodart, who had nothing to say on the subject) agree that this was Frederick's blundering and arrogance that caused his loss here. This is not a new idea among historians; they've been writing about it since the 19th century & they think he brought this on himself. auntieruth (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to list a 1903 fiction book in the further reading section. removed
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these up for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps I don't know how to do this
  • Use |upright= - this scales the image relative to the user's preferences. For example, if you've set a default image size of 200px in your preferences, |upright=0.7 would display an image of 70% of 200px, or 140px. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Support: nice work, Ruth, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the Bibliography, are the OCLC numbers for Longman, Ralli, Robitschek, and Bodart? These can be found at worldcat.org done
  • in the Further reading section, same as above for Lindsay?
  • "Germany at War. Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History" --> "Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History"? done
  • "2014 2015" --> "2014–2015"? done
  • the Commons link should be moved to the top of the Further reading section done
  • in terms of Prussian losses, I couldn't find the "36,000" figure in the body of the article - is it possible to add this? done
  • in terms of Austrian losses, I couldn't find "7,300 men" in the body of the article, or "3 flags" - as above? done
  • "Ziethen and Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz..." link and add the full name of Ziethen here, or mention him earlier in the body done
  • suggestion cropping "File:Spruner-Menke Handatlas 1880 Karte 46 Nebenkarte 16.jpg" so that the black border forms the edge of the image done, but I cannot make the revised one show up in the article....:( AustralianRupert auntieruth (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

This is nicely written, well-illustrated, and interesting. As it happens, I do have a few minor questions and suggestions, but I'm leaning toward support.
Seven Years' War
  • "Britain also dispatched 7,000–9,000 troops [Note 1] to reinforce Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel's army." – A smoother phrasing might be "...to reinforce the army of Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel." done
Dispositions
  • "Hochkirch stands on slight rise in terrain..." – Missing word, "a"; i.e, "a slight rise"?done
  • "anxious of an attack" – Maybe "anxious about an attack"?done
Battle
  • Move the link to Croats in the second paragraph up to the first instance in the first paragraph of this section. Move the note up too?
  • "held it with sheer determination" – Delete "sheer" since "determination" says it well enough? done
Aftermath
  • "On the positive side, though, Retzow's corps of about 6,000 men..." – Delete "though"; i.e., On the positive side, Retzow's corps of about 6,000 men..."? done
  • "They also lost some" – The rest of this sentence has disappeared and should be restored. done
  • "an endowment of 250,000 gulden..." – Link gulden? done 9although I'm not sure that is the gulden she used.
  • "Furthermore, Frederick's reputation for aggressiveness..." – Delete "furthermore" as unnecessary? done
Memorials
  • Wouldn't "Hochkirch and environs" be better placed above the panorama? done
Alt text
  • Many of the images lack alt text. I added an alt parameter to the infobox, but it needs some text to function properly. done the ones that will take it. The galleries, no.
  • Here are a few more suggestions:
  • In Seven Years' War, perhaps add "for the Prussians" to "an entirely nightmarish scenario"? done
  • In Prelude, did Frederick really say that the Prussians "were ready to knock Daun's head off"? Frederick seems volatile, so he certainly might have said it. I just wanted to be sure. Yes, that is what he said.  :(
  • In Dispositions: I stumbled over this sentence both times through: "He also took into account that his men..." – Maybe "Daun" instead of "he"? done
  • In Battle, maybe in "the soldiers could make out friend from foe" the word "distinguish" would be better than "make out". done
  • In Aftermath, a sentence says, "...other losses (to injuries, desertions and capture)...". Are the "injuries" mentioned here different from the "casualties" mentioned earlier in the same sentence? People talk about losses in different ways. The most specific is usually Bodart, and he'll sometimes break down "losses" into categories of deaths, injuries, capture, desertion. However, capture and deaths sometimes overlap. For example, Langer was captured, and died a couple of days later. so does he show in the captured? or the deaths? Not clear.
  • "There was no one to blame but himself." – This is a judgment that needs attribution. Who says so? Mitchell said. adjusted for clarity.
  • "to give credit to intelligence that did not agree with his imagination" – I find the word "imagination" puzzling. Is it possible to agree or disagree with someone's imagination? Perhaps this means "did not agree with his own assessments"? clarified. Mitchell thought Frederick imagined things to be one way or another. He imagined the Russians were poor fighters. He imagined the Austrians were poor soldiers....etc

Closing comment: I think we are good to go on this. Ealdgyth raised one or two minor sourcing issues but there were no major concerns from her or other reviewers on sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 6 May 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) 21:19, 6 May 2017 [38].

Homeworld

edit
Nominator(s): PresN 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the title as the best strategy video game and best computer game of 1999, Homeworld is considered a classic of the genre for a single innovation: it was the first strategy game that was fully 3D, in the sense that units were not restricted to a plane like the ground, but could move anywhere within a sphere of space. Connecting the levels together so that the same plucky fighter ship from level 1 could end up leading a formation against a capital ship 6 levels later was the icing on the cake, and it's no surprise that when the rights came up for auction they were snapped up immediately. I rewrote this article from the ground up this past Fall, and it passed GA then; I've done some cleaning and archiving and polishing since, and I think it's ready to go for FA. Thank you all for reviewing, and I hope reading this makes someone hear "Adagio for Strings" in their heads once again. --PresN 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • So, I pulled up the Homeworld soundtrack on YouTube ... and found it in my Favorites folder ... I didn't recall that it was from Homeworld, I just remembered it as my favorite version of the piece.
  • "was also highly reviewed": Roughly speaking, when doing prose reviews at FAC, I stay away from word usage problems, or at least the kind that people like to argue about. This is a close call; I haven't seen much support for "highly reviewed" in the sense of "highly rated", and it might even be a grammar problem rather than a usage problem. But if you think the usage is arguable, then I'll let other reviewers weigh in on that (or not). - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, and please check my changes. These are my edits. I think the greater appeal of this game helps the article become more appealing as well, and the writing is (mostly) easy to follow, which isn't always easy to accomplish in VG articles. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. What's there is very good, but I think the article has to fail on comprehensiveness grounds due to the very small development section that really offers no insights into how the game was made. At the very least there must have been magazine articles at the time that offered previews with quotes from the development team. If you can prove me wrong, I will withdraw the objection, but I would still be hesitant to support, as I do feel a video game FA requires more in this area. Indrian (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indrian: Tracked down some previews and added about 2.5 paragraphs to development; you're right, that was a pretty big miss- the ones that had the good previews with interview quotes were also the ones that don't have an extant web presence any more. I tend to forget about the magazines that didn't end up on the web, and it bit me here. --PresN 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, unfortunately- I'd already seen those, and the CGW one is just a description of gameplay (which isn't changed from the final version, so no good there), while the PCG one at least has quotes from Garden, except it's just gameplay descriptions again, not design choices/development information. They're what I usually expect from previews, in other words (actually a preview, not a development interview), which is partially why I didn't think to search really hard for them in the first place. Will need to do that if I ever try to take Dungeon Siege to FAC, it came out around the same year. Thanks for looking though! Glad to see you still poking around. --PresN 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • "Gameplay, as in most real-time strategy titles, is focused on gathering resources, building a fleet, and using it to destroy enemy ships and accomplish an objective." - Since you're talking about the genre overall, I think it would be more accurate to say 'building an army' or 'building military forces' than "building a fleet" and similarly 'destroying enemy forces' as opposed to ships. Most RTS have armies, i'd day half at most have space ships.
  • There's a noticeable absence of wikilinks in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of gameplay. I see wikilink opportunities at "ballistic guns, beam weapons, and missiles".
  • "As a ship is damaged by weapons its health bar depletes, then visual effects such as fire and smoke are added, and it can eventually explode." What needs to happen for it to 'eventually' explode? Complete depletion of health bar or being on fire for a period? The wording doesn't make this clear to a non-gamer. How about something like, 'as the health bar depletes visual effect such as fire and smoke appear, and the ship will explode if the bar is depleted'?
  • I assumed that video game plots required sources, but after looking through about a dozen current video game FAs only every second one appeared to have sources. Nevertheless, are you able to help readers by throwing a couple in there for key aspects?
  • "Relic spent effort on making high-quality ship models" - spent effort seems a bit redundant here, I mean, everything requires effort. Are you trying to say something like they spend considerable effort?
  • Not an FAC requirement, but an image from the remastered edition would be nice, assuming that on such small resolution image there would be a noticeable improvement in graphics quality. Even better would be a side by side comparison.
That's all I found. Well done on the article. Very impressive. Never actually played this one before. Think I might have to go download the remastered version off Steam now. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Sorry for taking so long to get to this!
  • Done
  • Added a few
  • Tweaks slightly differently to make it clear that a number of things happen as a ship is increasingly damaged, which include fire and explosions
  • Yeah, plot sections for games (and media in general) are implicitly sourced to the work itself. That said, quotes are nice, so adding a bunch.
  • Done.
  • Added one down in remaster; got one that's similar to the original screenshot.
All done. --19:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Supporting. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • This may be more of a personal preference, but I would recommend moving the screenshot in the "Gameplay" section to the left as there is some interference between it and the infobox in some views (where the infobox pushes the image down the page slightly).
  • The infobox image requires an ALT description.
  • When referencing the Star Wars influence, do you think you should clarify that it was influenced by the original trilogy? It is obvious from the context of the game's release date, but I always think it is better to be safe (especially since you clarified the BSG as the original series and not the re-imagined version).
@Aoba47: Done, done, and done. I had it as just "Star Wars" since they were inspired by the 70s films and also the 1997 Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, but I explicitly mention that game a few sentences later so I might as well be explicit about the films as well, as there's no indication in sources that they were notably inspired by any other pieces of Star Wars media. --PresN 03:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review unless I missed one somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested a week ago alongside the image review. Will ping WP:VG if no one gets to it this weekend. --PresN 21:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ealdgyth: Both homeworldsdl.org and beloko.com/hw are used for a very narrowly defined purpose- specifically, just to cite the fact that unofficial ports to macOS and Android have been made. They're both the personal sites of the developers who did the ports, and while they're wholly unsuitable for demonstrate that the ports are notable, which is why the ports get four words total in the article, I think that as primary sources (especially the download links) they're valid for demonstrating that the ports exist. If you don't think that's a valid defense, I can just remove the cites/info, they're not a major component. --PresN 22:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, there is a difference between assessing whether a source is primary or secondary and assessing whether it's reliable or not. Secondary sources are necessary for analytical, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claims but not for such statements, In fact, since secondary sources are often second-hand info, they tend to be less reliable than primary ones for primary information, such as a plot section. That said, are these developers people with a certain importance and history of reliability? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:15, 5 May 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2017 [39].

Philadelphia municipal election, 1951

edit
Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Philadelphia's 1951 election, which was a landmark in the city's history. After 67 years of Republican dominance, the Democrats joined with independent advocates of good government to forge a winning coalition for mayor, city council, and other city offices. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "major city": I don't know what that means.
    • The source I cite for this uses the phrase "large city" and I took it to mean cities that were the centers of their own metro areas; so, Philadelphia and Seattle, but not Trenton and Tacoma. Sort of like the astronomical definition of a planet "clearing its own orbit." I'm not sure of a better way to say it, but I'd be glad to shift it to "large city" per the source or to anything else you think makes sense.
  • "its political scene safely controlled by Republicans": ditto.
    • Changed to "to have nearly all of its political offices occupied by Republicans."
  • "controlled the Republican organization": ditto.
    • Changed to "led the Republican organization". They were generally considered by contemporaries and later commenters to have been political bosses, which is what I was trying to get across.
  • "the Republican machine": ditto.
  • "Despite being slandered as a communist": "slandered" is primarily understood as a legal term; who was found by a court to have slandered him?
    • It was actually considered per se defamation in Pennsylvania to call someone a communist! There was a case arising that same year on point, Matson v. Margiotii, and it was upheld in 1964 when the same Joseph Clark featured in this article sued someone for libeling him as a communist (Clark v. Allen). That was still good law at the time I was studying for the bar exam, but would likely not hold up to a court challenge today. But in 1951? Definitely.
  • "776664": ?
    • Removed.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Syek88

edit

I have only one major(ish) comment, which goes to comprehensiveness: see the first dot point below. The rest of my comments are fairly minor.

  • The new city charter is mentioned on five occasions, including in the article's opening sentence, before there is any explanation of what it did, and then only in relation to elections for the offices of City Councillor. The new charter sounds like it is integral background to the 1951 election, and worth an overview or explanation somewhere earlier in the article. When reading the article I kept hearing about the new charter while wondering what it was all about. Even after the explanation of how elections to the City Council were changed, one is left wondering whether there were other material changes. For example, late in the article it is said that "A statewide referendum on the ballot that day continued the work begun by the new city charter in asking voters to consolidate the city and county governments in Philadelphia." What is the "work" that is being continued by the 1951 referendum?
    • That's a good point. I had intended to write a separate article on the charter that I could link to, but that hasn't happened yet. I'll work on summarizing it and report back to you when it's done.
  • "The positions contested included those of mayor, district attorney, and all seventeen city council seats, among other offices." - the word "included" renders "among other offices" unnecessary.
    • Fixed.
  • "As the vote tally became apparent" - Should it be "result" instead of "vote tally"? The vote tally wouldn't have become apparent until it was fully counted.
    • Yes, fixed.
  • "The Progressive Party, a left-wing party founded in 1948 around Henry A. Wallace's presidential bid, also ran two candidates who took less than one percent of the vote." - I don't think "also" is needed, and it confuses the sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • In "Aftermath" there is "Democratic party" and then "Democratic Party".
    • Fixed
  • "Since that time, the Democratic party has dominated the city's politics, with no other party electing a mayor or a majority of the city council in the intervening years." - Is "in the intervening years" necessary?
    • Probably not. Removed.
  • "As the Republicans have declined, the main battle in city politics has been within the Democratic Party." - I'm not sure that this sentence can be cast in the present tense when it is sourced to a reference from 1982.
    • I think it's better now.

I think the article does a good job of using varied language to repeat election results in a non-tedious manner. Sometimes this has required colloquialism ("Lennox came out ahead"), but the colloquialism is acceptable for the purpose.

I checked the Freedman and Reichly references and both are accurately represented.

I might have more minor comments later. Syek88 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. On a final read-through I didn't have any further comments, so I'm marking this as a support. I think the new explanation of the charter is in the right place. Syek88 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Werónika

edit

Image review

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This reads nicely, and I could find little to quibble about. Here are three minor suggestions:
City commissioners
  • "The most important of the remaining duties of a commissioner in Philadelphia was the conduct of the city's elections; they also had responsibility for regulating weights and measures." – I recommend changing "a commissioner" to plural "commissioners" here to match the plural "they" after the semicolon.
Row offices and judges
  • "The office of sheriff was another holdover county office, and was the chief law enforcement officer of the court system, a separate job from the chief of police." – An office isn't an officer. Perhaps this would be better: "The office of sheriff was another holdover county office. The sheriff, whose job differed from that of the chief of police, was the chief law enforcement officer of the court."
  • "... Edward W. Furia for clerk of courts, an office charged with the collection..." – "officer" rather than "office"? Finetooth (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Sources look good.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Late to the party, I fear. I made some earlier comments to Coemgenus on this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth and Wehwalt: thank you both for the reviews. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:35, 5 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2017&oldid=783197609"