Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2015

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 [1].

---

United States v. Kagama

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the development of the Congressional plenary power doctrine over Indian tribes, and the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act in the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 04:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note: nominated too early, withdrawn, renominated on 9 August 2015

Procedural note: Greg, have you read the instruction at the top of the FAC page about not nominating or co-nominating any article for two weeks after your previous nom has been archived? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I had misread it as not re-nominating the article that failed. Can I get leave for this one to stay or do I need to withdraw it? GregJackP Boomer! 04:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry for not returning earlier. The intent of this instruction was to ensure nominators took the time to resolve any issues with archived articles before nominating the same article again, or any other (that might have similar issues). The coords can and do give exceptions when an article has had little or no feedback but in your case three people stopped by (though admittedly none conducted a comprehensive review), and the fact that you weren't renominating the same article suggested to me an acknowledgement that it did need work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand what I should do with this one. Leave it here or pull it? Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 05:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I don't think this really meets the guideline for an exception so will remove from the list but you can bring it back (or nominate another article) in two weeks, starting from when the last one was archived. I won't archive this as our discussion has just been a procedural one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage Looking nearly exclusively at references and reference formatting. First off, reference formatting. We're encouraged to accept more or less any reference style that is vaguely compatible with the MOS, but I'm still not convinced that the format used here is compliant with the FA criteria. I'd be interested to see an FA-class article with this use of small-caps. In particular, I think the fact that it renders titles in small caps instead of quotes (for article titles) or italics (for books and the like) is problematic with regard to the MOs. And even if it is deemed acceptable, it doesn't seem consistently applied; I'm a loss for why authors like Weiner and Wilkins are given in small caps, but Matal and Harring are not. I think a lot of these are book sources. I know for certain that Americans Without Law: The Racial Boundaries of Citizenship is a book. I believe Wilkins, Williams, Vinzant, and several others are as well. These lack sufficient bibliographical information irrespective of citation format. Book sources general require publishers and ISBNs (where available). And actually, the book listed in Further Reading is the Weiner source used as a reference, there cited in an enitrely different format (albeit one I prefer), and with more complete information. To be pedantic, ISBNs should be given as properly-hyphenated IsBN-13s at this point. It is my understanding that abbreviated periodical sources (U. Pa. L. Rev. for the University of Pennsylvania Law Review) is discouraged by the MOS. Image review: Mostly good. I'm not entirely convinced by the licensing of File:Crow Dog.jpg, however. Commons accepted the PD-USGOV claim, and its entirely possible that such claim is correct. But I don't see any documentation of that in the image information, and the link provided as the original sources no longer seems to lead directly to a page where this image is presented. Other PD options almost certainly apply here, however, so the impact is somewhat trivial. Upon further consideration, I think the image captions are also uniformly short to the point of excess for the FA level; they provide insufficient context, especially lacking dates for the historical photos. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC) I have done no prose review. However, the "Trial of Kagama" section is uncited except via the footnote. Oppose at this time, on reference formatting grounds, especially the lack of essential bibliographical information and the nonstandard small caps use. No opinion on prose at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC) Response to comments Squeamish Ossifrage, Bluebook is an accepted referencing style on Wikipedia and has long been acceptable for FA articles. For examples, see Ex parte Crow Dog (FA, 2012); United States v. Lara (FA, 2013); Menominee Tribe v. United States (FA, 2013). On WP, 76 articles use the {{Bluebook}} template. It obviously is not the most used citation style, but FA does not require the use of the CS1 templates, Harvard, Chicago, APA, etc. The requirement is that the style be properly executed. Bluebook is specifically allowed per WP:CITESTYLE. Smallcaps is allowed per WP:SMALLCAPS (an MOS page) at the next to last bullet, which states Certain citation styles (e.g. that of the Linguistic Society of America or Bluebook) require that certain parts of the citation, such as author names in alphabetical reference sections be written in small caps. If an editor has chosen this style, it should be respected per WP:CITEVAR. Weiner (n.1) and Wilkins (n.7) are book authors and are in smallcaps per B1 and R2, Bluebook. Basically the rule is that "authors and titles of books, including institutional authors" and "titles of periodicals" are in smallcaps. Matal (n.2) and Harring (n.4) are not in all caps because they did not author a book. If you have questions on specific citations, I would be happy to point you to the rule for that case, and correct the citation if needed. As noted, book titles are correctly shown in allcaps. Bluebook does not use publishers unless necessary to distinguish between different versions (e.g., the Penguin Books version of Dickens Bleak House), where it would be included as a parenthetical. See R15.4., Bluebook. ISBN is neither required, desirable, nor allowed in Bluebook cites. Good catch on the "Further Reading" section. I've removed it since it was already listed in the "Notes" section. I don't believe that the MOS discourages the proper use of a citation style. A number of FA use the ISO4 abbreviation style for journals, the Bluebook abbreviations are required by rule, see R6, and Tables 5-16 (T13 specifically for periodical abbreviations). I'll look into the Crow Dog image licensing to correct it if necessary, or to replace the image. Done, replaced image. GregJackP Boomer! 05:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Do you have any suggestions on the captions? I'm happy to correct them as needed. I'll look at the sources for the "Trial of Kagama" section and improve those. Done, added several sources. GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC) I would request that you look at my explanation on the referencing style and the actual policies. Both the bibliographical information and the smallcaps are properly used according to the style used. The Bluebook style provides sufficient information to locate the reference used and has long been used in legal academic writing. Indeed, MOS:LAW recognizes this, and the use of Bluebook has gone through numerous community discussions, all of them resulting in consensus to allow its use. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

With my apologies, I'm withdrawing from this review. I am unable to resolve the conflict between content guidelines that require publishers for books and ID numbers or links to confirm the availability of offline sources while simultaneously approving a citation system that not only does not require such information, but forbids it. Especially dealing with serially-reprinted sources like Shuck (I presume you used an online archive of the 1889 edition, but there's no way to tell in this style). Regardless, this is apparently deemed acceptable, and since I'm unable to evaluate it fairly, I'll leave it to others to do so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you withdraw, I think that your input would be very valuable. I disagree with your reading of Wikipedia:Citing sources#Books and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers, however. The first policy does not mandate the name of the publisher, it states that it is "typically" included, and the ISBN is clearly identified as optional. ID numbers or links is compatible with Bluebook, if a link is available it is typically included in the title, see e.g. n.45, n.46, and n.47, all of which link to the article cited. Anyway, if you reconsider, I would love to have your evaluation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Linked Shuck to online version of text. GregJackP Boomer! 19:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Montanabw

• Reviewing: Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Formatting: Bluebook small caps are acceptable, the article conforms to Bluebook style, per WP:LEGAL and WP:CITE, so long as the citation style used is consistent and correct, it's fine. That said, it's a little hard to read. I wonder if you could create a "Sources" section where you can list the works cited at full size so as to be more readable, and then just the pinpoint cites in the footnotes. Also, I tend to favor adding URLs to link to the actual cases or law reviews where such exist. Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would prefer not to create a separate "Sources" section and would rather stay with a more traditional academic Bluebook style. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comprehensiveness: I'm not a fan of all the short subsections of one paragraph each, they make an article appear incomplete; I'd favor either expanding them or combining them; the sections on Crow Dog and the Major Crimes act could be consolidated. I'd make "the crime" and "path to the Supreme Court" into one consolidated new main section, not sure of a title, but "Murder of Iyouse and lower court cases" or something... also wonder if there is any more context to add- be nice to expand that bit. Ditto the "subsequent developments" section - the subheadings of one paragrpah each look like the section lacks comprehensiveness, I'd both expand the bit on the trial of Kagama and the consequences sections, if possible. In the criticism section, have you done any work on if the decision is still viewed as "good law" or if it has been refined or reviewed by later courts? That would be good info to have. Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think I corrected the subsection issues. I could not do anything on the actual trial, but will try to expand that. I'll also work on the good law aspect (it is, the Court still follows the plenary power doctrine). I'll post more when I'm done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Done. GregJackP Boomer! 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Found a newspaper source for the trial, expanded that section. GregJackP Boomer! 07:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Per the reviewer above, though ISBNs are optiona, I'd suggest adding them where they exist. Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not done, not part of Bluebook. GregJackP Boomer! 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have mixed feelings on that. Must think it over a bit. I'll check my copy at the office tomorrow, perhaps...Montanabw^(talk) 09:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can live without the ISBNs, I suppose, but is there some way to put a url link into the cases and law reviews, even if just to an abstract? I really favor some way a person can just click to verify when possible, Findlaw has all the big cases online and some of the law reviews do have at least an abstract or TOC on their websites. I think the Bluebook is silent on that, and if you can link to a listing in Worldcat or Google books, I think that would enhance the usability of the refs. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'll start looking for open access links. I use WL and Lexis, which aren't feasible to link here, but I'll see what I can find. GregJackP Boomer! 00:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• All of the books are now linked to WorldCat, with one exception that is linked to a digital full copy. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd love to see the cases linked to FindLaw or somewhere too... saves a lot of time to click and go... Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• All of the cases, with the exception of NLRB v. Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Gov't, which was decided in June 2015, were already linked to justia.com copy of the opinion. The statutes are similarly linked to either cornell or legslink.org, based on what the template does. GregJackP Boomer! 00:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Per comments below, some thoughts:

1. I added back in the removed phrase, "From the time the crime occurred to the Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed." In light of today's glacial pace, that was quite fast. Do we know if that was the typical time span then for an interlocutory appeal, or was it fast even back in the day? If it was typical, or if you just added it for the sake of timeline, it can go, but if the speed was an unusual element, it should be noted (and sourced) Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
2. "discussing the origins and formation of reservations" - that's pretty dang complicated and probably beyond the scope of this article, but might be useful to just have a few more links, the stuff added on Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and such was helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
3. There might be room to add a little bit on the issue of tribal sovereignty and why state law does not govern in these cases. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• Covered the 11 months in an explanatory note.
• See comment below.
• I'll see if I can get something in there - I was of the opinion that Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act covered it, but I'll expand it some. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, I linked all of the law review articles to something too, normally the paywall for Lexis. GregJackP Boomer! 06:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support: My issues have been addressed and the bluebook citation style has adequate support for me as well. Adding appropriate links helped ease my primary concerns. Nicely done! Montanabw^(talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Looks good to me, just a few minor points before I support

• I made some tweaks, please check
• Should be Indian-on-Indian, you have both hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions
• Montanabw has made reasonable suggestions for listing the sources and adding ISBNs where they exist which appear to aid reviewers and improve verifiability. I'm not sure what you think is wrong with that approach. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• As always, your tweaks have improved the article. Thank you.
• Indian-on-Indian, done.
• I'm sorry, but Montanabw is incorrect here. The Bluebook citation style provides that a cite to a book include the following, in this order:

1. Volume number Rule 15.1.

2. Author, Rule 15.1, smallcaps.

3. Title of Book, Rule 15.3, smallcaps.

4. Page, Rule 15. (see also Rules 3.2, 3.3).

5. Editor or translator, Rule 15.2, normal case in parenthetical.

6. Edition, Rule 15.4, identify in parenthetical.

7. Publisher, Rule 15.4, indicate in parenthetical only if not the original publisher, e.g., a reprint, etc., with a second parenthetical showing the original date of publication.

8. Date, Rule 15.4, in parenthetical.

Example: 4 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 15 (G.P. Goold ed., H. Rackham Trans., Harvard Univ. Press rev. ed. 1934) (c. 384 B.C.E.).

• ISBN is neither desirable nor authorized in a Bluebook citation. I could add a "Table of Authorities" section and remain compliant with Bluebook, but that is actually used in a practitioner's brief (as in a court filing) instead of in legal academic (law review style) writing. In either case, ISBN would not be used. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can live with that assessment, but see above. I'm thinking in terms of layperson reader-friendliness, in part. Montanabw^(talk) 00:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Support You are not bound by Bluebook here, and I agree with Montanabw's views on user-friendliness. That's not grounds ofr opposing an otherwise excellent article, so supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Notecardforfree

• Reviewing: Notecardforfree (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent article about a fascinating case. I made some minor copy edits to the article, but overall, I think this is well on its way to being a Featured Article; the existing content is fantastic. The comments I provide below focus primarily on prose and style, with some rather arcane comments about word-choice. As with any legal topic, you can always go into further depth about the history, issues, or jurisprudential foundations of a case. However, I think this article does a good job of not going too far afield with issues that may not be directly related to the case.

• As a preliminary matter, I am a HUGE supporter of using Bluebook style citations, and I urge you to ignore reviewers who urge you to deviate from Bluebook conventions.

• If it is possible, you may want to add a paragraph or two discussing the origins and formation of reservations. This article touches upon some fascinating jurisprudential issues relating to sovereignty, the right to be governed, and autonomy. Consequently, it might be helpful for readers to know a little more about the manner in which the United States government took land from First Nations and “gave” them reservations on which to live. I also noticed that many scholars mention Kagama when discussing “fictional notion of the ‘consent of the governed’” with regard to tribal sovereignty. See, e.g., Matthew L.M. Fletcher, The Supreme Court’s Legal Culture War Against Tribal Law, 2 Intercultural Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 93 (2007).

• In the section about the Hoopa Valley Reservation, you include two sentences about traditional property rights among tribes living along the Klamath River. Can you provide a source to support the assertion about the existence of longstanding property rights? The Harring source may say something. I did a quick search but I couldn’t find any law review articles on the subject of traditional property rights in the Klamath River Basin.

• In the section about the path to the Supreme Court, you write, “Circuit Judge Lorenzo Sawyer and District Court Judge George Sabin heard the challenge but disagreed on the law.” Could you say a little more about their disagreement? The Supreme Court opinion made it seem like these courts simply reached different results. You also mention this is an interlocutory appeal – did they offer conflict rulings on a motion challenging SMJ? If that is the case, then perhaps you should say the courts reached different results. It is hypothetically possible for two judges to “disagree on the law” and reach the same result, so I would clarify this language. I couldn’t find copies of the lower court opinions, but maybe the Harring source says more?
  • (Lurking) This FAC reviewer agrees that this would help! (Montanabw)

• Overall, the article is very well written. You have a clear, precise writing style that I am sure serves you well in your work as an attorney. I have only a few very minor copyediting suggestions:

1. This is an exceedingly nitpicky point, and please feel free to ignore this comment if you think it is too arcane or esoteric. You say that the Supreme Court issued an opinion “on Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883.” Don’t we usually say that the Court issues an opinion “in” a case? See, e.g., Richard Lazarus’ recent article at p. 542, where he says “The Court’s opinion in Brown.” I know that you begin the sentence with the word “in,” so perhaps it would make sense to say something like “Justice Stanley Thomas Matthews’ wrote the majority opinion in Ex Parte Crow Dog, where the Supreme Court held . . .” or something like that. It just seems a little odd to read that the Court issued an opinion “on” (rather than “in”) a case.
2. You write, “if an Indian committed a crime he should be treated like a criminal and tried under the laws of the land.” Maybe you should clarify that by “law of the land,” you mean the laws of the United States? To me, I have always used “law of the land” as local laws and customs of the jurisdiction in which a crime was committed, which could mean tribal law in this case.
3. In the final sentence of the Hoopa Valley Reservation section, you write, “Shortly before the murder, Kagama requested a title to the land upon which he built his home.” I think it is proper to say “requested title” rather than “requested a title.”
4. Instead of saying “On the day of June 24, 1885,” why not just say “On June 24, 1985 . . .” ?
5. You write, “The defendant was represented by twenty-seven-year-old Joseph D. Redding and the United States by Solicitor General George A. Jenks.” I would say “. . . and the United States was represented by George A. Jenks.” As it is written, the sentence is a little ambiguous. An uninitiated reader may think Kagama was represented by the United States. Also, I wouldn’t refer to Kagama as “the defendant.” It seems rather impersonal, so I would use his name instead.
6. Instead of saying “Jenks argued the language from Crow Dog . . .” I think you should say something like “Jenks urged the court to apply its earlier ruling in Crow Dog, where the Court held that . . .”
7. You write, “All told, from the perpetration of the crime to the Supreme Court decision, eleven months had passed.” I would consider deleting this sentence, because you explained in the previous paragraph that the Court’s opinion was issued in May of 1886. If you do delete that sentence, I would move the sentence about Justice Miller’s ideology to the preceding paragraph.
8. You mention the “San Francisco Circuit Court.” I’m not familiar with the old Circuit Court system, but wasn’t this an appeal from the Circuit Court for the District of California?
9. Instead of saying “Various law reviews have also been critical of the decision . . .” I would instead say “Various law review articles,” and identify the authors or articles as the source of criticism rather than the journal itself.

If you have any questions about any of my comments, or if anything is unclear, please let me know. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses

First, thanks for reviewing this. I really appreciate it.

• Bluebook. I intend to use Bluebook style in the article. Thanks for supporting that.
• I'll see what I can find on the reservation system. Fletcher is a great source for that type of info.

Not done, Notecardforfree. I've looked at how to expand the article to include this, but it is so complex, especially in California with the efforts to exterminate the tribes just 30 years prior, that I believe that it would detract from the article. I'll add it if I absolutely have to, but I would recommend against it. I believe that Montanabw holds the same view, that it's too complex. If both of you could comment or otherwise let me know which way I should go, it would be helpful. GregJackP Boomer! 04:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, after thinking about this more I agree with you that it is too complex of an issue to discuss in this article. I understand that the history of persecution of First Nations in Northern California is particularly complex, and I hope readers of this article will be inspired to learn more about this important chapter of California's sordid past. In any case, I think the section about criticism of the case helps readers understand how this case has broader implications with regard to taking rights away from Native Americans. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto on Hoopa rez property rights.

Done. Note added. (04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

• I'll clarify on the certificate of division issue. It's not really two courts disagreeing, but an old, no longer used procedure. I'll add an explanatory footnote to see if I can fix this.

Done. (04:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

• Copyedits (none are nitpicking, I appreciate your points on these):

1. “on Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883.” Done, per suggestion.
2. "laws of the land." Done.
3. "Title." Done.
4. "June 24." Done.
5. Representation. Done, but you may want to look at it.
6. "Jenks." Done. Look at this too.
7. Eleven months. Done. Not done, see Montanabw's comments above. I'll see what I can find. (01:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC))
8. San Francisco Circuit. I'll research and fix.

   Done. (01:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC))

9. Law reviews. I'll fix this.

   Done. (05:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC))

• I'll get to working on the rest of this. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for being willing to accommodate my earlier suggestions -- all the changes you have made look good to me, including the language about representation, the language about the Circuit Court, and the language about Jenks asking the court to apply the Crow Dog dicta. I did, however, make a few minor copy edits, and I added that Jenks was Assistant U.S. Secretary of the Interior at the time the case reached the Supreme Court. Apparently, Jenks resigned his position two weeks after oral arguments to become an attorney for a lumber company.
• I am also fine leaving in the language about the decision coming eleven months after the crime, per Montanabw's suggestion. Even though the length of time is somewhat self evident, I would still add a reference at the end of the sentence in which you mention the eleven month time frame (either to the opinion itself or to Harring).
• Apparently, in the 1880's, there was an average of a three year delay between granting cert. and scheduling oral argument at the Supreme Court. One article I found says,

In the decade leading up to the enactment of the legislation that virtually eliminated the Justices' circuit-riding duties, the Court's flow of decisions was absolutely incredible by modern standards, ranging from a low of 242 signed opinions during the 1888 Term to a high of 298 in the 1886 Term. [Footnote] What once had been extreme bursts of spasmodic activity had become the indispensable norm. [Footnote] Nonetheless, the Court's backlog continued to mount even under its staggering workload; it now was running about three years behind in hearing oral argument after a case had been docketed. [Footnote] In the wake of a steady litigation boom in the lower courts, the Supreme Court's backlog had grown to "the absurd total of 1800" cases - more than six times the Court's annual output of signed opinions and "a load which made speedy and effective judicial administration impossible," despite the arrival of the first law clerks. [Footnote]

• The quotation above is from Margaret Meriwether Cordray & Richard Cordray, The Calendar of the Justices: How the Supreme Court's Timing Affects Its Decisionmaking, 36 Ariz. St. L.J. 183, 192 (2004). It might be worth adding a footnote to explain the unusual speed of the case.
• Upon further reflection, I think a section about the history of reservations may be a little beyond this article's scope, but I would still consider adding another sentence or two about the history of forming reservations in the Klamath River Basin (if sources exist on the subject -- they may not).
• Overall though, this article looks fantastic! Strong work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• One additional point about criticism in law reviews: I would combine the brief paragraph about law reviews with the previous paragraph about criticism. Be sure to frame the criticism according to the name of the author, rather than the name of the journal or law review. Some of the criticism you mention in the previous paragraph was published in law reviews, so it should be no problem to extend the previous paragraph with another sentence or two that mentions the authors. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the Cordray source (although it almost started me on a rabbit trail, dealing with the establishment of the Second Monday as the start of the term (Cordray, at 190-92). Anyway, there's an explanatory footnote now. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• I combined the paragraphs as you requested too. GregJackP Boomer! 05:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for making these changes. Once again, everything is looking very good! With regard to the law review articles, I think you should delete the sentence that says "law reviews have been critical." It isn't the journals, per se, that were critical. Instead, it is the authors of the articles who were critical (I understand the UPenn article doesn't have an author name, so I think you can leave that one as-is). Otherwise, the section about criticism offers an important perspective on the broader implications of this case. Good work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I meant to change that - it now reads that the authors in law reviews criticized . . . Let me know if I need to tweak it some more. GregJackP Boomer! 08:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I like the change -- nice work! However, I would suggest placing the sentence that says "Various authors . . . ." before the two preceding sentences aout Clinton and Rotenberg, because they also published their criticisms in law reviews. Also, double check consistency with ellipses. In the criticism section, you have one ellipse with no spaces between periods, and one ellipse with spaces between periods. Overall though, this article is fantastic. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• I fixed the ellipses, on the sentence about law reviews I reworded it again. Clinton and Rotenberg is/was noted law professors in the American Indian field and fit more clearly with Wilkins and Frickey. Let me know if the latest version is OK. GregJackP Boomer! 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, I see -- it didn't occur to me until just now that you were distinguishing between professors and other law review authors. The way it is written now looks great. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: I also want to write that I formally support promotion to FA. This is an excellent article and you have done a wonderful job responding to comments and suggestions during the review process. Hopefully this article will inspire readers to learn more about Native American history. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Comment dipping my toe in the water towards support, but a few concerns.

Lede

• Paragraph breaks are your friends.
• "Congressional Act", "Act" "Act" I believe should be lower case as not a proper noun.
• Is the passage as a rider (legislation) so important it should be mentioned in the lede?
• "plenary power over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes" a bit repetitive.

Crow Dog

• "Crow Dog was detained and tried for the murder." I might strike "the". After all, he was not ultimately convicted of murder (after appeals).
• " Thomas Stanley Matthews" I've never seen his real first name used. Generally, I've seen him referred to as "Stanley Matthews" (just like the other one).
• " they must pass an explicit law-granting jurisdiction to the federal courts" what's up with the dash?
• "anywhere in the land" maybe "anywhere in the nation"

Hoopa

• "repository for other tribes" I've never seen repository used for groups of people before. Possibly another term. "home"?
• "de facto" italics? Also, not sure about the "the" preceding"

Supreme Court

• How did Kagama obtain counsel?
• "Arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on May 2, 1886, only five months after the circuit court delivered a split opinion on the matter of jurisdiction. Both briefs remain in the public record" I would note that this was short for the time. And why is it necessary to say the briefs are in the public record? They usually are, aren't they?
• "Redding argued that Congress lacked the authority to exert power over sovereign people that reserved certain rights by ceding large amounts of land to the federal government in treaties" Maybe "Redding argued that Congress could not assert power over sovereign people who, when making treaties to cede land, reserved certain rights to themselves." Something like that.
• "He never argued" maybe "He did not argue"
• I wonder if the last two paragraphs are neutrally stated? "Claimed" is a word I try not to use, when "contended" or similar is more neutral. ("Objection, argumentive")
• You've said the Major Crimes Act allowed for federal jurisdiction over Indians who committed the listed crimes anywhere in the US. How then was it an element of the offense that the crime be committed on a reservation, as apparently was the ground for the directed verdict?
• Would a state retrial have violated the double jeopardy clause?
• I wonder if the word "murder" is appropriate (throughout) as no one was convicted. "killing" might be more appropriate except where murder is being referred to, as in the list of crimes subject to federal jurisdiction. Similar "victim".
• I'm not sure how evenly stated the "consequences and criticism" section is. Have there been no law review articles that discuss the reasons why the federal courts continue to assert the jurisdiction granted by the Major Crimes Act? If the reasoning in Kagama is so faulty, why hasn't it been overturned? Surely the jurisdiction granted by the MCA has been contested by the accused in subsequent cases? What have those courts said about it? There is a bit of a feeling of "This case was snuck through in the bad old days based on faulty and racist reasoning and now we can't get rid of it."--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• Lede

• Paragraph breaks are your friends.

Done.

If I may offer my perspective here, I would suggest merging the last two paragraphs in the lede. Per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, one-sentence paragraps are discouraged, and I think the lede would read more smoothly by combining the two paragraphs. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

GregJackP, I combined them myself, but please feel free to revert if you disagree. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Congressional Act", "Act" "Act" I believe should be lower case as not a proper noun.

Done.

• Is the passage as a rider (legislation) so important it should be mentioned in the lede?

Done. Removed.

• "plenary power over Indian affairs. Plenary power over Indian tribes" a bit repetitive.

Done. Reworded. Let me know if I need to change it further. GregJackP Boomer! 20:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Crow Dog

• "Crow Dog was detained and tried for the murder." I might strike "the". After all, he was not ultimately convicted of murder (after appeals).

Done.

• " Thomas Stanley Matthews" I've never seen his real first name used. Generally, I've seen him referred to as "Stanley Matthews" (just like the other one).

Done.

• " they must pass an explicit law-granting jurisdiction to the federal courts" what's up with the dash?

Done, removed.

• "anywhere in the land" maybe "anywhere in the nation"

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed somewhat with footnote added, see comment below. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hoopa

• "repository for other tribes" I've never seen repository used for groups of people before. Possibly another term. "home"?

Done.

• "de facto" italics? Also, not sure about the "the" preceding"

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Supreme Court

• How did Kagama obtain counsel?

This was addressed in fn.7, Redding was appointed by Judge Sawyer.

• "Arguments were heard before the Supreme Court on May 2, 1886, only five months after the circuit court delivered a split opinion on the matter of jurisdiction. Both briefs remain in the public record" I would note that this was short for the time. And why is it necessary to say the briefs are in the public record? They usually are, aren't they?

Done. Footnoted the time, removed comment on briefs.

• "Redding argued that Congress lacked the authority to exert power over sovereign people that reserved certain rights by ceding large amounts of land to the federal government in treaties" Maybe "Redding argued that Congress could not assert power over sovereign people who, when making treaties to cede land, reserved certain rights to themselves." Something like that.

Done.

• "He never argued" maybe "He did not argue"

Done.

• I wonder if the last two paragraphs are neutrally stated? "Claimed" is a word I try not to use, when "contended" or similar is more neutral. ("Objection, argumentive")

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Other

• You've said the Major Crimes Act allowed for federal jurisdiction over Indians who committed the listed crimes anywhere in the US. How then was it an element of the offense that the crime be committed on a reservation, as apparently was the ground for the directed verdict?

Done, reworded jurisdictional sentence in Crow Dog section, added explanatory footnote. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Would a state retrial have violated the double jeopardy clause? I know it likely would today.

No, it would not, and would not violate it today. An Indian can conceivably be tried three times for one act, once by the feds, once by the state, and once by the tribe. See United States v. Lara. It really gets complicated.

• I wonder if the word "murder" is appropriate (throughout) as no one was convicted. "killing" might be more appropriate except where murder is being referred to, as in the list of crimes subject to federal jurisdiction. Similar "victim".

Those were the terms that most of the sources used. Ike was in fact murdered, there just wasn't a conviction.

• I'm not sure how evenly stated the "consequences and criticism" section is. Have there been no law review articles that discuss the reasons why the federal courts continue to assert the jurisdiction granted by the Major Crimes Act? If the reasoning in Kagama is so faulty, why hasn't it been overturned? Surely the jurisdiction granted by the MCA has been contested by the accused in subsequent cases? What have those courts said about it? There is a bit of a feeling of "This case was snuck through in the bad old days based on faulty and racist reasoning and now we can't get rid of it."

• There has been no law review article or scholarly work that I've been able to find that supports the reasoning in the decision.
• The MCA has been repeatedly cited and contested, but not overturned (or rather, when overturned, reversed by a higher court). 18 USC 1153 alone has 485 decisions listed in WL, with over 6,800 cites to the statute. The Court doesn't want to overturn it, because it opens up all sorts of other issues. If Congress does not have plenary power, there is an argument that the cessation of Indian treaties in 1871 is a problem, the various laws taking away Indian land was illegal (see Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock), etc. It calls into question the whole property title by conquest theory, and would basically stand Indian law on its head.
• The Court is aware of it, Justice Thomas from time to time has dicta criticizing the idea of plenary power in this area. GregJackP Boomer! 21:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thanks for reviewing this, let me know what else I need to do and I'll be happy to do it. GregJackP Boomer! 21:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Support If the sources are that way, the best you can do is complile them. Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon

• Review to follow... --ceradon (talk • edits) 21:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• "Supreme Court case that upheld" -- you state in the second paragraph that it was upheld, which is a bit repetitive. Perhaps just: "Supreme Court case that tests"
• "This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation." -- maybe you should make this the second sentence, so the current second sentence becomes the third.

Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act of 1885

• "if an Indian committed a crime he should be treated like a criminal" -- I think this comes as a give. Perhaps just: "if an Indian committed a crime he could be tried under the laws of the United States."
• "Indian Country ... Indian country" - the capitalization alternates in several places. Is this intentional?

Hoopa Valley Reservation

• "Lower Klamath ... upper Klamath" -- capitalization alternates. Intentional?
• "Porter took it upon himself to allot small parcels of land to the local people, thus upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." -- Perhaps just: "Porter allotted small parcels of land to the local people, upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." And, could you clarify if it was Indian local people?

Arguments

• "twenty-seven-year-old" -- sure you don't just want to say "27-year-old"?
• "The prosecution's "contention is that Congress may regulate intercourse with the Indians in whatever way it may deem wise and prudent." -- I think this can be paraphrased. Perhaps: "The prosecution held the Congress had the absolute authority to regulate Indians and their affairs."

Consequences and criticism of the decision

• "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture." -- while I can believe that American lawmakers could do the former and believe the latter, this is not neutrally worded. Perhaps: "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were perceived by Native Americans as attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture."?
• In a Comment" -- why is comment capitalized?
• "depotism" (in the blockquote) -- if that's how Echo-Hawk spells it, it should have a "[sic]" next to it. If not, you can just correct it to "despotism".

Despite the quibbles above, I support promotion. Good work, GregJackP. I do find the topic of American Indians to be intriguing, though I find pretty much anything intriguing. Do ping me if you need another FAC review on such a topic. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Response

Lead

• "Supreme Court case that upheld" -- you state in the second paragraph that it was upheld, which is a bit repetitive. Perhaps just: "Supreme Court case that tests"

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation." -- maybe you should make this the second sentence, so the current second sentence becomes the third.

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Crow Dog and the Major Crimes Act of 1885

• "if an Indian committed a crime he should be treated like a criminal" -- I think this comes as a give. Perhaps just: "if an Indian committed a crime he could be tried under the laws of the United States."

Done.GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Indian Country ... Indian country" - the capitalization alternates in several places. Is this intentional?

Done, lower cased all. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hoopa Valley Reservation

• "Lower Klamath ... upper Klamath" -- capitalization alternates. Intentional?

Done, upper case. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Porter took it upon himself to allot small parcels of land to the local people, thus upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." -- Perhaps just: "Porter allotted small parcels of land to the local people, upsetting an age-old property rights system among families in the Klamath River Valley." And, could you clarify if it was Indian local people?

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Arguments

• "twenty-seven-year-old" -- sure you don't just want to say "27-year-old"?

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The prosecution's "contention is that Congress may regulate intercourse with the Indians in whatever way it may deem wise and prudent." -- I think this can be paraphrased. Perhaps: "The prosecution held the Congress had the absolute authority to regulate Indians and their affairs."

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Consequences and criticism of the decision

• "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture." -- while I can believe that American lawmakers could do the former and believe the latter, this is not neutrally worded. Perhaps: "The laws that followed the Kagama ruling were perceived by Native Americans as attempts to destroy the Native American cultural differences and force these tribes to share the Euro-American culture viewed by these lawmakers to be the superior culture."?

Not done. The current government policy and scholarship recognizes that the laws were an attempt to destroy the tribal culture and force the assimilation into white society. The motto of the Indian Boarding Schools was "Kill the Indian, Save the Man." See this (Assimilation of the Indians and the destruction of their reservations became the new federal goal), as an example of the scholarship on the issue. See also the United Nations report, it's also fairly clear that the effort was to destroy the culture of the tribes. It's not included in more detail here because it would bog down the article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. That title, "Kill the Indian, Save the Man." made me cringe. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was the viewpoint back then. A cousin of my grandfather escaped from the Carlisle Indian School in Pennsylvania and walked back to the reservation in Wisconsin. My grandfather and his brother were sent to the Haskell Indian School in Kansas. They didn't much care for it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• In a Comment" -- why is comment capitalized?

A "Comment" in a Law Review article is a term of art that identifies it as being written by a student member of the law review staff instead of an academic author or a practitioner. "Note" is synonymous with Comment. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• "depotism" (in the blockquote) -- if that's how Echo-Hawk spells it, it should have a "[sic]" next to it. If not, you can just correct it to "despotism".

Done, fixed typo. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this, I appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 04:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2015 [2].

---

The Boat Races 2015

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 running of The Boat Race was an epoch-marking moment – the three "senior" races were held, back-to-back, on the Tideway for the first time in the history of the event, which dates back to 1829. This article was one of the last of the entire set that I got to good article status, a day or two after the races themselves. I waited for a long time for a peer review and received some very brief comments, so I thought (no, I knew) if I brought it here, it'd receive a much more critical examination. Thanks in advance to everyone who spends any time or energy in the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber

I'll jot some notes as I go.....

In para 2 of the lead, you've mentioned the result of the Osiris/Blondie race but not the Isis/Goldie one...(should put the Isis/Goldie stuff together somehow)

Oopsie, added now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Prior to this year, the women's race was usually held at the Henley Boat Races along the 2,000-metre (2,200 yd) course, although on at least two occasions, in the interwar period, the women competed on the Thames between Chiswick and Kew. - I think this sentence flows better if split in the middle...

Split. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

They were inadvertently discovered stranded during an RNLI exercise - presume you mean, "They were discovered inadvertently stranded during an RNLI exercise"...?

I guess that depends on the inadvertedness, the RNLI discovered them by chance (according to the sources) and of course any stranding would have been inadvertent, so I'm not sure if the rephrasing is strictly necessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaah, ok you're right/my bad...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Over 250,000 spectators lined the Thames to watch the three races - is this alot/about average for this...?

Anecdotally I'd say it's just a little over average, but I'll need to see if I can find some sources to make some comparisons. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

OK - I am sure if you find it you'll add it and if you can't then you can't. Minor issue in the scheme of things so I am at a stage where i can't see any obvious improvements then....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it's one of those things that's notoriously difficult, to estimate the number of people lining the four-and-a-bit miles length of the Thames... I'll keep digging, but thatnks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise little to fault really...looks comprehensive and prose is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Cas. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Phil_Hughes_cropped.jpg: this is tagged as a temp upload so is liable to be deleted

  In the meantime, using the main image. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg: uploader is not the author (if they were, the licensing would not be valid). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  Replaced author with the University. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Nikkimaria. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Brustopher

Haven't really commented on an FA review before, just saw this pop up on my watchlist and thought I'd give my two cents. Apologies if I'm doing this wrong.

In the second paragraph of the lede the women's boat race is brought up without really explaining what it is and where it's come from.

Well it's linked there to the main article and is explained in more detail in the Background section. Is there something more specific that you're looking for? I didn't want to make the intro too awkward, particularly with regard to the various start years, regularity, courses etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In the background section it's not explained when the women's boat race began. This could read as implying it began in 1829 with the men's event.

I've added the year of the first women's race, 1927. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Eleanor Oldroyd quote in the background section could mislead people into thinking the Boat Race has prize money. Perhaps a template:sic and a clarifying note could work here?Brustopher (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, odd one that, I guess Oldroyd was meaning to refer to the financial sponsorship given to both crews rather than money for winning the race. I've done as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Brustopher, I am just about to do family stuff, so I'll get back to your comments as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've responded to the comments above, thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm pretty happy with this. Thanks for the changes, and writing the article in the first place. Brustopher (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – my usual whinge about tabloidese false titles ("umpired by six-time Blue Boris Rankov" etc) but that's a matter of personal taste. Otherwise nothing but praise for this article, which I suspect may well be the best of all the fine Boat Race articles written by the Rambling Man. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, I've had a trawl through to remove the falsies where I saw them. Cheers for the support. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I already reviewed this one at GA. I made some very minor copy editing changes here. Revert anything you don't like. Favourite line: "Most televised sport is a carnival of misogyny so it is great news that the Boat Race is leading the way in ensuring that women take their rightful place alongside men." It really tickled my Australian sense of humour with its taste for hyperbole. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

• Dates all formatted consistently, titles in sentence case consistently, authors formatted consistently. all looks in order referencing-wise....

• Spot checks....

Passes muster with Earwig's tool

material is faithful to refs 1 and 2.

material is faithful to ref 10 except that ref does not mention reserve races.

I've addressed that, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2015 [3].

---

Battle of Malvern Hill

Nominator(s): ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC), Lingzhi

Well, here we are again. Since the last FAC this article has gone through MILHIST A-Class review and a number of improvements. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I supported last time and have just read through the article again; I think this is excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, Mike. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Confederate_General_Robert_E._Lee_poses_in_a_late_April_1865.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed the image to File:Leeedit.jpg which is the same thing just edited for quality (and a Featured Picture). I have also archived the source link there. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now. Will jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You wanna make the lead engaging. The first para didn't grab me so I massaged the text a little. Let me know what you think:

The background of the battle begins with.. - why is this in present tense if everything else is in past tense?

Changed to past tense.

In each phase, the effectiveness of the Federal artillery was the deciding factor, repulsing attack after attack. The result was a tactical Union victory. - might flow better as "In each phase, the effectiveness of the Federal artillery was the deciding factor, repulsing attack after attack, resulting in a tactical Union victory."

Done.

but Confederate soldiers captured by the Federals inflated Magruder's numbers to 100,000. - I don't follow - should this be "Union soldiers"?

Reworded a bit. Check if ir makes sense?

Well, err, yes, you've chopped out some stuff....

When the Union army tried to attack Richmond by way of the James River, this was stopped as well in the Battle of Drewry's Bluff on May 15. - you've changed the subject. Should be (?) "When the Union army tried to attack Richmond by way of the James River, they were stopped as well in the Battle of Drewry's Bluff on May 15."

Done.

The lack of decisive action on the Virginia Peninsula made Washington, and especially President Abraham Lincoln, upset and anxious. , why not "The lack of decisive action on the Virginia Peninsula worried Washington, and especially President Abraham Lincoln, gravely."

Done.

However, heavy rains and thunderstorms on the night of May 30 caused the water level to swell --> "However, heavy rains and thunderstorms that night caused the water level to swell"

Done.

The subsequent two weeks on the peninsula were mostly peaceful. - "peaceful" seems the wrong word to use here in time of war...."quiet"?

Done.

Overall, there is some clunkiness and repetitiveness to the prose. Some points are laboured. See if I lose any meaning by doing this and this? I can do this elsewhere.

• Casliber, Your help is & would be genuinely appreciated. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Casliber: Thank you for your comments so far. Responded above. Just as well, further copyediting to cut out the fat is welcome. --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support looks much tighter after some good prose-massaging. nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts from Cliftonian

Support. Article meets the FA criteria in my view. A fine read. Note that my support is conditional on the article passing checks on sourcing, close paraphrasing, etc. Thank you to you both for your fine work on this article. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —  Cliftonian (talk)

Lead The passage starting "The background of the battle was McClellan's ambitious plan to launch his Peninsula Campaign and eventually take Richmond" seems to me clumsily worded, and we don't say which peninsula we are talking about. Perhaps "The Seven Days Battles were the climax of the Peninsula Campaign, during which McClellan's Army of the Potomac sailed around the Confederate lines, landed at the tip of the Virginian Peninsula, south-east of Richmond, and struck inland towards the Confederate capital. Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston fended off McClellan's repeated attempts to take the city ..." Then you don't need to clarify "Seven Days Battles" again later in the paragraph. Done tks • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC) "took up positions on the hill on June 30 in preparation for the battle, which began the following day" you can end this sentence at "June 30" in my opinion Done "McClellan himself" don't need "himself" Done "having boarded the ironclad USS Galena and sailed down the James River" why? Got it tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) "Confederate preparations were hindered by several mishaps. Bad maps and faulty guides " perhaps improve the flow a tadge by substituting an emdash for the full stop in the middle here. @Cliftonian: (one of two pings) Not sure what you mean. I see a short sentence in front of a snaky one; joining them makes snakezilla. Am I understanding this correctly?• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC) It is not clear here what side Armistead was on. Ditto Hill. artillery fire by who? three successive infantry charges by who? the Confederates or the Union? I think "exchange of artillery fire" entails both sides, or is it not as clear as I think? Plus I added the word "Confederate" twice, but worry if that's too repetitive. Tks Ah, I missed "exchange". Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC) "Lee withdrew to Richmond to prepare for his next operation, as the action on Malvern Hill ended the campaign on the Peninsula." don't think you need this. "and thereby suffer heavy casualties" I think this is a run-on and would do better as a separate short sentence. The sentence before it is very good. Done tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Background "developed an ambitious plan to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital, and the Virginian Peninsula" I think the main priority was Richmond as opposed to the whole peninsula. I would stop at "to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital", and mention the Virginia peninsula for the first time at "to the tip of the peninsula at Fort Monroe". Virginia Peninsula or Virginian Peninsula? We have both. I think either is okay but be consistent. Done tks• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Why not link Lincoln? Done tks "spy its church spires" I think "spy" and "spire" sound unfortunately similar. perhaps change "spy" for a synonym or change "spire" for "steeple" Done tks "By May 30, he had begun moving troops" McClellan? Done tks• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC) General Lee, one of my own personal favourites, is not wikilinked here. Done "was the only clear Confederate victory during the Seven Days" but we haven't yet introduced the Seven Days in the body of the article. Got it, tks • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC) we have both "Union Army" and "Union army". be consistent with capitalisation Done tks "Nevertheless, on June 30," I'm not sure "Nevertheless" is needed. I think "On June 30" would do just as well. Done tks I believe sandwiching prose between an image and a quote box, as we have here under "Geography and location", is against MOS (see WP:IMGLOC). I would recommend putting the box in the centre as in the background section at Shangani Patrol, either at the start or the middle of the section (the end, I think, has a good peroration that is worth retaining as we go on to the prelude). I removed the map. We may have from one to four more maps coming onto the page soon, and that map didn't really add much anyhow IMO. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Rather good so far; the prose is a little choppy in places but also has some great turns of phrase I enjoyed. More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Prelude Perhaps substitute an image of Lee that shows him more or less the same size as McClellan and Porter next to him. As we stand he looks a bit small. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Third try for an image now, with Lee not such a wee, sleekit, cow'rin, tim'rous beastie. Unfortunately, however, now Porter has that undesirable flaw in scale.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC) I've subbed another one that is both more contemporary to the battle and more appropriate size-wise. I hope this is okay. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Prelude, continued "and his fear of being cut off from his supply depot[17] left him cautious and wary." why this citation in the middle of the sentence rather than at the end? Fixed. "So, on the night of June 28" You don't need "So"; just "On the night of June 28" would do just as well Done. "McClellan announced to his generals his intentions to move his army" perhaps "McClellan told his generals that he intended to move his army" Fitz John Porter is wikilinked in the image caption but not in the prose itself. Perhaps wl in the prose too. Done. "from which Lee's forces were expected to attack" careful regarding POV. perhaps "from which the Federals expected Lee's forces to attack" or similar. Done. "Having recently come" when? a few hours before? a few days before? The night before. Fixed. Harrison's Landing is wikilinked at the second mention but not the first. reverse Fixed. "Western Run—an area necessary for the planned movement of his forces to Harrison's Landing—where he feared an attack might come" he feared an attack might come at Western Run or at Harrison's Landing? The first, right? The mention of Harrison's Landing between the two emdashes also creates ambiguity in the next sentence ("As a result, he posted the largest portion of his army there"). Since we've already said this was the penultimate stop before Harrison's Landing, perhaps change to "Western Run—an area necessary for the final leg of his planned movement—where he feared an attack might come" or something like that, to make clear we're still talking about Western Run. Fixed. "Despite saying that his army was "in no condition to fight without 24 hours rest" and praying Lee's forces might leave his army alone that day,[23] McClellan left his troops at Malvern Hill and traveled downstream aboard the ironclad USS Galena towards Harrison's Landing on the north bank of the James River to inspect his army's future resting place there." This is a very long sentence. I would trim "towards Harrison's Landing on the north bank of the James River to inspect his army's future resting place there" down to "towards his army's future resting place at Harrison's Landing." Fixed. "McClellan did not give the command of the troops to any person" perhaps "McClellan did not delegate an interim commander" or similar Done. More soon —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Perhaps wikilink Army of Northern Virginia at first mention in the body (in background). —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Prelude, continued "led Lee to conclude that the men of the Army of the Potomac were demoralized and retreating" perhaps just "led Lee to conclude that the Army of the Potomac was demoralized and retreating" Done tks spacing of initials: A. P. Hill but D.H. Hill? Is this deliberate? Can't find anything in MOS; assume a space. Done. "rimming" oh my. Oh my indeed! A sex act was going to be mention at some point; I should have known. Changed to "fringing". --ceradon (talk • edits) 01:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Rest of the section is very well done and the map is helpful. Battle The quote box at the top right is labelled as a message from Lee, but then attributed beneath as from Colonel Chilton. I understand that this is explained in the prose but it will still probably confuse people. This message wasn't really from Lee, as I understand it—we say "it is quite unlikely that Lee saw and approved such a vague and poorly drawn order". Presumably, then, Lee just gave Chilton the gist of what he wanted and the colonel composed the actual message, which was still presented as from Lee? I would clarify this. Made a note of that fact in the quote box. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC) We have already wikilinked Darius Couch higher up. Unwl tks footnote d has no inline citation in it. Got it, tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Are the cannons in the picture here Federal or Confederate pieces? Or just decorative reproductions? I can't find a source ofr whether or not it's the actual cannons or not. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC) "Lt. Haydon supposedly fell asleep" who? Northerner, presumably? Yes. Fixed, thanks. Down to Magruder's charge. Very good work, I must say. More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC) Battle, continued "Magruder was told to move to Huger's right." by who? He was told at that morning's council. Done. Perhaps add to the caption of the map here that the Confederates are in red and the Federals in blue (the lay reader may get confused by the Southerners being in the northern positions and vice versa). Done. Aftermath "In fact, one veteran of the War wrote" who? Union or Confederate? Officer or enlisted man? Removed that whole thing. Unnecessary. Sneden, who made this map, was a Union private, presumably? I would make this 100% clear Yup. Clarified. "Lee, with Stonewall Jackson, met President Jefferson Davis" perhaps "Lee and Stonewall Jackson met President Jefferson Davis" Done. I'd move the "Gunboat candidate" picture to the right. On my screen it forces the section header beneath over to the middle of the page in a rather unsightly manner. Done. "continuously being reassigned" don't need the word "being" Done. In the caption, perhaps substitute "McClellan is depicted as saying:" for "The dialogue box reads:" Done. I hope this helps. Thanks for the great read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC) @Cliftonian: All done. Thank you for your comments. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think a map here demonstrating the grand sweeping movement of the Union landing would be very helpful, particularly for non-US readers who might not be so acquainted with the relevant geography.
  • @Cliftonian: this bears thought. I have been seriously considering making/adding 3 maps that show the three general waves of infantry assaults. The current battle map is not quite adequate, IMO, for a couple of reasons. If we add a map of the "giant stride" (assuming a usable one is available), that would be 4 maps added.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This is in my opinion very important to make clear exactly where the battle was and what the campaign movements were like. I have seen maps of the Peninsula Campaign and the Federal landing was very dramatic and impressive. It's also important because it lets the reader see concisely and intuitively that the Northern forces were to the south of the battlefield, and vice versa. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • This battle was the very end of the campaign. There is this map from the Peninsula campaign article. It shows the "giant stride", but it basically covers points farther east and times in the preceding weeks relative to the battle in this article. It is very nice for the campaign article, but doesn't quite fit n this one, I believe... an uninformed reader would have a hard time finding Malvern Hill, which has no troops marked... • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
        • How about using Template:Location map+ and marking Malvern Hill, Richmond and other relevant places on a map of Virginia? —  Cliftonian (talk)  01:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Coemgenus

Support. I supported last time after a lengthy review. Reading through it again, I'm happy to restate that support. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and the compliment, Coemgenus. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why are you sometimes using footnotes in the Additional notes section and other times parentheticals?
  • Fixed tks
• FN61 should be a single "p.", and the Sears listing in Sources shouldn't specify a page range that doesn't include citations like this one
  • Fixed tks
• "Abridged" is an edition statement, not part of the title. Nikkimaria(talk) 03:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed tks• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- hi all, because AFAIK this would be Cerandon's first FA, and Ling has been away from FAC for a while, I'd like to see a reviewer undertake a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we look at promotion. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

Support with minor comments:

• "In spring 1862, Union commander Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan developed an ambitious plan to capture Richmond, the Confederate capital, and the Virginia Peninsula: his 121,500-man Army of the Potomac, along with 14,592 animals, 1,224 wagons and ambulances, and 44 artillery batteries, would load onto 389 vessels and sail to the tip of the peninsula at Fort Monroe, then move inland and capture the capital." - this is a very long sentence, and I'd advise breaking into two after "Peninsula".
  • Done.
• "having "the stride of a giant", was executed with few incidents" - could we attribute the quote in-line, as you do for other quotes in the article? (e.g. "the historian Steers called this...") - otherwise it is unclear if it is a contemporary statement or a modern opinion.
  • Removed that quote. Unnecessary.
• "the defensive earthworks were undefended" - which defensive earthworks? I don't think the article's mentioned any yet
  • Done.
• "and the two armies did battle there" - "did battle" felt a bit antiquated as a construct to me, but might just be me...
  • Changed to "battled"
• "McClellan did not believe his army was ready for a battle, and wished that Lee did not give them one." - the tense in the second half seemed odd; "and hoped that Lee would not give them one"?
  • Done.
• "A confederate scout observed Union soldiers resting in position" - capitalisation of Confederate
  • Done.
• "three hours previously (at 1:30) by Chilton" - consistency of when you're using am/pm. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Added "pm". Thank you, Hchc2009 for your comments. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

comments from Auntieruth

Support with minor comments:

• Geography and location--seems some of the geography is over cited. I suspect that the sentence with the two foot notes in it could be just one footnote, since they are the same. Probably the footnote at the end is sufficient.
  • Merged the two refs.
• This sentence: "Despite the mishaps and disunity, Malvern Hill would be the first time during the Seven Days Battles that all of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was concentrated in the same place" seems awkward to me first time that Lee managed to concentrate the entire Army of Northern Virginia in the same place? Technically, we could leave it at concentrate his force, because that's implied in the use of term concentrate, but non military historians probably wouldn't understand.... It might be useful to link to Force concentration here.
  • Done.
• Union movement during the barrage was later mistaken for withdrawal? Was this was generated the untimed order from Chilton to attack? looks like it was...this could be clearer.
  • I don't think it was. I tried to make it a bit clearer. Sources don't say either way.
• This sentence, The explosions and impacts of the gunboat fire were extremely impressive to Confederate troops, but their aim was unreliable, and the large shells did considerably less damage than might be expected....impressed the Confederate troops, but the..
  • Reworded.

Very nice work, and much improved over the last submission. I have to go to work now, but will log back in on this tomorrow a.m. auntieruth (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

• Thank you for your comments and support, Auntieruth55. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• • I've made a few other tweaks that you can see in the history. I like this article very much. Much improved over the first submission. Well done, researched, and informative. We can tweak it until the cows come home, but I think well meets the Featured standards. auntieruth (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• "However, this shift of forces, together with other minor instances of Union movement, was later mistaken by Confederates for a Union retreat" - not seeing this on cited page
  • Corrected.
• "Jackson's response was that Hill should obey the original orders: charge with a yell after Armistead's brigade. No yell was heard for hours, and Hill's men began building bivouac shelters to sleep in" - not seeing this on cited pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Thank you, Nikki. --ceradon 04:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment -- @Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Graeme Bartlett: A month, 6 supports, image, source and spotcheck review. I think that's a wrap. Just a heads up; don't mind my giddiness. --ceradon 04:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

comments from Graeme Bartlett

• There are three CS1 maint errors on the Salmon, Snell and Sweetman references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• What's a cs1 error, and what tool did you use to find it? Tks• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I, too, can't seem to find any CS1 errors. Any further details you can give please? --ceradon 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, okay, I see it now after adding something to my .css page. However, I think that may be just a bug. You see: "illustrated" ends with "ed", so I think the software is parsing that (through RegEx or something) and only seeing the "ed" at the end and assuming it's a CS1 error. I'm pretty sure that's why that is. Should/could anything be done about that? --ceradon 17:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be correct! Unfortunately it also put the article into a hidden maintenance category. This code in Module:Citation/CS1 is what spots the ed:

if Edition:match ('[Ee]d%.?$') or Edition:match ('[Ee]dition$') then add_maint_cat ('extra_text', 'edition');

So we cannot count this against the article and I suppose have to report a bug, I will give that a go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, so until it's gone from that category, this can't be promoted? Just curious. I don't know if you or any of the other coords think it may be tacky for "Wikipedia's best work" to be in an error tracking category. --ceradon 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be promoted with those sort of errors still there, as the error is not in the article. However I am looking for more problems.

• anti-personnel and antipersonnel both appear, we should just have one spelling I believe.
  • Changed to "antipersonnel".
• Use of long dash — would seem to be better replaced by commas or semicolons, but I am not a style expert.
  • Removed some usage of the emdash.
• Sometime we have cross-fire, but there is also crossfire.
  • Changed to "crossfire".
    • There is still one "cross-fire" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Must be VisualEditor's fault. Fixed. --ceradon 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, should be tidied up now. --ceradon 23:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You are quick to fix!

• In "Burton 2010, p. 458 n5" there is n5—what does that mean?
  • Means "note 5" -- expanded that.
• Is abbreviating US states to two letter abbreviations allowed for FA?
  • Can't find any justification for that in the MOS. Abbreviations expanded.
    • There are still abbreviations in the Further reading section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. Thank you. --ceradon 01:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am still only up to "n", still o-z to go, in my checking of words. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Should thirty-eight and thirty-seven be spelled out or 38, 37 be used? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup. Done. Thanks, Graeme Bartlett. (If pinging you is annoying, feel free to tell me to fuck off not do that) Cheers! --ceradon 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • There are no words starting with z in the article, so I have finished the word scan. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• My issues are addressed so I will add my support vote. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support and comments, Graeme. Much appreciated. --ceradon 01:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I'll be done shortly. These are my edits. Prose is much better than last time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, Dank for your copyedit, and support. --ceradon 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing, sorry I couldn't finish this sooner. One more thing: search throughout for ," (comma-quote marks). I generally let one or two slide ... they might have been in the original, and there might be some reason for preserving them ... but there's enough of them that I think there's probably a series of WP:LQ violations here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Dank, did a Ctrl+F and fixed the ones I saw in accordance with the MOS. Thank you for pointing that out, and, again, thank you for your support. --ceradon 02:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Since Graeme is "involved", and Ian is on vacation, Laser brain, you are our only hope! --ceradon 13:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think you're getting Graeme confused with Graham Beards. But yes, I will be looking through the list for possible promotions this weekend. --Laser brain (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yikes. Embarrassing. My bad. I was wondering if you guys had a schedule for promotions. Should have just asked rather than pinging randomly. Anyway, cheers! --ceradon 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2015 [4].

---

Kill 'Em All

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) and Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kill 'Em All is Metallica's debut and the album that heralded the forthcoming thrash and extreme metal scenes. I've presented the events that preceded its creation and the atmosphere during recording. There's also the music and lyrics analysis, as well as the tour that occured after the album's release. Though the album did not have a successful commercial run in its initial days, it aged well and is regarded as one of the best representative of thrash metal's early days. Hope to receive positive feedback from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by DannyMusicEditor

Support (at the moment) - It does not seem to miss anything essential. Beautiful work on the prose. Sources are all good. I'll check images and certification refs in a moment, because I see Master of Puppets had some problems in that area, but I'm liking this so far. I'm confident that this is going to go very well. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I don't know if I'm missing something, but I'm not finding anything mentioned about this album charting in the UK or Australia according to the refs provided. Seems the only problem I can see at the moment. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Danny, thanks for the support. Unfortunatelly, the album didn't chart in the United Kingdom and Australia, therefore they aren't in the charts.--Retrohead (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well if that's true, then I think I'll go ahead and remove the positions that were provided for those territories. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood you. I see now that you were talking about mentioning the charts in the prose. I have little information on how the album performed in those territories (sales on a week-to-week basis, year-end charts, etc.) so don't see where/why would I put it.--Retrohead (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No. What I'm saying is, the references provided for the UK and Australian peak chart positions say nothing about those spots. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I copied the positions from Metallica discography. I don't know why Kill 'Em All isn't present on the British chart, but my guess would be that they only rank the top 100. This album unfortunatelly didn't break into that area.--Retrohead (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I found alternative sources in the discography. Apparently, they have a book citation for Australia's position, and for the UK position, they have a Chart Log tracking sales from 1994-2010. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Danny, I've applied the sources you provided to the article (big thanks for that!).--Retrohead (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Best of luck! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero

Image review

• File:Metallica - Kill 'Em All cover.jpg is a non-free image with an appropiate rationale.
• File:Lars Ulrich live in London 2008-09-15.jpg seems fine.
• File:Priest feast 22 - megadeth 05.jpg seems fine.
• File:The Four Horsemen.ogg needs to fill the sections "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities".

Ok, the sections are now filled.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Metallica - Seek and Destroy.ogg seems fine, but you should use {{Non-free media data}} and {{Non-free media rationale}} to avoid repeating details each time the file is used in an article. Cambalachero (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Went with the same format as "The Four Horsemen" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Background and recording

Remember that this section is about the background of the album (how were the songs composed, how was the lineup formed, how was it recorded, etc), not about all the history of Metallica at the time. For the most part, both things are the same, but some portions (such as Mustaine breaking a string during a tour, or who gets to play with Saxon) go a bit off-topic, as they are not related to the creation of the album. The captions of both photos should be shorter, and should link the name of the person seen in them (this does not count for the limits on links to a same article). Besides, if the captions mentions two people, it must be clear who is the one of the photo (that, or rewrite the caption to mention only the man in the photo). You and me can easily recognize Ulrich and Mustaine even in a photo without context; but a featured article will be read by many people, including people with limited or no knowledge about thrash metal. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See what you mean. I've corrected the image descriptions, writing the band members with full names and adding "pictured" in brackets.--Retrohead (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Bollyjeff

• References 13,22, and 47 do not link properly to their bibliography entries.

Thanks for the note Bollyjeff, it is corrected now.--Retrohead (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reference 27 has incorrect date.

Corrected.

• Reference 31 does not say anything about "fake crowd noise". Can you find a source that does?

Found a Metal Hammer article that mentions that information.

• Why isn't ref 45 a book source in the bibliography?

I moved it there.

• Reference 47 can have a date of 1983 at least; it says issue 1.

Added the release date of the first issue (August 1983)

• Reference 49 is dead.

Replaced it with a book reference.

• The images of Ulrich and Mustaine have long unsourced captions with unclear wording.

Sourced them. What did you find awkwardly worded?

"picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana, who had a list of names" maybe could be "picked the band's name from his friend Ron Quintana's list of names" and "Ulrich suggested [the name] Metal Mania". "Mustaine brawled drunken" is perhaps not the best grammar. Drunkenly? "Was involved in a drunken brawl" is perhaps better.

Ok, did the copyediting as you suggested.

• "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" -> "New Wave of British Heavy Metal (NWOBHM)" and/or provide the link at first occurrence of NWOBHM.

Done.

• Song clips also include un-sourced text.

Sourced them.

• Music and lyrics - switches from talking about "Hit the Lights" to "The Four Horsemen" mid-sentence. I got lost reading that. Please separate better. Same thing on "Motorbreath" and "Jump in the Fire". And "Phantom Lord" and "No Remorse". And every other song; a really awkward style to my eyes.

Separated them with fullstop.

• Touring - "In late June," Year is needed. Last year mentioned was 2010

Added year.

• Any way to get a picture of that alternative album cover?

This would be the alternative cover. However, I'm not keen on uploading non-free images because everything I've uploaded so far (except front covers) has been deleted, and I don't really know how to justify its use.

Yes, I see that they usually get rejected. You do have significant commentary on the subject though; I wonder if you could use the t-shirt picture instead? And is this the bootleg release that you discussed: [5]

I'll ask an editor who's more knowledgeable than me in that area, and see what he recommends. Here is the discussion. If you think the alt cover is essential, I will upload it, but I personally prefer not to. About the bootleg-yep, that's the one.

• All of my points have have been addressed, but I find the prose to be lacking slightly. For example, I have often seen the word "opined" and other such flowery words called out at reviews because of WP:SAY. Can you find an experienced edit to give it a quick copy edit? Then I would feel better about giving full support.

Do you want a copyedit on the "Reception", or on the entire article? I believe Greg Fasolino can handle the duty.

Entire article please. Another example from the Touring section: "along an early version of...".

Ok, I replaced "opined" with "observed", and I think there aren't vague words such as that. About the second part of the note, is it better to replace "along" with "in addition to", "accompanied", or a better suggestion if you have?

I fixed it myself. What about the rest of the article? Greg hasn't touched it since mid June. BollyJeff | talk

I guess he has nothing to change or perhaps he has other more important duties. He went through the article in early June, and Curly Turkey also copyedited the artcle in that period. Turkey also did a peer review, and I don't want to bother him again with this article. Can you point some issues that I can correct myself to avoid the standard c/e procedure at WP:GOCE? I've read the text today and doesn't look particularly bad to me.

I will check it again soon. I have the same problem with my articles. I give it to GOCE; then FAC reviewers say its not good enough, but I have nowhere to go for additional help. BollyJeff | talk 19:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Background and recording - ""This was mortgage money I'm spending, not something I've got put by I'm going to invest," later he said." This looks weird. Could you replace "put by I'm going" with ellipses? Could you re-word "later he said"?

Slightly reworded the non-quote part. Regarding the Zazula's statement, it looks weird, but we can't alter weird statements. Ellipses are mostly used when there are few meaningless sentences that aren't important in making the point.

• I would move some of the Mechanix text such as: "Mustaine wrote "The Mechanix" during his tenure at Panic, with lyrics about having sex at a gas station" up into the Background and recording section, where the song title is first mentioned, with no explanation.

Could fit there, but I'll lose the point on how Metallica changed the lyrics.

How about just mentioning ""The Mechanix", which Mustaine wrote during his tenure with Panic"?

I see you've done that on my behalf. I just did a minor wording correction.

• Music and Lyrics - "he was working at." Ending a sentence with 'at' is not good.

I've seen that word construction in newspapers. You have an idea how to modify it if you don't find it appropriate?

All the style guides known to me, from Fowler downwards, regard it as a superstition to believe that one shouldn't use a preposition to end a sentence with. Tim riley talk 21:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"where he was working."

• "inspired by Diamond Head's "Dead Reckoning"" is confirmed in source 29, not 26. Perhaps put both sources together after both sentences.

Cite 26 confirms it is the first song recorded during the album sessions, and ref 29 says it was inspired by Diamond Head and Hetfield wrote the riff in the truck factory.

• Source 52 - Is Muze somehow related to CD Universe or Q Magazine? In what manner? Fix with correctly formatted citation.

Dropped Muze, think it looks good now.

--BollyJeff | talk 03:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - All of my points have been addressed, and the recent edits are enough to push it over the edge for me. BollyJeff | talk 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments by Tim riley

Evidently of FA quality, it seems to me. A few comments before I add my explicit support.

• Lead
  • "two–month co–headlining" – are we sure about the en-dashes? Wouldn't hyphens would be usual here? Might be prudent to ask an expert such as Chris the speller to take a look at the article.

I changed en dashes to hyphens where appropriate. Chris the speller ^yack 00:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Chris, as always! Tim riley talk 20:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Background and recording
  • "Ron McGovney on bass and temporary guitarist Lloyd Grant" – I might add a comma after "bass" for clarity.

Added.

• • "Although Motley Crue was originally scheduled to open the show, they canceled because of their" – singular or plural? In fact this is a problem throughout the article. "Metallica played in front of 7,000 people, their largest audience…" and "Metallica recorded a three-song demo to persuade the venue's management to allow them to open", "Metallica's third concert was in April, at which they premiered…", but "Metallica headed to Sweet Silence Studios in Copenhagen to record its sophomore album", "Metallica's commercial success with its third studio album", "Metallica promoted its material" etc. I have the general impression that "the band was" is more usual in AmEng and "the band were" in BrEng, but either way we want to be consistent.

I think all of them are corrected now. Went with the American approach because the album is from a US band.

• • "at the The Troubadour" – I don't think we want the repeated definite article. A crazed grammarian might make a case for it in some circumstances, but for everyday English I think just "at The Troubadour" is right.

Whoops, I wonder how I haven't noticed that. It is corrected now.

• Music and lyrics
  • "the devil watches people killing each other, sure they will go to hell" – is the devil or the people who are sure?

Added "and is" to avoid any potential misconstruction.

• Reception
  • "and facetiously remarked" – I'd lose the adverb, which has a touch of WP:EDITORIAL about it.

It is gone now.

• • "said it influenced him selfsame" – unless this is a verbatim quote – in which case it would be better to put it in direct speech – it would be preferable to put it in plain English, replacing "selfsame" with "as much as" or similar.

Went with "as much as".

That's all from me. Not at all my area of expertise, but I think I understood everything, as the article is written with great clarity and has just the right number of links. I look forward to supporting the FA candidacy once these few minor points are addressed. Tim riley talk 21:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Now very happy to add my support. To this layman's eye the article seems comprehensive, and it is precisely, clearly written, and admirably concise (unlike some articles on popular music I have waded through at FAC), with wide and thorough referencing and a good balance, pro and con, in the reported assessments of the disc. It certainly seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 20:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Tim, your comments are always appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 07:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

I won't have time to delve deeper, but a look at the lead yielded some concerns:

• "which fuses New Wave of British Heavy Metal riffing with hardcore punk tempos."—awkward grammar; "Fusing x riffing with y" does not sound correct.

I don't find it grammatically incorrect or hard ro understand. It means that Metallica combined/fused/blended fast guitar riffs with double-kick drums. Those instruments are the basis in rock music, and the sentence says in which manner the instruments were played.

I understand the sentence now. Would "riffs" instead of "riffing" be better? The participle really confused me. The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed to "riffs".

• "...and inspired a number of bands who followed in similar manner."—redundancy ("a number of"); zero is a number, so are one and a million.

Per Collin's dictionary, "a number of" is a synonym for "several, a few, various".

It is wordy and relatively uninformative. The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The album did not enter the Billboard 200 until 1986..."—until in 1986

I believe "until 1986" is more accurate than your suggestion. Chris the speller can correct me if I'm wrong.

• You need a hyphen in "best album lists".

I think the current version is better, though I'd prefer to hear Chris' opinion on this one also.

• "...Metallica started playing shows in local clubs in Los Angeles before relocating to San Francisco. Metallica recorded a couple of demos, trying to get attention from club owners."—repetitive "Metallica".

That's what the band calls itself. I tried to use the terms "Metallica", "the band", and "the group" equally often, but except for those terms, there isn't a fourth option.

Why not "they"? The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Because Americans refer to the band as "it".

• "...trying to get attention from club owners. The group's No Life 'til Leather demo (1982) caught the attention of Megaforce label head Jon Zazula..."—"trying" is redundant and more repetition of "the attention", making for uncomfortable reading.

I could use "caught the eye" or something else, but I'd prefer to stick with some more offical word constructions than phrases.

"was noticed by" for the second one? The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Modified.

• "Intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass, with cover art featuring a hand clutching a dagger emerging from a toilet bowl, the band was asked to change it..."—dangling modifier and fused participle ("with cover art featuring")

There is nothing grammatically incorrect with the way it is. It's editor's discretion, I don't see what you find unconventional in the quoted clause.

The sentence as it is right now states that the band was intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass. The Wikipedian Penguin 04:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If you read it as a stand-alone sentence, perhaps. But in the context (The album was recorded [...] Intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass), I don't think it does.

When a modifier begins a sentence as such ("Intended to be titled Metal Up Your Ass), it modifies the immediate object following the comma. That is why this sentence is ungrammatical. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Corrected by Bollyjeff.

• The body of the article prose does not use the expression "commercial suicide", so I don't see why it is used in the lead, much less uncited.

Corrected by DannyMusicEditor.

That this is all from the lead may be an indicator of possible problems further down. I won't oppose since I don't have time to revisit the entire article until after holidays, but please take my comments into consideration. Perhaps get a third eye to run over the prose. Good luck, The Wikipedian Penguin 17:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Think the intro has to mention Seek and Destroy since is probably the most popular song of the entire album. Motorbreath could also be mentioned. The article has no impact section, discusing explicitly how the album influenced the future style of Metallica and other bands. The article does not seem to mention at all that Seek & Destroy remained a very popular song being included in tours much later after the album's release. Nergaal (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The album's legacy is discussed in the last paragraph of the reception and partially at the beginning of the music and lyrics. As for "Seek & Destroy", I don't know from where you got the information that the song was premiered live quite some time after the album's release. As far as I know, it was played months before the album was recorded (the August 29, 1982 gig, for example).--Retrohead (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

My wife is more the Metallica fan though I did enjoy the documentary on them with the therapist. I'll do some source checking.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Formatting for authors/dates/pages looks in order.
• Right, acclaimed music has an author and location. These should be added.

You mean Henrik Franzon, the creator of Acclaimed Music? Added.

• Books all conform with 13 digit ISBNs and hyphens, publishers and no locations.

Spot check by Cas Liber

Ref 78 says double platinum for another album, not kill 'em all.

Can I ask for a help here. Metallica discography#Studio albums says the album is platinum, but I can not find a way to incorporate the ref because the system automatically generates a reference.

The PDF doesn't list it either, but the its re-entry into Australian charts that year. I have little experience with sourcing music articles, sorry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is removed now.--Retrohead (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ref 51 - used twice, material faithful to source.

Ref 25 used twice, material faithful to source though two catchy words better in quotes.

Ref 63 - material faithful to source.

Ref 3 - material mostly faithful to source...but I can't find mention in the source of Mechanix having lyrics about having sex at a gas station, only that they were "silly"

Oh, that's from Pillsbury's book, page 194. I though it would be unusual to have a sandwiched sentence between the same ref.→[3][30]...[30]--Retrohead (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandwiching refs is fine if it helps align material with sources...and the material is funny and should be kept in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, re-added.--Retrohead (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Most other refs are bookrefs, which I can't check.

Other comments from Cas Liber

Its musical approach and lyrics were contrary to rock's mainstream of the early Eighties and inspired a number of bands who followed in similar manner. - "contrary" means like "disagreed with". If distinct, write something like "markedly different" or something....

and created buzz in the underground tape trading circles - bit casual, would say, "and created a sensation in the underground tape trading circles" or something similar

I adjusted the lead per your suggestion. As for the second, I think "sensation" is a bit pumped wording in comparison to "buzz", which sounds more balanced.--Retrohead (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thought I might say something about this. Per your reason given, "buzz" seems better, but shouldn't "created buzz" be "created a buzz"? I'll fix it now because I'm near certain that's how it should be, but if you disagree, revert me. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right, thanks for correcting that one.--Retrohead (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll pay that one. :)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose, BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs (used for discussion)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 [6].

---

Paterson Clarence Hughes

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Pat Hughes was the highest-scoring Australian ace in the Battle of Britain, achieving seventeen victories in less than two months of combat. Beyond the air fighting, though, this is a bit of a love story, as Hughes' English bride Kay figures prominently in the key sources. Thanks Cliftonian, AustralianRupert and Anotherclown for their helpful comments at the recent GA and Milhist A-Class reviews, and in advance to everyone who stops by here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Paterson_Clarence_Hughes_1936_(AWM_P00835.001).JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Tks for checking, Nikki. AWM doesn't say, but then nor does it for File:Paterson Clarence Hughes 1940.jpg so curious why that one isn't problematic also... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Technically both should have details on original publication. I'm less concerned about the other one because (a) it has been republished far more widely - I actually was not able to find copies of this one elsewhere, although there may be, and (b) this one is identified as a studio portrait (which means it is more likely to have had a commercial owner and is not likely to have been immediately published). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Granted, although government agencies can credit the actual photographers and studios of works they commission, but in any case we have the declaration from the AWM of unrestricted PD, so why not simply re-tag as CC0 1.0? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's an alternative option in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Tks Nikki, just to confirm, is that the {{cc-zero}} tag? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
            • {{PD-because}} might actually be a better option in this case, just because of the wording of the cc-zero tag - the former allows you to more clearly specify the reasoning for the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
              • Hi Nikki, I've had a go at this now if you'd be able to check, since I've not used the tag before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
                • Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Support—I reviewed and passed this for GA and am comfortable supporting it for FA as well. It is well-written, properly and clearly sourced and laid out, and well illustrated. Images are all PD and properly licenced. The foe-by-foe combat record is a great touch. Thank you, Ian, for this fine article on a fine man. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, John -- I was fortunate in that Australian Air Aces presented just such a table, and other sources provided additional verification for each result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Excellent article of very high standard; not much for me to comment on, and I'm inclined to support in its current state, but a few things for you to look at first, even if you don’t change anything:

Early life

• "young Pat": A little relaxed – especially with the use of his first name
  • That's me in my occasional folksy mood... ;-) Open to suggestions -- "the youth" perhaps?
    • That would work for me - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually since we talk about other people (the father and Banjo Paterson) in the previous sentence, I thought it best we keep the youth's name, though I dropped "young" as agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Early RAF service

• You use the name Pat Hughes in the quote too: this could be trimmed to Hughes
  • Done.

Legacy

• "Flying Officer Butch had run out of the mess": FOB ran out of the mess
• You could also link to mess too, for some who don't know military parlance
  • Done both.

Combat record

• Is there any need to columns saying RAF and Spitfire, as these are constant? You could have an introductory sentence before the table with this
  • A fair point and one that occurred to me as well (I think the table was in this form when I discovered the article). I thought it might be worth leaving the "Flying" column as some tables like this list the aircraft serial number for each victory, and although I don't have that info in all cases for Hughes, it may come to light some time. There'd certainly be no harm in removing the "Service" column though, as there's nothing more to be added to that (not even unit, as all victories were with 234 Sqn).
    • I'd be happy with that - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• It may be worth a word of explanation as to why there are two entries on the table that are un-numbered in the first column, and possibly to put an en dash in there to show it's meant to be un-numbered. Just a thought, anyway.
  • The main source, Newton, just left them blank, but I don't mind adding the dash if you think it works better.
    • I think that's possibly a good idea - people may think that the blanks are later additions, or need to have their numbering re-jigged, without realising exactly why they are blank. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

That's it from me – an excellent and interesting read and thanks for the nudge to read it. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by, Schro! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support I'll leave it to your choice on the table - it's crtainly not a deal-breaker on my support either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: I've seen this one develop through B class, GA and then ACR. I've really enjoyed reading this article and seeing it get steadily better. I believe that it is up to Ian's usual standard now, but have the following comments by way of a review: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• there are no dabs, and the external links all work;
• I believe the article is well written and nothing stood out to me as being grammatically incorrect;
• Distinguished Flying Cross is a duplicate link in the lead, but it is probably acceptable in the situation (i.e. the post nominal and then the first full mention);
• the article is well referenced, using reliable sources and seems broad in its referencing base and coverage. Nothing stands out as unsourced to me;
• the images all have alt text;
• I wonder if the word "fitter" should be linked;
  • Done.
• source review: I checked Garrison p. 140 and p. 35 and was happy that they support the information for which they are used as citations;
• the web citation to "Hughes, Paterson Clarence – Casualty File" probably could have the National Archives listed as the publisher;
  • Done.
• "Cooma-Monaro Shire Council": potentially should have an endash;
  • Done.
• in the Notes, the link to the Australian War Memorial appears in Ref # 72, but it should appear on first mention (Ref # 71).
  • ...and done.
  • Great work, Ian. Good luck with your travels overseas and enjoy! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks very much, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support
  • I reviewed at ACR and believe it meets the FAC criteria.
  • Ref spot checks:
    • I completed checks on two of the Newton sources (1990 and 1996) (selected because as I own copies). These are fns # 5, 8, 20, 31, 34, 47, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 70, 79, and 81. All seem to support the information cited with no issues of close paraphrase that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Much appreciated, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 [7].

---

Kurt Vonnegut

Nominator(s): ceradon (talk • edits) 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC); Wehwalt (talk · contribs)

This article is about the late author Kurt Vonnegut. Always sardonic, and always funny. Wehwalt and I have been working on it over the past few weeks, and are happy enough with the result that we want to bring it to FA. Cheers, ceradon (talk • edits) 14:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury Markowitz

• Support This is one of the few examples of a recent PR that seemed to work. I reviewed it there top to bottom, but was only able to find a single minor suggestion worth posting. Excellent article that I think will see a lot of general interest. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful review at PR and for your review and support here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage (and source review)

Collapsed first round of reference issues

I'm going to be picking on reference formatting here. I've not even started to examine the prose, although I do actually look forward to doing so, because Vonnegut. Unfortunately, there are some problems down there in Source land. I don't think I understand why the BBC article is directly dropped in the Citations; often, that's done for web sources or the like, while only print (and sometimes only book) sources appear in the Sources/Bibliography list. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. Done. --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Entries in the source list need to be presented in alphabetical order by author. (Barsamian is the first one out of order, but the whole thing needs audited). Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) There are at least a couple cases where a journal citation attempts to brute-force formatting by providing an |issue number but using markup to display it in bold (see Boomhower and Hayman, at least). I can confim that Boomhower should simply have that be rendered as |volume (and probably converted out of Roman numerals), and it's safe to assume the same is true for the Hayman source. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Freese, Morse, Tally 2013 reference uses citation template instead of the cite family, resulting in differences in formatting. I'm aware. I couldn't find a cite template that would work. Open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Cite book should get what you want. Here's me taking a stab at converting the Freese reference. Note that Tally is actually the editor of the complete volume (rather than its author), and, strangely, the official title is apparently just Kurt Vonnegut, in the Critical Insights series. Salem Press tries to have it both ways, Worldcat has it like this ... YMMV. Anyway: Freese, Peter (2013). "'Instructions for use': the opening chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five and the reader of historiographical metafictions". In Tally, Robert T., Jr. (ed.). Kurt Vonnegut. Critical Insights. Salem Press. pp. 95–117. ISBN 978-1-4298-3848-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) Let me know if that's functional. Otherwise, we'll explore other options. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Ideally, ISBN-10s should be converted to ISBN-13s. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Since the Gannon and Taylor source is citing the Salon.com reprint of the Jacobin article (which is an exclusively-online version), I'm fairly sure this needs a retrieval date. :*Similarly, I'd provide retrieval dates for the Grossman and Harris sources, and ... a lot more web sources. In general, just check them all, because you're missing lots. It's my understanding that retrieval dates aren't necessary if the content is unlikely to change, such as a past news articles or a google books piece. I'll put them all in if you like, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) My interpretation of the MOS best practice for retrieval dates is that they are not required (and, indeed, actively discouraged) when the online source is demonstrably a mirror or archive of the print source. So, if you're citing a book, and linking to Google Books, you don't need a retrieval date; the link is a convenience link. Newspaper and magazine sites occupy a gray area in this age where the online content is often broader than what was printed offline. In cases where the online copy explicitly states print publication information, I'll tend to provide that full set of bibliographic information, and the link, but no retrieval date. When it was an online-only source, or the offline status is unclear, I'll cite material as purely a web source and provide a retrieval date. Regardless, retrieval dates are valuable even for pages whose content is likely to be static (like past news stories) simply because the link may change (several of the big news sites have reshuffled their URL trees in the past) and having the retrieval date aids in ensuring that archived copies located later match the content the original editor referred to. Whew! That's a lot of text for not providing an explicit rule, isn't it? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you for that. I think we've covered it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Publication location is not needed for periodicals, as with the Hayman and Michaelis source, even when you've opted in to using them for books. I've axed all of them. They are of limited use in an internet age.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The Hattenhauer source is incomplete, it needs |volume=35 and |issue=4. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The NPR article credited to Vonnegut himself is a mess. Vonnegut didn't write it, for one thing, especially since he was already dead. Rather, Tom Vitale did. It also needs a retrieval date, as you're citing the web version and not the original All Things Considered broadcast. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to identify Cornell University as the source of the Cornell Chronicle in the Lowery source, although others are free to disagree with me there. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) And So It Goes should be italicized within the article title of the Mallory source. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) You can drop the LLC from the publisher for the Shields reference. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Regarding Smith 1997, I really don't consider Cliff's Notes to be a high-quality source. Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The New York University School of Medicine database page cited with the author "Unknown" actually was written by its listed annotator, Martin Kohn. I am neutral as to whether this constitutes a reliable source. Done. --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) The Wallingford source is not, strictly speaking, published by the University of Northern Iowa. Rather, it's in the personal webspace of the cited author. I don't believe this to be a reliable source. Done. --ceradon (talk • edits) 23:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC) You've opted to cite publisher locations, mostly, but there are a few book sources that lack them, and it's an all-or-nothing choice. At the least, they're missing from all of Vonnegut's works and the Zinn and Arnove source; I may have missed some. Nothinged.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) I'm sure there's something that can be done to clean up the presentation of the external links and sort them into some sort of order. There's some broken markup at the end of hte Lilly Library's second link (does that warrant two?). I cut that one. It seems a fairly conventional order, starting with the official website and going by relevance. It's similar to what I've seen in quite a few articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) I'm neutral regarding the article at this time. There's quite a bit of cleanup needed in the references, and a couple of sources that I object to on WP:RS grounds, but this doesn't seem impossible to salvage. Again, no input on prose or images at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you. We'll work these through. Ceradon, some I've left because I think you're more familiar with the area than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

...and the second.

} Back to do another pass, including a prose review. "The Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library was established in Vonnegut's honor, and numerous scholarly works were released, examining Vonnegut's writing and humor." Perhaps simply "numerous scholarly works examined"? I fixed it, I think. Please check to make sure. "were among the wealthiest in the city, their wealth deriving" "Deriving" sounds awkward here (perhaps it should be "derived"?), but the "wealthiest ... wealth" close pairing is also a problem. Done. Why is Public School No. 43 in quotation marks? Is it worth piping a linking to James Whitcomb Riley High School (doing so will probably also need a source identifying Riley as the same institution as PS 43, such as this one, and might warrant some cleanup to that target article). Done. There appears to be a space missing between the preceeding reference and the sentence that starts "Edith Vonnegut...". Done. "This meant that should he leave Cornell, he would most likely be drafted into the United States Army." This strikes me as written in the incorrect tense. Not sure how I could fix that. Suggestions? Sorry for being slow getting back to this one. I think the best solution might be to rearrange a couple sentences: Currently: "This meant that should he leave Cornell, he would most likely be drafted into the United States Army. He was placed on academic probation in May 1942 and dropped out the following January. Rather than wait to be drafted, he enlisted in the army and in March 1943 reported to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for basic training." Proposed: "He was placed on academic probation in May 1942 and dropped out the following January. No longer eligible for a student deferment, he would likely have been drafted into the United States Army. Instead of waiting to be conscripted, he enlisted in the army and in March 1943 reported to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, for basic training." Or something like that, adjusting the links accordingly. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Inserted with some modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC) "They never expected Dresden to get bombed, Vonnegut said. "There were very few air-raid shelters in town and no war industries," he recalled, "just cigarette factories, hospitals, clarinet factories."" I believe this needs reworded. "They" is referring to the Germans here, but that's not at all grammatically justified. And the "Vonnegut said ... he recalled" pairing is a problem; I don't think you need the intraquote attribution here at all, at least in the current form. Done. Why is Ghost Dance in quotation marks? Fixed. "Bantamwith" has a missing space. Done. In the section about The Sirens of Titan, you have both Rumfoord and Rumsfoord. As I recall, Winston's last name lacks an s. Good catch. Done. "They are killed as they dance by the Handicapper General" Perhaps "As they dance, they are killed by the Handicapper General"? Done. You have a single rendering of Slaughterhouse-Five as Slaughter-House Five. Done. "He also read the Classics, like those of Aristophanes, who, like Vonnegut, wrote humorous critiques of contemporary society." This needs to be tweaked. Appositive phrases are supposed to be removable, but trying to do that here, gets you "...the Classics, who, like Vonnegut..." which doesn't work. Done. "a group of individuals appointed by God to do His will" Can anyone confirm what the MOS stance on capital-Him pronoun use for God is? I honestly don't know. Lower case. It's MOS:CAPS#Religion. Lowered.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC) "...while at General Electric, Vonnegut witnessed machines..." You've already glossed GE, and used it for quite some time. Was this intentionally left spelled out (because it's been awhile since the GE section)? Intentional. A reviewer mentioned it at the peer review. In the Works section, you've got an "unless otherwise cited..." introduction, but don't ever otherwise cite. Done. Second pass through references: In Blount, you cite |issue=Sunday Book Review. I think that's better cited as |department=. Done. There are still some ISBN-10s that can be converted to ISBN-13s. Farrell, Shields, Thomas, all the Vonnegut books, and Zinn. Done. There's something odd about the templating on the Hattenhauer reference, with a stray "and" and an extraneous period. I didn't peek at the code to see why. Fixed this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Hayman still needs |issue changed to |volume Done. Regarding Kohn, New York University School of Medicine is apparently generally styled without a comma. Done. There are a handful of duplicate links: God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater (2nd appearance in the last paragraph of "Struggling writer"), Bokononism (2nd appearance in "Religion"), and Aldous Huxley (2nd appearance in "Influences"). All delinked.

Despite the long lists of criticisms I've produced, in general, I support promotion. Vonnegut is a complex figure with oodles of information to condense into a single article, and I think this does an admirable job at doing so. Nothing I've raised as problems should be difficult to resolve, nor fatal to promotion by the end of the FAC process. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Glad to have been of assistance. I look forward to seeing Vonnegut's article with a bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Squeamish Ossifrage: just to make sure, that was a full source review right. It looked pretty full to me Just wanted to make sure so I don't go off finding another person to do a source review. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 07:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, my evaluations on this one should be considered a full source review in the FAC sense. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Almost there. Most of my concerns were addressed in PR, but please do address Squeamish Ossifrage's comments above. Additionally, I'd use citations from the And So It Goes book itself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and encouragement. Citations from the book how?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

By using in-text references to it in the same way you have for the other citations to books. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, I'm seeing a book review used for And So It Goes when it's better to use the book itself instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we're up to date with both current reviewers but they might want to double-check nothing fell between us.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns are resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

• Support I had my say at the PR and this article has improved since. great work - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, SchroCat. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria

• File:Kurt_Vonnegut_1972.jpg: can you clarify the provenance of this image? Was it shown during a TV program, or put out in promotional materials, or...?
  • It appears to have been aired in advance of the release of Between Time and Timbuktu in March 1972. Since the PBS/WNET episode was aired in March 1972 as part of NET Playhouse, and the image was taken in 1972, it was likely promotional material. I can't find the listing on eBay (I saw it a few weeks ago; I don't know what happened). --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As this was taken in 1972, and thus prior to 1977, the copyright would have had to have been renewed. From the Stanford Copyright Renewal Database, that is not the case, so it's more than probable that this is in the public domain. --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay, so suggest switching from no-notice to not-renewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Done. --ceradon (talk • edits) 15:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Kurt_Vonnegut_-_High_School_Yearbook.PNG: have you checked for renewals of copyright here? Unlikely but still good to check, particularly when the source claims it is still copyrighted
  • Quite sure the copyright has not been renewed. --ceradon (talk • edits) 04:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I checked that too. No indication from the page images that it was copyrighted in the first place.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Kurt-Vonnegut-US-Army-portrait.jpg: where are you getting that attribution from? The given source only credits us

Nikkimaria the only pictures I can find related to this are attributed back to Wikipedia, but, since it's clear that this had to be taken before 1945 when Vonnegut was young, that would have to mean that the copyright would have had to be renewed if someone, for whatever reason, wanted to hold on to it. That is ostensibly not the case, so is that permissible? --ceradon (talk • edits) 12:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Only if we can show that it was published at that time - if it was not published until after 1977 then renewal would not yet be a consideration. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• File:Kurt_Vonnegut_and_his_family,_1955.jpg: are we sure Edie has the right to release copyright here? She wasn't the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If it satisfied OTRS, do we have any call to go behind that? Don't we just accept that they did their work properly?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what was said to OTRS - do either of you have access? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Please check your email. --ceradon (talk • edits) 19:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Editorofthewiki

• Support After a read through and small copyedit, I think this is ready for the star. It is well written and comprehensive. Good job! ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble, and for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Iridescent

• Support. Everything I had to raise, I raised at the PR and it was addressed then. Support with the same disclaimer as my comments at the PR, that I'm taking accuracy on faith, as this is a topic on which I know very little. ‑ iridescent 10:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review there and your ongoing support. I hope as well we do Vonnegut justice, with accuracy.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from Brianboulton

• Support: I made my detailed comments at the peer review, and they were all dealt with satisfactorily. In reading the article through again just now, I saw this: ""He later stated that the loss in confidence in government..." I am sure that the first the first "in" should be an "of" – it certainly reads better that way, and I would advise this change. Otherwise, fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Made that change. Thank you for your support. --ceradon (talk • edits) 17:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 [8].

---

Samuel J. Randall

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Samuel J. Randall, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, half-hearted presidential candidate, and a long-serving politician from my hometown, Philadelphia. The last biography in my long-running 1880 series, it contains a lot of tariff and monetary disputes that no longer fascinate the nation as they once did, but should (I hope) be an enjoyable read. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Coemgenus, is this a WikiCup entry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry for the omission. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, but I'd suggest replacing the Blackburn image with one taken from http://cdn.loc.gov/master/pnp/cwpbh/05200/05210u.tif (Bibliographic details at http://www.loc.gov/item/brh2003002521/PP/ ) - it makes the page look untidy to have one tiny image. Sometimes that might be justified - as it would be if no other images existed - but they do in this case. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Nikkimaria. @Adam Cuerden: did you want me to use File:Joseph Clay Stiles Blackburn - Brady-Handy.jpg, or did you think that could be upgraded from the original in higher resolution? --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Given he's not the main subject, let's go with that one. If you're interested in Blackburn, I'll do a full restoration of him for you, but he's not the main focus of the article by any means, after all, and we don't need a featured picture for every person mentioned in an FA, right? =) That said, I bet that lead image could be made an FP... But! We're going off-topic. Image issues sorted. . Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Only thing - and this is easy to make it work either way: CSS crop Blackburn (as now) or upload a crop as a new file? Normally, I'd say it doesn't matter, but we've cropped pretty heavily, so it might slim a few hundred kilobytes off the page if we did crop. On the other hand, I do like the functionality of clicking on the cropped image leading to the uncropped. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen CSS cropping, but I don't know how to do it. If you want to have at it, though, that's fine by me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Have a look at the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)°

• Nice. Really emphasises that magnificent mustache. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now. WIll make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

he did not follow his father into the law - "the" law? We'd just say "law" here in Australia...is it different over there?

In the United States, "the law" is usually how lawyers describe our profession. A AmEng/BrEng difference, I guess. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting - I feel smater now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Worsening health also curtailed his power until his death in 1890. - makes the subject sound like an active agent...another verb for "curtailed" would be a better fit though an alternative does not immediately spring to mind....

If the sources have some dates to add about when he father and grandfather were active in politics, I think they'd be useful to add to give some temporal context.

None of the sources mention years, exactly. I'll look around for more and see what I can find. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I found a Philadelphia history that narrows it down a bit. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime, the divisions in the state party harmed Randall's chances at the Speaker's chair - given the next sentence, something more definitive than "harmed" might work better - "proved ruinous for" or somesuch.

That makes sense. I changed it to your wording. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Rest of it reads well, without any prose-clangers leaping out at me, and its sounds comprehensive, so it's a tentative support pending a bit of investigation above....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comments leaning support. Sorry if any of these are outdated, am doing this offline.

Infobox

• The father's last name seems misspelled.

• Fixed.

• Why is Randall listed as a Whig based on what seems only a slight amount of campaigning, and not a Know Nothing when he was elected as same?

• I wouldn't call him a Know Nothing, but more of a Whig with some Know Nothing leanings. None of the sources suggest he actually joined the party, which actually involved some initiation rites, I think.

Lede

• "the President of the United States" I would cut the "the"

• Done.

• "political family of Whig leanings," this seems awkward. I suggest "family active in Whig politics"

• Done

• The second paragraph could be divided.

• Done

• "raised his profile within the House Democratic caucus, and they elevated him to Speaker" "they" refers to "caucus", which would probably get an "it" in American English. Suggest tinkering.

• I changed it, should be OK now.

• " the Democrats lost the House in 1881" perhaps "control" after "lost"

• Done.

Early life

• "Center City, Philadelphia" I would not use the comma, based on how we would have referred to it at my time at Penn, not too long after that of Ben Franklin.

• You're right, I'm not sure why the article on Center City lists it that way. Fixed.

• "a school connected" perhaps "affiliated" for "connected"

• Done

• "counting-house" the hyphen feels 19th century, would go without it. Do we have a suitable article to pipe to? And do silk merchants have counting houses?

• I actually had intended to change that to "bookkeeper" a while back, since that's really what the job was, I think. Fixed.

Local

• The Randall who is elected as councilman is, I assume, Samuel?

• Yes, fixed.

• "as all of the county's townships and boroughs were consolidated into one co-terminious city" I would strike "co-terminous", as it adds nothing (it doesn't make it clear that city and county are coterminous). And the reader may not know what county.

• Fixed and linked.

• "State Senate". Not sure "State" is capped. Ditto with State House of Reps.

• You're probably right. Wikipedia's eccentric capitalization continues to flummox me. Fixed.

War, etc.

• The final sentence, the second 'Johnson' could be changed to "him".

• Done.

• " and Randall saw them as a back-door method of overspending what Congress had legally permitted" Well, they were, weren't they? Does this really need to be stated? (again)

• Nah. Fixed.

• Grant administration is not linked on first use.

• Done.

• "sought to have one implicated politician, Vice President Schuyler Colfax, impeached" maybe "sought to have Vice President Schuyler Colfax, implicated in the scandal, impeached." It might be worth stressing that the problem was not so much that they owned stock, but that they had been allowed to buy it at bargain rates, per Garfield, etc.

• Yes, fixed both.

• The description of the 1876 election contretemps may be a bit too long, given the limited connection with Randall.

• Trimmed it a bit.

Monetary

• "agreed to let the House vote on repeal, which narrowly passed." I think you need a "its" before "repeal" or else change the "which" to something more involved.

• Done.

Potter

• "Pelton telegrams" Might be best to include Pelton's name when you mention the nephew (I assume he was?)

• Good point -- done.

Reelected Speaker

• You should make it clearer in the first paragraph that the the candidacy you are mentioning was for Speaker.

• Done.

• The image caption says Blackburn challenged Randall. That's not what it says in the text.

• Should be more accurate now.

1880

• " bowed out of " perhaps "withdrew from"
• Done.
• " meaning Randall's time as speaker was at an end" well, except for the lame duck session. Why the lower case on speaker?

• Fixed.

Tariffs

• "provided only a 10% reduction" probably need a "for" before "only". Also, I think percent signs are frowned upon in prose.

• Fixed both.

• "who unfamiliar with Randall" missing "were"
• Yup.
• That's the caucus vote, right?

• Yes, added that.

• "allowed Randall to keep charge of Appropriations" except he didn't control Appropriations before this, he was in the minority.

• Changed it to "take charge of..."

Declining

• "Cleveland's defeat" you haven't mentioned the nature of his defeat.

• Fixed.

That's about it. Good job on an obscure figure. Sorry to be so slow to review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. I'll get to these over the next couple days. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Just ping me when you are done, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been traveling. I hope to get to the rest today. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, @Wehwalt: that should be all of it. Thanks for the thorough review and sorry about the delay in responding. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Well done--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review – spotchecks not done

• References – all good.
• Sources – per MOS:ACCESS#Headings, proper subheadings (===Subheading===) should be used instead of pseudo-headings ('''Subheading''')
• Memorial addresses... should be title case rather than sentence case, to be consistent with the other citations

Looks good otherwise, and no obvious reliability issues - Evad37 [talk] 03:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review! These should be all fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Review by Acdixon

Comment: On first read-thru, I don't see any major errors. Just a few things I'd like to note before supporting.

Lead:

"His rise in politics began with election to the Philadelphia Common Council and then to the Pennsylvania State Senate." Would like to see a date or timeframe here, just to get some context in the lead of when he first entered public life.

"His defense of smaller, less centralized government raised his profile among House Democrats, and they elevated him to Speaker in 1876." As this is the first sentence of a new paragraph, I would change one of the first two instances of "his" to "Randall's".

I've made both of these changes. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Early life and family:

"Josiah Randall was a leading Philadelphia lawyer who had served in the state legislature in the 1820s." Consider linking "state legislature".

I linked it to Pennsylvania General Assembly. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Local politics and military service

"The strength of this group, combined with the Whigs' declining fortunes, led Samuel Randall to call himself an "American Whig" when he ran for Philadelphia Common Council the following year." Do the sources indicate whether Randall shared any ideological tenets with the American Party, or was this just a nomenclature decision to present himself favorably to supporters of that party?

The source says only that he was "impressed with the strength" of the Know Nothing movement. I've read nothing to suggest he was nativist, and as he became a Democrat in a district with a growing Irish population, my guess would be that it was purely opportunism. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we can't say what the sources don't say. I frequently find myself in that situation. Just thought I'd ask. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"He was elected, holding office from 1852 to 1856." Did this constitute a single term, or was he re-elected? Also, you might try to combine this short sentence with the one following it.

It was four one-year terms. I added that detail. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"In 1863, he re-joined the unit, this time as a captain." That's a big jump in rank for someone who did 90 days of non-combat service. I'm assuming this was a political promotion. Any details?

Neither source mentions it, but that unit elected its officers, so it's possible that his political position in civilian life made the men consider him for military leadership. But there's nothing explicit I can use to prove that. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's still worth adding the detail that he was elected captain by his unit. The sources don't let us speak to their motivation, but it still clarifies the large jump in rank for people – like myself – that don't have a super-great understanding of how these things work (or have worked, historically). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The House quote is an excellent addition to this section. Just thought I'd mention that.

Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Election to the House

"The district had been designed by a Republican legislature for a Democratic candidate, with the other four districts in the city gerrymandered to guarantee Republican control." Maybe flip the facts in this sentence around to lead with the idea that Republicans had created four favorable districts but left Randall's for a Democrat. Otherwise, you're halfway through the sentence wondering why Republicans designed a district for a Democrat.

Good point. I reworded it.

"Gaining the Democratic nomination was, thus, tantamount to election; Randall did so, defeating former mayor Richard Vaux for their party's endorsement." I don't love the phrase "Randall did so" right in the middle of this sentence. Maybe just "Randall defeated former mayor..." Also, was there not even token Republican opposition in the general election?

I reworded and added the name of his GOP opponent.

"Randall quickly became known as a friend to the manufacturers in his district, especially as concerned protective tariffs." Is an "it" missing in the latter half of this sentence?

There probably should be. Added. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Appropriations and investigations

"During the Grant administration, he questioned thousands of items in the appropriation bills, often gaining the support of Republicans in excising dishonest expenditures." I'm unclear what constitutes a "dishonest expenditure" here.

I changed it to "expenditures that were in excess of the departments' needs", which seems to be what the author was getting at. He does call them "dishonest" and "graft", but those aren't particularly useful in explaining it.

"He successfully proposed a law that ended the practice, common at the time, of executive departments spending beyond what they had been appropriated, then petitioning Congress to retroactively approve the spending with a supplemental appropriation." The word "successfully" is misplaced here. It was not that he successfully proposed a bill; it was that he proposed a bill that was ultimately successful in becoming law.

True. Fixed.

"He also turned his attention to tax fraud by private tax collection contractors, known as the Sanborn incident. Fraud in the awarding of postal contracts, called the star route scandal, also drew his attention." These strike me as too imprecise. I suspect that these incidents "drew the attention" of anyone who read the newspapers of the day. Did Randall play any kind of role in investigating either event?

Yes, fixed.

"Seeing the unpopularity of the Salary Grab, the incoming 43rd Congress repealed it almost immediately." Presumably, Randall voted to preserve it?

He actually voted for repeal, which his biographer strangely failed to mention. I found the roll call in an older source. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Rise to prominence

"Kerr and Randall began to work more closely together through 1876, but he died in August of that year, leaving the Speakership vacant once again." Even though the context makes it clear, I still might replace "he" with "Kerr" here.

Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hayes and Tilden

"Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican, had 163; the remaining 22 votes were in doubt, with official returns from both parties claiming to be legitimate." The returns didn't claim anything. The parties claimed their returns were legitimate. Given the next paragraph, you could probably just drop the last part of this sentence entirely.

Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Monetary disputes

"As the session began, many in the Democratic caucus were determine to repeal the Specie Payment Resumption Act of 1875." I think "determine" should be "determined".

Done.

"Randall allowed the bill to come to the floor for an up-or-down vote in November 1877: the result was its passage by a vote of 163 to 34 (with 94 members absent)." Wow, that seems like a lot of absent members. Any explanation?

It was a special session on appropriations, and the absent members were mostly Eastern members, involved in elections in their homes states. I added a note to that effect.

Much better; thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Declining influence

"Mills's bill would make small cuts to tariffs on raw materials, but relatively deeper cuts to those on manufactured goods; Randall, representing a manufacturing district, opposed it immediately." Is it Mills's or Mills'? If Mills', correct throughout.

MOS:POSS says either is correct, as long as it's consistent. I've always used "Mills's". --Coemgenus (talk)

Death

"Randall's positions on tariffs and pensions had made him "a practical Republican" by 1888." According to whom?

The New York Times. I added that attribution. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"The tactic was effective, as he faced only token opposition for reelection that year." What tactic?

I clarified. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Much clearer. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"He had recently joined the First Presbyterian Church in the capital, and his funeral was held there." Do we know if this was his first official religious affiliation?

It's the only mention of religion I saw in any of the sources. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd ask. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That should be everything. Thanks again for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said, nothing deal-breaking here, but a little housekeeping and clarification, if possible, would help. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Support after edits. A very nice article on an interesting guy. Rather a shame that there is so little published literature on him. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon

• Rather than let this FAC go to waste without consensus to promote, I'll review it. I hope to support it as well. Comments to come. --ceradon (talk • edits) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Early life and family

• "Randall was born in 1828" -- why not include the full "October 10, 1828" date?
• I think you should make it clear whether or not Randall was the eldest.

Local politics and military service

• "the battle" -- no battle mentioned to back this up.

Election to the House

• "a Republican elected the same year" -- elected the same year as Randall (1862), or elected the same year Randall entered Congress (1863)?

Appropriations and investigations

• "excising dishonest expenditures" -- I'm not sure what you mean here. Clarify?

Rise to prominence

• "Republican measures" -- do you mean all laws that were backed by Republicans; laws that were conservative in nature; or just Reconstruction Era laws? You also use "Republican measures" in the "War and Reconstruction" section. That should be tidied up as well.

Monetary disputes

• "this would effectively return the United States" -- what does "effectively" add to this sentence?

• It elides a complex issue that would probably add nothing to the biography. The Coinage Act of 1873 (currently nominated for FA, itself) didn't explicitly say gold was the only basis of the U.S. dollar, but so marginalized silver that the effect was the same. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

1880 presidential election

• "Major General Winfield Scott Hancock." -- could you clarify whether Hancock was actively in the military at the time of his presidential campaign (I doubt that, but anyway)

• He actually was! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Oh wow... --ceradon 06:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The quibbles above are quite minor, in my opinion, and do not stop me from supporting promotion of this FAC. Good work, Coemgenus. --ceradon (talk • edits) 03:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: thanks for the review and support. I'll be glad to address these this weekend along with the remaining points from Acdixon's review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That should be everything. Thanks again. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 03:48, 23 August 2015 [9].

---

The Combat: Woman Pleading for the Vanquished

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a picture of a right foot; The Parthenon magazine was a great admirer of said foot, saying it "seemed to glow with the rich juice of life", but The London Magazine disliked the foot and felt it did not have sufficient heroic character. The foot in question is attached to The Combat, a very large painting of highly questionable taste, which in the mid-19th century was considered by some critics as among of the greatest artworks of all time, but which has gradually faded into obscurity.

The double lead image breaches the MOS, but in this particular case I feel it's appropriate to do so. The Combat has spent the last 150 years marinating in the air of Edinburgh, and hasn't been cleaned; as a consequence, it's acquired a layer of grime. While an article on a painting obviously has to include an image of the painting in question, it's hard in this case to make out what the picture is actually of. Consequently, I've included a black-and-white engraving of the image immediately beneath it, to act as a visual guide to the original; the engraving in question is specifically discussed in the article, so it's not a superfluous illustration. – iridescent 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Up to the usual quality, & I agree re the lead image - a very good solution I think. Quibbles: I do think 2nd versions by the artist should be mentioned, and engravings. Here that info is only picked up from the caption "Engraving by G. T. Doo, 1848, based on a reworked version of the painting completed by Etty in 1845". Also, can the grime be referenced? Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the grime, not that I can find, which is why I don't specifically mention it, but it's obvious just looking at the state of it. Per my comments below, because it's been to big to move it hasn't been included in any exhibitions so hasn't been written about much in the last century. I can cite for the similar-sized Sirens and Benaiah deteriorating, but I'm reluctant to make explicit inferences as Etty was something of an experimenter with paint mixes so different paintings have degraded as different rates. The information about the second version and the engraving is already there in the body text (in the Legacy section, as the engravings weren't until 20 years after he painted it); I don't personally think it's significant enough to mention in the lead as well but have no objection if you feel that it does. – iridescent 17:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the stuff in "Legacy" somehow. I take it the #2 is still in private hands, as far as the sources tell? In a much cleaner condition, I'll bet. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Tracked #2 down to the Ringling Museum of all places. I knew that John Ringling was the last collector listed in Farr (1958) as owning it, but assumed it had been sold on after his death. Although their website doesn't appear to list it, I can find a 2006 blog post which mentions seeing it there, so I'm assuming Ringling hung on to it and it entered his museum after his death. (I wouldn't add an image of it unless it comes from an official Ringling source; because the original was in the Royal Scottish Academy, there are a lot of student copies floating about.) – iridescent 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

I'm of mixed opinions about the dual-image lead. The argument presented is somewhat persuasive, but it seems equally possible to move the etching to the Composition section to maintain MOS compliance. I would prefer the MOS standard, but I won't consider this an actionable objection.

Johnbod immediately above you wrote WP:VAMOS, so if he doesn't see an issue with the lead images I'm not concerned. – iridescent 17:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• When sources have been assigned an ISBN, there's no need to also provide an OCLC number; the goal is to have an identifier, not all identifiers.

• There's no need, but as I see it there's also no reason not to. My feeling is that including them doesn't distract from anything or take up any significant space, and it means one fewer click per item for anyone who wants to check the sources for themselves. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• A quick survey of past FACs reveals little consistency here; reviewers have at various times requested only one identifier (which, admittedly, is my practice) or both identifiers. As the FA criteria do not provide specific guidance, I presume this is safely a matter of editorial discretion. However, consistency of formatting is an FA expectation, so the three Smith sources should have OCLCs included as well, for parity. And, actually, while I'm looking at the Smith sources, the 1996 work needs be re-ordered to come before the 2001 sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Added all three. Resorted the Smith references by date, although I still think alphabetical order makes more sense. – iridescent 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be presented as ISBN-13s with correct hyphenization. User this tool to covert.A s

• Done, although I'm singularly unconvinced a bot wont just come along and convert them back; the pan-WMF ISBN guidance at meta uses unhyphenated ISBNs in all their examples, so that's presumably what the bots will follow. Done and then undone, as the hyphenated ISBNs were generating a mass of error messages. Anyone else, feel free to have a go if you think you can get it to work. Given that the hyphens will be stripped out the moment anyone clicks through to Special:BookSources anyway, I don't see this as a significant issue. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Meta page on the topic is an embarrassment, as it doesn't even seem to acknowledge the existence of ISBN-13s to begin with. Fully hyphenated ISBNs, according to the issuing organization, are the "most correct" form. And, in general, they're what's been preferred in my past experience at FAC. As an aside, I've never had a bot mangle them in one of my editorial contributions. As for the error messages... sometimes templates are cranky. I'll go see if I have any better luck fixing this! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• And fixed. It looks like you were having some problems with the last (checksum) digit when converting between ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. They should all be squared away now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• The answer may simply be no, but is there any discussion in reliable sources about the current condition of the work? Discussion of conservation status?

• Not to the best of my knowledge. It hasn't been written about much in the last 100 years—Etty has long been out of fashion, and The Combat is too big to have been included in any recent exhibitions (and thus to have been discussed in catalogues). The conservation status can safely be assumed to be "left to rot"; in the current climate the Scottish National Gallery is going to have much higher priorities than a painting by an English artist which even if restored would be too big to display. (I suspect that following the second referendum there will be a two-way repatriation of artworks between London and Edinburgh, which will bring the SNG's Etty's into the hands of the Tate who do have the cash to restore them, but that's well into WP:OR territory.) Manchester City Gallery restored the similar-sized The Sirens and Ulysses, but that was a showcase project which took five years and cost a fortune; Sirens is also much more in keeping with current tastes than The Combat. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Unfortunate, but we're bound by what others provide us. I suspected that was the case, but felt obligated to ask. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• In general, I have not undertaken a thorough prose review, although I'm dubious about the inclusion of a small quote from The Parthenon review immediately followed by a blockquote that includes the same excerpted passage. One solution might be to cut the blockquote entirely, but I don't think that's the only approach that could be taken here.

• I'm not convinced; there isn't anything obvious to be cut from the blockquote, and I can't really see any reader being inconvenienced by the repetition of such a short snippet. I'm reluctant to lose that particular quote, as it exemplifies the tone of contemporary reviews. This series all rely heavily on quotations from contemporary reviewers for their "reception" sections, as Etty has received so little critical coverage after his death. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Let me give this use a little more thought. My concern's as much about due weight as reader inconvenience, but your argument is a cogent one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• The duplicate link detection script flags Youth on the Prow, and Pleasure at the Helm but based on how those links are actually employed, I'd safely consider this a false positive; no duplicate links need removal.
• Image review: Licensing is good for most images, which are all clearly PD by virtue of age. File:Flaxman – Heracles Killing a Man to whom a Woman Clings.jpg needs a US PD tag, which will be trivial to correct.

• Fixed. – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

None of my objections are substantial barriers to meeting the standard. Assuming no substantive prose concerns are raised by those with more time to examine them, I'm happy to conditionally support promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being so prompt in looking at this! – iridescent 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim Riley I'll be supporting this excellent article, but a few small points first, if I may:

• Composition
  • "with regards to history paintings" – is "with regards" rather than the usual "with regard" intentional?
    • Reworded—I think this was my overzealously trying to stop it looking too similar to The Destroying Angel, which makes a very similar point regarding Etty's painting "history paintings" of non-existent events. – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Reception
  • Not sure it's necessary, or even advantageous, to quote "which seems actually to glow with the rich juice of life" and immediately quote it again within the blockquote.
    • Per comments above I don't consider it a problem, but as you're the second person to have mentioned it I've removed the first instance. – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• Legacy
  • "the most prestigious honour available to an artist" – more prestigious than the Prix de Rome? Or does this just refer to Britain?
    • I had Britain in mind, but would make a case that in this period "most prestigious in England" and "most prestigious in the world" were synonymous. France was reeling from military defeat and economic destruction, Continental Europe hadn't recovered from the Napoleonic Wars, and the US was still a backwater. – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
      • That'll teach me to try to be clever! Tim riley talk 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Combat was the first very large work…" – three incidences of "very large" in 28 words.
    • Reworded – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "He produced nine very large paintings in total, although as time went by his canvases came to be increasingly dominated by nude women." – I can't quite get a handle on this: the two halves of the sentence don't seem to belong together. The first deals with the size of his canvasses and the second with his preferred subject, and the "although" suggests that the latter is somehow antithetical to the former.
    • That's a product of my over-familiarity with him, I think. His history paintings were generally pretexts to shoehorn as many nude and scantily-clad figures into a canvas as possible; the nine monumental paintings were atypical of his output, as they were more conventional morality pieces like this one, in which if there was any nudity it was relevant to the composition rather than gratuitous. (In The Combat and Benaiah the male nudity wouldn't have raised an eyebrow given the obvious debt to the Elgin Marbles; in The Sirens and Ulysses both male and female nudity have an explicit purpose as an illustration of temptation; the three Judith pictures were straightforward religious art with no nudity, and the Joan of Arc tryptich showed historical scenes from her life, again without nudity.) – iridescent 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, and I look forward to supporting promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 13:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Now very happily supporting. Tim riley talk 17:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Taking a look now - will jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In One of Etty's major works, it was exhibited at numerous major exhibitions before Etty fell out of fashion in the second half of the 19th century, including the seminal Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857. - I'd slot the subordinate clause in the middle to preserve the chronological flow, thus: "One of Etty's major works, it was exhibited at numerous major exhibitions, including the seminal Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857, before Etty fell out of fashion in the second half of the 19th century."

Done ‑ iridescent 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise looks fine, hence support on comprehensiveness and prose (above point pretty minor...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by Lingzhi
  • "...he is more defiant " ambiguous referent (also in image caption). • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • The wording in the source is "[he] thrusts his leg out before his body ... a more forceful gesture than that given to the figure in the completed canvas ... the expression is also more determined than in the full-scale work, where he appears to implore mercy rather than to fight back"; I couldn't think of a more obvious way to summarise that in two words than "more defiant" but if you can, feel free. This preliminary sketch needs to be mentioned, to show (or strongly imply, anyway) that Etty initially intended to show the defeated soldier in a very different pose, but I don't want to go into a great deal of detail on it. ‑ iridescent 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • shouldn't the refs be Burnage, Sarah (2011a) Burnage, Sarah (2011b) etc.? ditto for smith. I know the links click thru correctly, but what if someone prints it out?
    • Possibly, but this is how the citation templates output. Per a conversation I had once with you, I have a strong dislike of the way Wikipedia articles have such a proliferation of citation styles, and try not to deviate from the templates without very good reason (if I had my way, "not using standard citation templates without an excellent reason" would be a quickfail criterion). In the case of the Burnage references at least, it doesn't make any particular difference since they're all citations to chapters in the same book. (I don't see it as a particular issue, as long as the internal links work; the likelihood of someone trying to track down the original source via a printout of a Wikipedia article, without web access, is fairly minimal. Besides, any hypothetical reader doing more research on Etty is inevitably going to come across the books in question anyway. ‑ iridescent 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • re "In 1845, Etty took a smaller 89 by 118 cm (35 by 46 in) version of The Combat, which had been painted by an unknown Edinburgh artist.".. This sentence seems odd. Should it be a compound sentence (comma, subord conj) with the sentence after it?
    • This reads oddly, because it's describing an odd situation; feel free to have a shot at rewording it if you think you can make it clearer. Basically, Etty was asked to provide a smaller version for Doo to work from to make his engraving. Rather than paint a copy himself, he just bought a copy in Edinburgh (The Combat was at the time hanging in the Royal Scottish Academy so there were a lot of student copies being made of it in Scotland), and retouched it until he was satisfied; he then gave this to Doo to work from. ‑ iridescent 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support I poked around for an hour or so in online sources, trying to find any gaps in the coverage. Turned up nothing, of course, but I did my due diligence. I am satisfied this fulfills all criteria for FA. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Lingzhi, would you say you conducted a full source review (for formatting and reliability)? I think this is about ready, but we need a source review. --Laser brain (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Revisiting the "2011a" point mentioned above: Iridescent seems to suggest that the template won't permit display and linking to "2011a" and "2011b" formatting. I just tried it, however, and it works fine (see my final test edit). As I mentioned, I would prefer to see that formatting. However, I recall that years ago I complained about FACs using extremely non-standard formatting, but consensus then was "if it's consistent, then it's permissible." If we still go by consistent == acceptable, then YES, I have conducted a full source review, and all is OK. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced that it's an improvement, but looking at Template:Sfn/doc#More than one work in a year adding letters to the years is the current Approved Method for handling multiple works with the same author name, so changing. ‑ iridescent 10:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2015 [10].

---

Sieges of Taunton

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 14:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

During the First English Civil War, Taunton exchanged hands a few times in the early years, but then underwent a series of three sieges. The second destroyed large parts of the town, and along with some economic factors, set back the town's development by centuries. Robert Blake, better known for his naval exploits commanded the defence of the town through all three sieges, establishing temporary earthen defences as the town had no permanent wall or gates. This is a long way from the cricket articles that I have brought here before, but as always, I'm eager to see your thoughts. The article underwent a Good article review, Talk:Sieges of Taunton/GA1, and a Military History A-class review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sieges of Taunton. This is a WikiCup nomination.Harrias ^talk 14:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• All images are PD-old/PD-art or CC-licensed, and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
• Fixed a dead source URL and a missing description. GermanJoe (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - only 1 quick point for now:

• Lead - "where historians believe they could have tipped the battle in favour of the Royalists." - even in the lead, such a claim should be immediately sourced. Also, I don't see this important conclusion repeated in the main text (MOS:LEAD). The main text describes the troop movements, but doesn't explicitly draw the same conclusion. GermanJoe (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: Good spot. I think I must have thrown that in the lead while I was working my sources out to put in the body, and then never finished! I've added a couple of supporting references into the lead, and added more detail into the body as well, in the third siege section. How does that look? Harrias ^talk 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine, thanks for the tweaks. GermanJoe (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - very nice article. The article is well-written and -sourced, and appears to be comprehensive. The content is accessible and logically structured. Images and map are appropriately licensed and relevant for the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I supported at the MilHist A-class Review and my support stands. It's a fine article that will make a fine FA. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 20:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Pithy and most readable. Harrias has successfully packed a lot into less than 3,000 words. Seems thoroughly comprehensive and well balanced, and is thoroughly and widely referenced. Clearly meets FA criteria, in my view. A pleasure to read and review, and I look forward to seeing it on our front page in due course. Tim riley talk 20:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support; taking it on faith that it's accurate as this is a subject I know almost nothing about, but it appears to cover everything that needs to be covered without going into unnecessary detail. (I don't particularly like the single left-aligned image with everything else right-aligned, but can understand the position that the subject looking out of the picture is more problematic than the images not flowing neatly.) The one recommendation I would make is to add some kind of map to the Background section; as I understand it the sole reason Taunton, and Somerset in general, was thought worth fighting over was its strategic location rather than any intrinsic value of the area so the geography is important, but I would wager that most English readers, let alone readers in other countries, have only the vaguest idea of where Taunton is, let alone Chard, Dunster or Lyme Regis. – iridescent 15:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Lean support. I think you handled Toulmin's alternative chronology the best way you could. I'd echo Iridescent's opinion that a map would be nice; I certainly had to look up where the key locations are. Also, because I'm contractually required to find something to complain about in reference formatting: the Bush and Morris sources should have their ISBNs properly hyphenated to match both the standard and the rest of the entries. My only other inquiry is to ask about sources not currently included (for the purpose of comprehensiveness):

• Gardiner, Samuel R. (1894). History of the Great Civil War. Vol. 2 (New ed.). London: Longmans, Green, and Company. OCLC 707090927. This one has the benefit of being available online. To my eye, there's a lot of material on the topic, but I can't immediately determine how much is redundant. We don't have an article on Gardiner, but he was a respectable scholar of his day, by what available information I could find.
• Green, Emanuel (1905). The Siege & Defense of Taunton, 1644–1645. Bye-paths of Bath and Somersetshire History. Bath: George Gregory. OCLC 852052348. I don't have access to this source, but given the title, it's impossible not to wonder about.

Otherwise, very approachable and very nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Iridescent and Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks both for your comments. I've added a map into the infobox for the moment, but I'm going to have a play with some other maps which will label all the key locations in a bit. With regards to those sources mentioned, I wasn't aware of either. I'll look through the first, and take anything useful, but the second isn't available for loan in the local libraries, only for reference in the archaeological library, which I'd probably have to get a reservation to visit, and their opening hours tend to coincide with my working hours! Still, I'll look into it if I can, thanks. Harrias ^talk 17:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Iridescent and Squeamish Ossifrage: What do you think of the map at User:Harrias/sandbox3? Would that be useful in the article? Harrias ^talk 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• If we have one, I'd be inclined to use one showing the roads and hills. As I understand it (I may be wrong) the reason the road, railway and canal all go through Taunton even today is that it's the only route between London and (strategically vital) Exeter, Plymouth and Falmouth which avoids the Quantock Hills to the north and the Blackdown Hills to the south, which presumably would have been a major consideration for armies relying on horses to lug their cannons about. I'm sure someone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop could knock one up from existing relief maps. ‑ iridescent 15:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• I'm sort of on board with Iridescent here. To be fair, I think some map is better than no map, because otherwise, as an uncultured American, I haven't got the faintest clue where Taunton is. But I do think a better map could highlight why this is strategically important; with just the cities, Taunton looks like it's more in the middle of nowhere than in the middle of an essential transit route. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I think a map of that scope is probably going to take longer than this FAC, unless I get really lucky, but I'll start looking into it; the main difficulty is getting hold of, and effectively copying, maps of the time that show the roads. Harrias ^talk 20:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I can't speak for SO, but I don't consider the map vital—anyone really caring can always find out in about five seconds—I just feel it would be useful for readers, most of whom presumably aren't aware that it's where all the roads in the West Country converge and why. ‑ iridescent 20:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I do not consider the absence of such a map to be an actionable objection to promotion. I do think it's a good idea, and I'd like to see it in there eventually, but I don't think there's a strict order of operations that demands its presence before attaching the bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- recusing from FAC coord duties, I copyedited/reviewed and, with the caveat that I'm not an expert on the era, ultimately supported at MilHist ACR...
  • Checking changes since I last saw the article, no concerns with prose, structure or content.
  • Image licensing was fine when I looked at ACR and that seems to have been confirmed by Joe above.
  • Source review:
    • No issues I could see with reliability (the one ref I had concerns with at ACR was swiftly removed).
    • All external links worked for me.
    • Format-wise, you link some publishers with WP articles but not all (e.g. Pen & Sword) -- suggest link all or none. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - an excellent article, and reflects the Civil War literature well. Disclaimer - I've reviewed previously at GA and ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 [11].

---

Warren G. Harding

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the least regarded American presidents. Yet, a look at Harding's career indicates that there was a bit more there beyond the president who managed his cabinet with slack reins, allowing Teapot Dome and other scandals to occur. The article has had a most thorough peer review. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: Enjoy, indeed. I spent much time on this article during the peer review stages (detailed comments here), and learned a lot about this interesting and rather sad man. Does he deserve to be remembered as the worst president ever? I doubt it – I can think of a few in my own lifetime who might be strong contenders for that honour. Harding seems to me to belong in the Eisenhower/Reagan mould, though perhaps less well served by some his appointed officials. The only substantial reading on Harding I've done previously was an essay by Samuel Hopkins Adams, "The Timely Death of President Harding", in a paperback version of The Aspirin Age. Adams presents Harding as a boozy, slightly pathetic buffoon; this article provides an altogether more rounded and even-handed picture. Anyway, a first-class addition to our presidential series, with many more to come. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 3: Access to the whole article appears to be available, without subscription
• Ref 63: pp not p
• Ref 141: publisher missing
• Ref 154: What is "Slate.com", and what are its credentials as a reliable source?

I've added a pipe. It is unquestionably a RS.

• Ref 179: publisher missing
• Bibliography: inconsistency in providing publisher locations
• Morello: is this a book? If so, add ISBN
• Walters: the OCLC according to WorldCat is 477641

Otherwise, sources clear on alll counts. Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for those reviews and kind words. I've taken care of those issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review. It was a fine article then and is even finer now. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at its peer review, and all of my concerns were addressed there. After another read-through, everything looks fine. Great article! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, support, and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Looking nearly exclusively at references, reference formatting, and the 1c criterion.

• There's some oddness with the formatting of the instructions associated with the Federal Judicial Center reference (#163). I think you need a space and a capital S, at a minimum.
• The Lange article (ref #179) should have the publisher styled as HistoryLink.org (all lowercase is the URL, CamelCase is the publisher).
• All ISBNs should ideally be given as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Use this handy converter as needed.

• Still missing some of these. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is an OCLC number available for Nevins?

• I think you have - instead of =, which is making the template sad. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• You provide some publisher locations for book sources, but not all of them; locations are optional, but be consistent.

• If you opt to retain them, "Lawrence KS" needs a comma.

• I'm not a big fan of "Further reading" sections. Do the Grieb and Pietrusza sources have relevant information not otherwise presented in this article? If not, why are they suggested as further reading. If so, why is that material excluded?

• If retained, these need to be formatted just like the cited sources. So Texas Christian University Press should be spelled out (because you do so for University of Minnesota Press). Both sources need properly formatted ISBN-13s. And publisher locations should be handled however you decided to deal with them.

• Related to my question about the Further reading sources, I have some concerns about whether this represents a comprehensive review of available sources. I know that's always difficult for broad or well-known topics, and that the comprehensive survey standard expressly doesn't mean "reference every source".

• You cite Payne's work in Sibley's companion, but I wonder if there's more relevant material in his well-received Dead Last: The Public Memory of Warren G. Harding's Scandalous Legacy?
• Likewise, Charles L. Mee's The Ohio Gang: The World of Warren G. Harding is a slightly older source (1983), but was considered (at the time, anyway, not sure if it's been re-examined) a trustworthy and thorough examination of the corruption issues that plagued Harding's background and administration.

• One other random observation... Your mention of Chapple's hagiographical Life and Times (via Trani & Wilson) implies that these works were a reaction to his death, but at least for Chapple, that's not really the case. He was, by and large, a career hagiographer; his first such treatment of Harding was Warren G. Harding – The Man in 1920. Not sure if that's worth mentioning, or if anyone else has written about it. But anyway, there it is.

Anyway, I think I'm neutral at the moment. There are some reference formatting things that need to be fixed before promotion, but none of that seems time-consuming. And my 1c concerns may or may not play out, depending on how you did the sourcing here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it's not possible or necessary to work from every single book on a subject, nor am I certain an article would be improved if I put in a couple of references from a book just to be able to boast it in the bibliography. You will note Coffey's essay in the bibliography, that was the best guide to Harding biographies that I could find, and it was a good source in deciding what to work from, because in this sort of article, there are usually between three and six bios that prove to be workhorses. I selected Russell because it is a very good detail sort of biography, that mentions stuff more concise books do not, and because Russell and his book play a part in Harding's historical reputation, as he discovered the letters that proved Harding had an affair. Sinclair was an excellent source touching on the political side. Dean was a good, up-to-date bio. I was a bit concerned by who the author was, but the fact the editor was Schlesinger Jr. and it's a very reputable series of presidential biographies convinced me to use it, although with the caveat (mentioned in the article) that Dean is a bit friendly to Harding. I considered Mee, but rejected it in favor of Ferrell, both because it was more recent, and because it was commented on in Coffey. I figured one book would be enough on the scandals, Ferrell was more recent, and I could get Payne's views concisely in his essay. And of course Payne has read Mee and cites to him. Since we are a tertiary source, it's nice when you are piggybacking off a historian who has looked at the earlier work (I try to allow for bias. I hope I am successful most of the time.) So what I was shooting for were well-regarded, recent sources, especially ones discussed by other historians, that I could use to construct the historical view section (and also be tipped off as to Coffey's, or another writer's, view of any biases) It's not a perfect science, but I think it is broad enough to work. Of course I also had the ANB biography and found a handful of usable articles on JSTOR and other databases (the Harding administration is understudied). I think the only bio, in retrospect, I might have added was Murray, but he's really best at the pre-1921 material and I was afraid of straining the reader's patience.

So there you have it. I don't think there's a lot of facts on Harding that are must-have for this article in the books you cite. And we do cite a pretty broad range of opinion on Harding. I'll answer your specific points later, must run.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

A completely satisfying answer. I wasn't really trying to encourage you to shoe-horn in a bunch more sources, but rather wanted to ensure that the available sources were curated in an appropriate manner. And this demonstrated that nicely. Once the other issues are satisfied, I will be happy to strike my neutrality for support, I do believe. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks. I meant Downes instead of Murray btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving to support conditional on the last couple of reference formatting things getting taken care of. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Those are done.here. Thank you again, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's a first for me in an article of this length. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: There's really nothing for me to critique or add about this extraordinary effort. Most impressive and thorough. The Presidents and their wives have long been an area of interest for me. Not sure if you're aware of the C-Span3 series on the First Ladies wherein they usually also recap the President's administration. The one on Florence Harding is scheduled to air on August 30, and your effort here has certainly made me look forward to seeing that one. Thank you for all the time and effort, and expertise, you and the various reviewers put into improving this article. — Maile (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review; that is high praise indeed. I will make a point of watching the program and I have Florence on my list, if GMU renews my affiliateship.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

I enjoyed reading this. Just one irregularity: In the lead cause of death is heart disease, but in the Death section, it is "he died of a cerebral hemorrhage". Edwininlondon (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll tweak that. The heart disease caused the death, but the cerebral hemorrhage was the immediate cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment and Support: FA's are supposed to be stable, so I've tried to tread lightly with the breaking(!!!) DNA story about Nan Britton, her daughter, and Harding's descendants. This story only seems bound to generate more news coverage and reputational appraisals, so good work on what turns out to be a timely NPOV account of a mostly-neglected and under-appreciated figure. Here's hoping my recent edits are up to the FA standard. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It sometimes happens that there are news developments during FACs. You just roll with it and move along. I've been watching the edits and they've been fine. I'm certainly eyeing the news and if there is reaction against the result of the DNA tests, I'll probably start a thread on talk. It's one of those days! Thanks for your very constructive edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

I left some input at PR, though still have quibbles:

• Unless I'm missing something, nothing in the article explicitly states Harding was a Baptist, yet it is listed in his infobox

Sourced.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Elizabeth Ann Blaesing should only be included in the infobox if it is certain she was Harding's daughter

That's what the sources are saying right now. The sources aren't carrying doubt and neither did the wave of editing that came through the article last weekend. I can't justify holding back on it. Even people who I'd expect to be skeptical, like Dean, are going along. I don't think the article can express doubt about it out of thin air.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "an affair by one of his mistresses"..... Nan Britton should be mentioned by name, and she might be worth including in infobox under "partner"

Done on the inline mention. I wouldn't call her his partner, they never lived together. More stolen moments sort of thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• If "Dr. Harding" refers to the President's father, I'd use his name for clarity

I'm trying to avoid using "Tyron", which isn't obviously a first name and might confuse the reader. His actual first name was George. "Dr. Harding" or "his father" seemed the best solution.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "His father" is the better option; I went ahead and used that since using "Dr." is discouraged per WP:CREDENTIAL Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Seems a bit cluttered with images. While I find no copyright issues, what benefit do File:Florence Kling Harding-01.jpg, File:Foraker in 1908.png, File:FDR and James M Cox cph.3b03395.jpg, File:Charles Evans Hughes-01.jpg, File:Chas G Dawes-H&E.jpg, File:AWMellon.jpg, File:Albert B. Fall c. 1923.jpg, File:Harry Daugherty, bw photo portrait 1920.jpg, or File:Cforbes.jpg provide?

The usual purposes of illustrating the people who played key roles in Harding's life. I felt the one of Cox and Roosevelt useful because a) it actually shows his opponent, not just in caricature and b) because of the inclusion of Roosevelt, who is worth showing the reader as a young man. All these things are subjective of course, but I like to have images to break up the text, especially in these long biographical articles. I haven't seen, in particular, much early stuff on Harding. His campaign biography doesn't, for example--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

If including them, at least give more detailed and informative captions; captions such as "Florence Harding (as First Lady)", "Senator Joseph B. Foraker in 1908" and "Harry M. Daugherty" don't really provide anything meaningful for readers. It's better to follow the examples of "Charles Evans Hughes, former Supreme Court justice and Harding's Secretary of State" and "Albert B. Fall, Harding's first Secretary of the Interior and the first former cabinet member sent to prison for crimes committed in office" as they provide more context. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, how are those now?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

They do look better :), so I'll support now Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the the most searching review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't quite support this yet, though it has potential. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've either done or responded to the things you noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 [12].

---

Imperator torosus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is a fairly concise article with just about everything there is to know on this fungus. Sasata and I have worked on it over the years, so there's two of us to fix things quick-sharp if folks find anything that needs improving. Have at it. (NB: Is a wikicup nomination for me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon, will probably also do an image review. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Elias Magnus Fries and Christopher Theodor Hök" Some authors get "presentations", others don't, should probably be consistent.

added these two - there are so many I will think how to minimise repetition... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "distinct from the B. pachypus described by Fries himself." Meaning seems a bit unclear. Had fries given another species this name?

yes - I will think how to reword.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "He reported in his 1838 Epicrisis" which is what?

• Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum full name now given. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

this was a work where he covered all fungi that had been published to that date, with some corrections and annotations - will expand in his article and maybe make a standalone article at some point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking you could add "his 1838 book Epicrisis". Otherwise we don't know what it is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

aah ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Boletus (now Imperator) rhodopurpureus or B. (now Imperator) luteocupreus" Seems a bit confusing to have the (now Imperator) within the wikilinks, maybe add a single (both now considered Imperator) after the two names?

yeah..done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Could we get some more dates under taxonomy? We jump from 1948 to 2013 within two sentences, but the reader wouldn't know.

often taxa "lie fallow" for many years. I will take another look at the sources though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "was classified in Boletus section Luridi" This made little sense to me as a non-fungus guy, perhaps "was classified in the Luridi section of the genus Boletus" or some such? Also, classified by who?

have rejigged and elaborated slightly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "formally published the subsection Torosi of section Luridi" As above, could be written in a less jargony way.

Okay, I tried rejigging like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Boletaceae phylogeny, brawny bolete was most closely related" The brawny bolete?

yeah..added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in whether you use the scientific or common name throughout the article.

I have done that to reduce repetition. Also felt it was odd to keep calling it I. torosus before it was assigned to that genus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "and Israel." But not in the rest of the Near East? is it introduced?

Fungi are elusive in that they are invisible unless fruiting, so the records can be pretty sparse. It is not introduced and can only record what we find. I don't recall finding records for elsewhere but will take another sweep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, with the UK occurrence, and the images apparently from Germany, it seems a bit odd... Perhaps it has a wider distribution than the sources used say? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "In the United Kingdom, it is listed as a "priority species"" Just before you say it is native to southern Europe?
• "only distantly related to the type species of Boletus" Which is? Not described as such in the article itself.

It's Boletus edulis - I converted to an mdash to make it clearer its not a series of different entities after the comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I'd like some more detailed distribution info, as the distribution seems inconsistent, but if this can't be found in the sources, not much to do, rest looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Let's just get to it. Both images are appropriately licensed (otrs permissions), but I wonder if the taxobox image could get some kind of caption? Where are the depicted specimens? FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The answer to that is proving elusive.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The source seems to be a website about hiking in Germany... FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Some quick comments:

• I'm not sure about the comma in the second sentence (similar with the first sentence of the habitat section)

I agree it is a little jarring for flow and have removed both, but once removed we have a problem of an inline ref not coming after any punctuation. Is that a problem? I feel if it is at the end it does compromise ref accuracy a little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not opposed to references appearing in that way, but I know some people aren't at all keen. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've made a change to the bruising info in the lead, but I'm not sure how consistent it is and was with what is said in the description section- sorry if I've made a mess...

looks fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum" Should this be capitalised? It's not in the citation

• Now title case. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "According to Italian mycologist Carlo Luciano Alessio,[1] additional synonyms include Henri Romagnesi's 1948 Boletus purpureus var. xanthocyaneus, and the same taxon, promoted by Romagnesi to distinct species status in 1976,[14] Boletus xanthocyaneus; others, however, consider B. xanthocyaneus a distinct species.[15][16][17]" I don't understand

I think the semicolon confuses things, but I think it can be written better. I need to take a deep breath before tackling that one.....hang on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I had a go, is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Much better- you are trying to get across a lot of complex information. Perhaps "promoted" to species would be better than "classified" as species, but I'll leave that up to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "for taxa that align" Do you mean taxa, here? Or specimens?

• Changed to specimens. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "this was the only taxon faithful to the original description with a grey cap and yellow pores that slowly turn red" Again, I'm not clear on what you're referring to by "taxon", here.

Sorry, I meant "description" - i.e. Quelet's matching the original of Fries and Secretan...but now there are three "description" s in the one sentence :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "subsection" Do we have an article for this rank? If not, perhaps a redlink would be useful?

• I'm reluctant to make articles for Boletus subtaxa in the midst of the current phylogenetic reorganization of the Boletaceae... perhaps after the molecular dust settles. Sasata (talk)

• Sorry, I mean subsection- not the subsection in question. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, subsection (botany) just redirects to section, which is already linked above. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• "I. (then Boletus) luteocupreus" Is splitting names like this standard?

no it isn't - I came up with it to clarify its status succinctly. I have rejigged and left taxa at their Boletus names at the time of the study and rejigged so the placing of the other species in Imperator is an footnote here. I can make the placement of luridus and dupaini into another footnote or can just leave out as not that integral to the material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I like the new approach. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "It has been described as, "having a stone in your hand"." Why the comma? Also, presumably holding one has been described as that, rather than the fruit body itself

• Changed to "Holding the brawny bolete has been described as "having a stone in your hand"."

• "sometimes protruding beyond the tubes" This is going to be unclear to unfamiliar readers

changed to "beyond the pored undersurface". Could make it "beyond the cap's pored undersurface" or "hangs over the (cap's) pored undersurface", though am worried that adding "cap's" is unnecessary and makes it a little repetitive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• What is "sordid" brown?

• Changed to "dirty brown". Sasata (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• The description seems to lack specific information about the pores- what sort of diameter/density are we talking about?

this is proving rather hard to find. I have added "small and round" which is a little bit more informative (but not much). Will add when/what I can source... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks fairly uncontroversial. Funny name (sounds a bit scifi) and a slightly whacky authority, but that's not a problem! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support unless something crops up I've missed. Well written, answers the key questions, based on good literature, neutral. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to coordinators: In case it's important: I'm a WikiCup participant, and have previously worked with both authors, including joint nominations with Sasata. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done; I've not checked for missed sources. Just looking at reliability and formatting.

• Translated article/book titles may be a useful addition for those not in English. I note you've provided it in one case, but not others- consistency would be good.

• Translations now provided for all foreign-language titles (Cas, please double-check the Latin ones ... I struggled with Google translate). Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am struggling with the formatting on the Alessio source

• Perhaps it looks odd because the title italicization reverses the genus italics, and the unitalicized series titles follows the title ... but I think the template formatting is correct. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Access date for the British Mycological Society source?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm happy to take your word for it that the capitalisation on the foreign language book titles is appropriate, but it may be worth double-checking

• Latin and French book titles are often published in sentence case (for reasons I'm not aware of), but I've made them all title case for consistency here. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• One was changed in the prose above- I'm not sure which way is "more" correct, I'm just aiming for consistency. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• The JSTOR link on your Taxon links is redundant- it's the same as the DOI.

• Removed. I blame robots. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's an inconsistency as to whether you provide locations for book publishers- I've no strong preference

• Missing locations added. Sasata (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Language for the Flammer article?

• German, added. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Possible courtesy link? I think it's an offprint, but it should be functionally identical to the final publication.

  Added link. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• What makes the Assyov source reliable? Also, are you attached to the italics on the website name? Though the MOS is a bit back-and-forth on it, this is not a kind of website which is specifically mentioned as requiring italics.

• Assyov is faculty member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences who did his PhD on Bulgarian boletes. He has several relevant publications, and is one of the authors of the genus Imperator, so I think his website qualifies as a reliable self-published source for info on Boletales species. Website name now unitalicized. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps an accessdate for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee source? Also, does "Report" need to be capitalised?

• Print sources shouldn't require accessdates. The capitalized "Report" is part of template:Cite report. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't bother providing ISSNs, unless you have an overriding reason in the Benedek & Pál-Fám source?

• Removed. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You've really delved into some obscure-sounding journals, here! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support from Jim With two hard-core FAC contributors, there is nothing I can see to prevent me supporting this excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

thx Jim Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Support – I read this with ease today and I found it very informative. I can't offer any comments I'm adraid as you have it all in check. Sterling work! Cassianto^Talk 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 [13].

---

Carrow Road

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Following the disappointment of this year's Football League Championship play-offs in which bitter and long-standing rivals Canaries and Tractor Boys faced off for a place at the final at Wembley, Dweller thought it would be a good idea to rub salt into the wounds by suggesting we get Norwich's home stadium, Carrow Road, up to FA quality in time to celebrate its 80th birthday. So we had a stab up getting it up to snuff, and humbly submit it to the community for scrutiny and criticism. We both appreciate any time and energy commentators spend on this nomination, thanks in advance and we'll both do our best to get to any actions as soon as we can. COYB/OTBC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, TRM. Just to be clear, the anniversary is Aug 31, and we're hoping for a Main Page appearance then, subject to reaching the required standard in time. --Dweller (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Resolved comments from Brianboulton

I would like to have had a chance to pre-review this, as I don't think it's quite up to FA standard at the moment, although there's no reason why it can't be ready for a 31 August TFA. I have read it through rather quickly, and have so far picked up a few issues: General In the History section, there are too many very short subsections. Bits like the "Thorpe corner" information don't need subsections to themelves. The effect is to destroy the flow of prose. This should now be fixed, assuming you meant the section about the stands, rather than the history. --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC) In the "Stadium's name and initial construction history" section the use of the blockquote format in the sentence beginning "The original stadium was described as..." looks inappropriate. Blockquotes don't work for very short quotes – they simply break up the prose even more – and it's not clear in this case what the quote consists of – the whole line, or just the words in quotes? Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC) There is a large amount of white space between the "Music" and "Rodeo" sections which is disfiguring. I'm not actually convincd that the rodeo information is wrth keeping, but if it is, it should be connected with the main text. Fixed. Unencyclopedic. Hope the photo looks better now, too - there's still a smidgen of white. --Dweller (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Referencing The format of ref 16 is confusing – can you clarify/simplify Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Ref 27 – Pitchcare.com: what makes this a reliable highy-quality source? I know what you mean, but the claims supported by the source are extremely uncontentious and fall very much in line with WP:V's comment: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves ... They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others." The information is about something pitchcare were involved in. I could cut <sorry about the pun> the subsection, but it'd be something of a shame. --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Ref 32 – R G Carter Construction: same query Same response! --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Ref 42 – not properly formatted Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC) There are several uncited statements: "In the wake of the Ibrox stadium disaster in 1971, safety licences were required by clubs which resulted in the capacity being drastically reduced to around 20,000" Done --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "The current stadium consists of four stands; the Barclay (the north-eastern stand), the Norwich and Peterborough Stand (the south-western stand), the Geoffrey Watling City Stand (the north-western stand) and the most recent addition, the Jarrold Stand (the south-eastern stand)" Done. Got rid of directions as the source missed one of them and I didn't think it was essential anyway. --Dweller (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC) "Floodlights are supported on both corners of The Barclay and the Norwich & Peterborough stands, which are the ends behind the goals" This doesn't strike me as a massively reliable source, but maybe it does the trick, as per comments above re WP:V? --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium" Hmm. Really it's a matter of what follows in the rest of the section, but I've cited two such instances. Hope that does the trick. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC) I'll try and look at the prose in more detail, a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Very helpful, thanks. I'll crack on with that lot soon. --Dweller (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Note I am carrying out a detailed prose review. Rather than cluttering this page with detailed comments, I am leaving them on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Later Following the talk page review and your responses, these are my final comments: I don't think there is MOS justification for italicising Thorpe Corner Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC) The purchase of the 20-year lease is mentioned twice in close proximity Ooh yes. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Although the number of unnecessary direct quotes has reduced, there are still several in the paragraph I'm reading. " "17 August most of the stands and terraces had been completed" – why is that quoted? Likewise " on 31 August Carrow Road football ground was opened for the Second Division match v West Ham United" and "the more vociferous of the home and away supporters". Splendid. Nuked. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC) You mention the reduction in stadium capacity to around 20,000 after the Ibrox disaster. On the face of it this sounds a crippling blow, but I rather think that the club's average attendance, at league matches anyway, was probably below that figure. It would be useful to have a sentance summarising the impact, if any, of this reduction. We could get into OR here. I can find no published average attendance records, but http://www.stadiumguide.com/carrowroad/ shows a crowd of 43,984 in 1963. I'll try to take a look at Canary Citizens, which I think has attendances for every match, but I'll be careful with OR. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Verbosity: "The South Stand was replaced in 2003 when a new 8,000 seat stand, subsequently renamed the Jarrold Stand, was built in its place". Try: "In 2003 the South Stand was replaced by the new, 8,000 seat Jarrold Stand." Same info in 14 words rather than 24. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Eightieth anniversary: I recommend that you begin this section: "In anticipation of the ground's 80th anniversary on 31 August 2015, a rematch of the original fixture versus West Ham, was arranged for 28 July 2015" (the match will be over before this leaves FAC). I like that, because the clever use of tense means it's still valid now (ie the arranging was done in the past). Done --Dweller (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I'd also reword the Section's final sentence thus or similar: "Fans could buy tickets for a celebratory dinner with the first-team squad, the menu provided by the club's joint majority shareholder, the celebrity chef Delia Smith". You need to get rid of the implied future tense It hasn't happened yet. Tweaked and done. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC) In the Stands section, why are the four stands presented in a different order from that in the introductory sentence? Done --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "dubbed 'The Snakepit' by supporters" is not a worthy quote. correctamundo. Done. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Nor is "unusual in having not one, but three separate television gantries suspended beneath its largely perspex roof." Unusual, in having non-encyclopedic tendencies, so scrubbed. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Nor ""New York-style diner" – a straightforward description I have no idea what it means. Is a New York-style diner much different to a San Francisco one? Rephrased. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) "The club has therefore periodically stated that it has plans to significantly increase the capacity of the stadium." I'm looking again at this sentence, which I raised in my initial comments. Two split infinitives in the same short sentence, with "therefore periodically" especially awkward. My feeling is that this whole rather clunky sentence is redundant, since you go on immediately to discuss the expansions plans. I would zap it. I think I've helped address this now. --Dweller (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "The stadium has also occasionally..." Delete "also" (not needed) Was done already by someone. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "The John and Michael concerts..." This wording temporarily threw me. Who the hell are John and Michael, I thought. The two stars have never in my experience been referred to as "John" or "Michael", so please add the Elton and George, to avoid confusion. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC) There is one important outstanding issue. The original 20-year lease from Colmans ran out in 1955. We need at least a sentence or two explaining how the ownership of the ground has evolved since then. Was the lease merely extended, and if so for how long? Has the club acquired the freehold – if so, when? These are rather basic details that need to be included. Interesting. The sources are a little quiet on the matter, but I found one saying the freehold was purchased in 69/70: [14] Looks like an RS, but I have no page number. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC) I don't think you can use this source without access to more text. All I can see is an undated "While the club was negotiating to buy the freehold to Carrow Road", which is inconclusive. Someone needs to read the full text and find some page numbers – I think this could be done post-FAC, and accirdingly won't hold up my support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC) That's all I have, and if you can deal with these remaining issues I'll be ready to support. But you really need to get some more eyes on the article, bearing in mind your TFA target date. There are editors around who are much more knowledgeable than me about sports stadiums, and it may be worth making them aware of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: looking good now. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Carrow_Road_schematic.png: is this based on any particular source or map? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

  That's an interesting one. It's a simplified version of this. I guess we ought to cite it. Not sure how. Any ideas? --Dweller (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  It's already referenced in the File History of the image at Commons (to whit: "Updated to reflect more accurate stadium mapping, provided by source at NCFC (http://www.canaries.co.uk/cms_images/stadium-plan-1213132-230542.pdf)") The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

  Okay, that's fine, though it would make sense to explicitly report that source in the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  That would be redundant, thanks, and particularly irksome if someone changed the source at Commons. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Resolved comments from Cas Liber

Right, I made some tweaks, see if you're ok with them. Agree with Brian about dequoting and did some more. Left a couple that has some wittiness/tongue-in-cheek aspect to them. Overall the paras are a bit smaller than I would have them but not grossly so, so not a deal-breaker per se. Thanks for these comments and the tweaks. I'll keep reviewing this particular one between now and shiny star time, to see if anything can be done. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Pitch measurements should be in the prose somewhere, and also if there are any details over whether it is particularly big/small/narrow/wide compared with other league pitches. Really? It's in the infobox, but it's such a dull matter. I've not heard Carrow Road's pitch being referred to as particularly large/small/wide/narrow, so it's probably fairly humdrum, other, of course, for being sacred. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Ok then, if it's just average then that's not notable...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC) No local non-league clubs have ever used it? Just asking..... No idea. Never heard of it. It's a rural part of the country, so grounds are easier to come by, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) Overall looking ok....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

ultimately its a tentative support from me as it is a fair read and I can't see anything left out nor any clangers prose-wise remaining. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll be back and forth, as I suspect spending the whole weekend on Wikipedia won't make me particularly popular at home. To start with: Thirteen references – nos. 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 48, 54, 59, 63, 65, 67, 68 and 70 – lead either to the front page of the appropriate website, to an error page within the site, or are just dead. 28, 29, 37, 38, 39 done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 48 not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Still no joy on this, perhaps some paper sources might testify to this, the original URL was simply the home news page of the newspaper, which wasn't helpful at all.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC) I've just got rid of it. It's so insignificant. And I think the sourcing problem may have originated earlier in the FAC process, when I hacked longer material on the same subject, so it could have been my fault, not TRM's. Thanks for spotting this. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 54, 59, 63, 65 done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 67 not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Managed to reference the result (via UEFA) but not the record attendance claim so have removed that until such a time an alternative can be found. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC) 68 and 70 done. Now to go back to 48 and 67... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC) In the Pitch section: the quotes aren't from the manaufacturer, they're from Norwich's groundsman..... Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Is the stand called Norwich and Peterborough or Norwich & Peterborough? usage is inconsistent It's &, so fixed but for the reference title which uses "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) In the City stand section: Directors Box and Press Area shouldn't be capitalised. And I'm uncomfortable with "the smallest of the four in terms of capacity, but includes the Directors' Box, Press Area, and various other hospitality suites" being such close paraphrasing of ref2, which isn't the cited source, but which reads "the smallest in terms of capacity, but comprises Directors' Box, media facilities, and various other hospitality suites". I have tweaked and referenced to ref 2, I imagine that ref 4 used ref 2 as its own source and closely paraphrased it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC) In the Jarrold stand section: "The stand is a cantilever, single-tiered, all-seated stand, that can hold up to 8,184 supporters" is far too close to the cited source, which reads "The new Jarrold Stand is a cantilever, single-tiered, all-seated stand, that can hold up to 8,000 supporters". And the 8,184 figure isn't mentioned in the cited source, nor is the capacity of the Aviva Community stand, nor are its facilities for disabled supporters. Fixed the first problem, a little reword and a revision of the capacity to 8,000 per cite. Will search for next bit now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Capacity and disabled supporters now both individually referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) That's it for now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you Struway. I am wholly responsible for those naughty refs, so I'll try to get some time tonight/tomorrow to at least fix those. As always, your comments are appreciated! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC) That single miscreant ref aside, I think I've addressed your initial comments. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC) All done now. Thanks so much, Struway. I hope your family weren't too irritated. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC) And the rest. Some of this might be unduly picky, or just down to my personal taste in prose style, so please feel free to ignore: Infobox Pitch size should have a metric conversion Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Name and construction Is Norfolk Record Office really the author of Ref13? and where it appears again, it shouldn't really be spelt Recored Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Suggest bundling refs 15-19, to avoid such a long string of bracketed numbers interrupting the text Bundled. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Ref17 appears to be a self-published site: what makes it RS? And if it is, the ref itself could do with a bit of formatting: you have Jonathan Neville named as both author and publisher, with two different spellings, and no indication of what the website's called. Removed, not sure even how/why that was added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) In "while the original construction is long gone, the end retains the name of its benefactor", wikilinking "benefactor" to the Barclay End section of the article is a bit Easter egg Unlinked, no need for linked into the article sections. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Could wikilink Inglis Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Eightieth anniversary The first sentence is repeated almost word for word in the second Removed repetition. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Now we're past 28 July, would it read better as "was played/was held/took place on" rather than "was arranged for"? either way, the year doesn't need repeating Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Not an actionable comment: While I realise the upcoming 80th anniversary is why you're at FAC now, and I'm not saying remove it, are we sure that in general an 80th anniversary is actually important enough to mention at all, let alone in such detail? Important enough for them to replay the original fixture I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Norwich & Peterborough "An extra 160 seats installed were in the summer of 2010.": apart from the Yoda-ism, the ignorant reader wonders why this is important enough to mention? Yodaism fixed, left the seat increase. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) City Stand why's the corner bit known as the "Snakepit"? I guess it resembles a snake pit? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC) I can answer that, but not in mainspace, as I've never seen any RS explain it. I believe it's where a small group of very vociferous fans decided to locate themselves. It's well named. But until I spot an RS, I'm not going there, I'm afraid ;-) --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Jarrold stand Should "on the former site of the South Stand" read "on the site of the former South Stand"? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Suggest just "fully opened for the next home match three weeks later" rather than yet another exact date and not really relevant opponent Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) the "cantilever, single-tiered, all-seated stand" bit is still unnecessarily close paraphrasing. You've already told us that the whole ground is all-seater, so why not drop that bit and turn it round to "a single-tiered stand of cantilever construction (if that's the right phrasing: I'm no engineer) with a capacity of...". And wikilink cantilever, for those of us who haven't the faintest idea Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Aviva Community Stand ... "was originally built" implies it's been rebuilt, or undergone major work over many years. Presumably just "was built" would be correct? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Visiting supporter accommodation Ref4 is missing the year of publication. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Not an actionable comment: I can't agree with Mr Adams about the view being very good from the visitors' section. Not if you're five foot three and towards the front in a full ground it isn't. Do you have an RS for that claim?! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Catering First para reads like an advert for Ms Smith's company. Removed last sentence, other two seem neutral and factual to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "mostly named after former players and officials, like Darren Huckerby and Sir Arthur South, as well as former club sponsors Lotus Cars": sentence structure needs tweaking. South was linked earlier in the article Rephrased, not brilliant mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Future plans First para: does 'home' need apostrophes round it? Also, I'd be happier if the occupancy rate were sourced somewhere more independent than the club website's season ticket renewal deadline piece. De-apostrophed, not going to find that information anywhere else easily so either we trust NCFC as an RS or who remove the claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC) The club has had a massive waiting list for season tickets for some years, so I don't think we need to worry too much about them making things up in order to flog a few. --Dweller (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Second para: "club has often stated", not clubS. Also, repeats "club has stated" on that same line. Don't think Chairman should be capitalised. Ref59 still goes to the front page of the site S removed, removed repeat, replaced C with c, fixed ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Third para: The 2012 study bit needs a copyedit: the first sentence doesn't say anything, looks like something's got lost somewhere Dweller I've left you this... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Is that better? --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Summary of ground records Suspect the MoS wouldn't condone the bolding Done. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC) That's more than enough. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Struway I think we're done? --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I get distracted very easily these days. Thank you both for responding so quickly and satisfactorily to the points made. I won't support or oppose, because I came to try and help improve the article rather than to make a judgment on whether it satisfies criteria I'm completely unfamiliar with. But just as a personal view, I don't find it an easy read when there are so many very small sections.

I don't know if it's normal practice here to use {{Resolved comments}} to de-clutter the page as people do at FLC; if it is, please call me back and I'll hide them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

No idea. In honour of your comment, Struway and, once again, Casliber, I just made this edit --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Dweller, that last edit was good as the subheaders were breaking up the sections too small. Also some folks do collapse their comments as resolved. I strike them. I think either is fine as long as something is done that visually signifies to the delegates that the reviewer is satisfied. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "Carrow Road saw a crowd of 43,984" - the stadium doesn't have eyes, so it can't have seen the crowd

  Oh Chris, come on! --Dweller (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• "the home of the Boulton Paul Sports Ground " - not sure the words "the home of" are needed

  Agreed. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• " to provide some work for the poor" - the word "some" seems extraneous

  Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• "the attendance was 29,779, which set a new record crowd for a home game." - is it really necessary to note that the first ever game at the ground set a new attendance record? It would be more meaningful to state how long it was a record for.....

  It was a record for the club, not the new ground! I'll clarify, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• "replacement by 1987 of a new City Stand" - think the "of" should be "with"

  Yep, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• "An extra 160 seats installed were" - a bit of Yoda speak there ;-)

  Odd, I thought I fixed this already. Perhaps there's a problem in The Force.... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• " used for the first time on 30 August 1986 when City hosted Southampton" - wikilink Southampton

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It was formally opened by the Duchess of Kent on 14 February 1987" - wikilink the Duchess

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Where The Barclay extends around to meet the Geoffrey Watling City Stand, is the Thorpe corner infill" - ditch the comma before "is"

  Ditched. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't think the names of the various catering outlets should be in italics

  Put into quotes instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• All the U21 teams which played against England seem to be wikilinked except Serbia.....

  Linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Think that's all I've picked up..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, I've done a few of these, I'll leave the others to Dweller, to keep him involved! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking good, happy to support if those last few points are addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we've addressed them all, now, Chris. --Dweller (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

*Would it be worth adding captions to the image and map in the infobox? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "Under-21": don't think it needs capitalising, except when referring to the European Under-21 Championship. Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "The Nest": not sure about the quotation marks. Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I'd put "(FA)" after "The Football Association", so readers know for certain who's being referred to in the next paragraph. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "construction on the new stadium": would it read better as "construction of the new stadium"? Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "scored by the Canaries' Duggie Lochhead": might just be personal preference, but I'd avoid using a club's nickname. Replaced. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "1959 FA Cup" -> "1958–59 FA Cup". As you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "In 1963, the record was set for attendance for Carrow Road": reads awkwardly to me. Replaced second "for" with "at". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "rematch of the original fixture versus West Ham was played on 28 July 2015": do we need the year twice in one sentence? One 2015 removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "£1.1m" -> "£1.1 million". Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Could you find the crowd for the Iceland match? No, in fact I took that information out because I couldn't source it reliably. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "Biggest margin of defeat": unless I'm mistaken, the BBC ref doesn't say it is the biggest margin of defeat. Agreed, Dweller? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Eastern Daily Press references and the two books in the Bibliography are missing publisher locations. EDP location added, books don't have publisher location information available. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Some references have the publisher wikilinked but others don't. I'd suggest they all be wikilinked (where possible), or none at all. Consistently unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Done Matty, thanks. Just the "largest margin of defeat" reference outstanding, which I'll leave to Dweller to go find. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC) I might be missing something. The source says "The result was the worst home defeat in Norwich City's 107-year history." Is that too vague? --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Ah, missed that. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) Not sure "heaviest home defeat in the club's 107-year history" adds much to that. ([15]) --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC) FAs on football grounds usually have a section on transport. For such a well-attended ground as Carrow Road, I'd think there's a little bit to be said on this topic. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Happy with the improvements made, and I feel this article now satisfies the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 [16].

---

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an ambitious and capable Turkish soldier, whose tumultuous career in the collapsing Abbasid Caliphate led him to become the ruler of Egypt in 935–946 and founder of a dynasty that ruled much of the Middle East until 969. The article relies heavily on Jere L. Bacharach's 1975 monograph, which is the most comprehensive study to date, but complements this with several other related sources. It passed a thorough GA review and had a very smooth MILHIST A-Class review, with only minor additions/tweaks since then, so I feel confident that it meets FA criteria. Constantine ✍ 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though the maps are a bit difficult to read at that text size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comment -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review and, having checked all additions/changes since then, reiterate the gist of what I said there:

• Although I know very little about the period in question, the content seems well-written, comprehensive, neutrally presented, and reasonably easy to follow.
• Image licensing looks good to me.
• Source-wise, again given the caveat of not being an expert, the references seem reliable enough.
• Just one thing re. a post-ACR addition: He played a major role in the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months thereafter until the arrival of reinforcements from Egypt that defeated the Qarmatians -- not sure I quite follow this so pls confirm for me and perhaps we can reword a bit... he was defeated in his particular battle of the Qarmatian attack on Damascus, but the attack as a whole was successful, and he was the given charge of Damascus with a Qarmatian garrison that was eventually defeated by the Egyptian reinforcements? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Ian and thanks for the review! I've rephrased the section in question: the Qarmatians defeated Tughj in battle outside Damascus, but he was nevertheless able to hold the city against them until such time as reinforcements arrived. Constantine ✍ 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ah-ha, I'd got the impression he was on the side of the Qarmatians! I think your wording when it was at ACR, mentioning him "repelling" the Qarmatians, made clear whose side he was on ("major role in the attack" is ambiguous at best). Your latest reword is a bit clearer but could it be tweaked thus and still reflect the sources: "He played a major role in repelling the Qarmatian attack on Damascus in 903; although defeated in battle, he held the city for seven months until, with the help of reinforcements from Egypt, he drove the Qarmatians away"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've rephrased it again. It should be clear now. Thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Works for me! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support this excellent article, with a few quibbles:

• In "Takeover of Egypt": "This view is reinforced by the fact that after the fall of Mu'nis..." "By the fact that" always stands out as clumsy to me. Maybe this could be "This theory also explains why, after the fall of Mu'nis, al-Qahir sent a eunuch called Bushri to replace Ibn Tughj in Damascus as well." Or something like that? If you can't make it work, don't worry about it. Just a minor point.
• Under "Conflict with Ibn Ra'iq": "Once more, the Egyptian ruler led his army in person to battle" probably doesn't need "in person". Similarly, in "Conflict with the Hamdanids", "The latter immediately responded by leading an army in person into Syria." -- "leading" assumes "in person," doesn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this. On the first point, how about "The fact that al-Qahir sent a eunuch called Bushri to replace Ibn Tughj in Damascus after the fall of Mu'nis reinforces this view."? On the second, indeed it does. I've removed it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That's good, but you could even lose the first two words, I think. "That al-Qahir sent..." --Coemgenus (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, now it doesn't sound to good to me ;). I'll change it per my suggestion above. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I would move one of the maps up so that it is immediately below the infobox.
  • To what purpose?
• " the autonomous ruler of Egypt and parts of Syria" and "al-Ikhshid was engaged in conflicts with other regional strongmen for control over Syria, without which Egypt was vulnerable to invasion from the east". I find these comments puzzling. Syria is distant from Egypt, so did he rule two separated areas, or are you using a different medieval definition of the location of Syria? If so, this should be explained. What does invasion from the east mean? From Turkey?
  • Syria is clearly linked as referring to the greater area of Syria or the Levant. In literature on the period, "Syria" is generally used in this way, and I find it hard to believe that anyone would assume that the text could be referring to the modern state of Syria in its modern boundaries. On invasion from the east, it is clearly stated that this is about Egypt: hence an invasion from, or through, the Levant (and Sinai), as has happened multiple times in its history. Turkey (which also did not exist at the time) is in the north, not the east.
• " Although he was initially in control of the entire region, he was forced to cede the northern half" This is also confusing? The entire region should include northern Egypt, but in the next sentence you seem to be referring only to northern Syria.
  • I do not thing that someone with a basic knowledge of geography might be confused about this, but I have clarified it nonetheless.
• " managed to obtain for himself an appointment as governor of Palestine from Baghdad; the incumbent, al-Rashidi, fled the governor's seat at Ramla for Damascus, whose governorship he assumed" I am not sure what you mean here. Was he appointed to expel the existing governor? Was Ramla the capital of Palestine? If so, this should be clarified.
  • Pretty much, yes. Given the predatory nature of Abbasid politics at the time, it is not surprising: once a faction gained ascendancy at court, it appointed its own people. Their rivals fled, or were tortured for money, etc. Going into details about this is a bit superfluous to the article, but you certainly understood correctly. As for Ramla, "governor's seat" equals capital.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am awaiting further comments/requests for clarification. Constantine ✍ 19:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • |Hi! A small reminder :) Constantine ✍ 13:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

In view of the tone of your replies I do not think I can usefully contribute. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Huh? I value any and all input, but you can't expect me to agree with everything... And really, a glance at the map(s) should suffice to clarify the first couple of concerns you raised. I really think it redundant to have to explain that Syria in the 10th century is not Syria of the 21st century... Constantine ✍ 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from West Virginian

Support: Constantine, since I had previously reviewed this article for Good Article status at Talk:Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid/GA1 and passed it for meeting Good Article criteria, I felt that it was only fitting for me to weigh in here regarding the article's passage to Featured Article status. I have reviewed the changes made to this article since its GAN, and I find that this article easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, as it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable, and its lead meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. There is no more comprehensive illustration of al-Ikhshid in existence. Thank you for your hard work on this article, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and your kind comments. Aside from FA criteria adherence, if there are any suggestions, however minor, for improvement, please let me know! Constantine ✍ 11:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 [17].

---

Dave Gallaher

Nominator(s): Shudde ^talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Dave Gallaher, the Irish-born captain of the first New Zealand national rugby union team to tour the British Isles and France. He was subjected to considerable criticism during the tour for what the British press considered unsportsmanlike play. Prior to playing international rugby he served in the Second Boer War, and later served in France during the First World War where he was killed at Passchendaele. Shudde ^talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Dave_Gallaher.jpg: per the tag, you'll need to indicate what steps you've taken to try to establish the author's identity. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have done what I can to identify the photographer, and have fixed that caption. -- Shudde ^talk 05:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• Only the lede image has alt text - these should be fixed. Also fixed a few citation links using Checklinks but 1 is dead. ww2censor (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ww2censor: I'm confused. All images have alt text ([18]) and the deadlink tag you've added is not a deadlink for me ([19])! -- Shudde ^talk 11:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Very strange. I was using Maxthon and the alts did not show up in edit mode, so apologies, scrub that. I'll have to see if that is a brwoser issue. Now the "dead link" connects for me too so maybe it was just a temporary server issue; forget that comment too. Thanks for pointing that out. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

And now when I use checklinks, the link to [20] and even clicking on your direct link above, it gives an error message "Backend not available", so I don't know what is happening there. You may want to keep an eye on it. ww2censor (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure what is going on. Both [21] and [22] work for me. But I've removed the deadlink tag and added an archiveurl to wayback machine just in case. If anyone else has any problems getting either of those pages it'd be good to know. -- Shudde ^talk 11:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts from Cliftonian

Support—after reading through this a few times I am happy to support it for FA status. Thank you, Shudde, for this fine article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for taking so long to get to this, Shudde. I'll have a look through and note any thoughts as I go through. I'm not sure we need to put the name David Gallagher in bold in the brackets—we effectively give the same name twice (only one letter is different) and I think it's a bit much. "David "Dave" Gallaher (born David Gallagher)" would do just as well I think. This is a minor enough point it could even be relegated to a footnote, in my opinion; after all the spelling was changed when David was four years old. Done. Why italics on "Original All Blacks"? Removed "first ever Test match" perhaps clarify that we mean the "first ever rugby Test match" (the term is usually used for cricket, in my experience) Many sports have Test matches (including rugby league and netball). And the term is common outside of cricket. I've left it as is, especially as NZ didn't play Test cricket until the 1930s. I would also hope it's obvious this refers to rugby from context. "contested against Australia at Sydney in 1903" don't need "contested" here; also think "in Sydney" is better than "at Sydney" Changed. The chronology of the lead seems to bounce around a bit. I would try to make the first paragraph a brief summary of why he's so noted (captain of Original All Blacks, near-perfect record in 1905–06 tour, etc), then a more smooth chronology from the start of his life to the end over the next paragraph or two. The last paragraph of the lead is very good as it is; I would probably leave it exactly as you have it apart from adding "the" before "New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame." I've reorganised the lead. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Early life "James was a widower who had married Maria a year after the death of his first wife." when? My source says seven years before his birth (the marriage). So I've added a year. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Is the "First Ramelton Meeting House" a church? Seems an odd name for one, particularly in 1874. The Gallahers were Roman Catholics, presumably? No. He was baptised a Presbyterian. Later in life he attended an Anglican church. I'm not sure at what point he changed denominations or why he was baptised in one church but attended another. He definitely wasn't Catholic. Ah, okay then—good thing we clarified this as I had assumed he was Catholic simply because the family came from Ireland. Attending a different church isn't that unusual, particularly among Protestants. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) More later. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) @Cliftonian: -- Thanks for the comments. Hopefully everything has been addressed. Any idea why the infobox has the "Rugby union career" header twice? See my reply to Resolute below. -- Shudde talk 05:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Early rugby career Did the Parnell rugby team in Auckland take its name from the Irish nationalist of that name? Considering the Gallahers' Irish origins a connection seems likely to me. The point I'm trying to make is: was this an "Irish" team? Parnell is a suburb of Auckland. "In 1897, Gallaher's Ponsonby club won eight of their nine matches, and also the Auckland club championship." Wasn't the second a consequence of the first? The source doesn't specify. I'm not sure that championships were purely decided on a win-loss record, or whether their were finals etc. I would assume there were not finals in those days, but it'd be an assumption. Forgive my terrible English there. -- Shudde talk 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Later Gallaher was selected for Auckland's three-match tour where they defeated Taranaki, Wellington and Wanganui." when? clarified. More later —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) Cheers. -- Shudde talk 05:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC) @Cliftonian: Hey mate. Any chance you've got some time to continue with your comments. They've been very helpful so far. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 00:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Early rugby career, continued "The following season was less eventful for Gallaher—he played much of the season for Ponsonby, but injury prevented his selection for Auckland" you have an emdash here, but endashes elsewhere. Either is fine (in fact I prefer emdashes, but you should be consistent in whether you use one or the other. Good spot. Changed. "After missing the 1898 season for Auckland, Gallaher continued to be selected for his province throughout 1899 and 1900." I know you've already made clear Auckland was his provincial side, but the lay reader will still think of Auckland as being a city rather than a province. I would change "his" to "the" here, to make clear the "Auckland" mentioned in the first part of the sentence is the province being referred to in the second. Changed. Anglo-Boer War "When enlisting he put his birthday as 31 October 1876, back nearly three years" Are we sure this was down to him? It could have been a mistake by someone at the recruiting office. Also "back nearly three years" is not that clear; I would put "three years later than the actual date" or something. And "date of birth", not birthday. And we use variants of the word "enlist" twice in two sentences. Alternative ways of putting it include "Gallaher mustered into", "Gallaher attested into", and the simple "Gallaher joined". Enlisted in, not enlisted with. Perhaps put a word or two to make absolutely clear for geopolitically unaware readers that this was within the British Army, on the British side or similar It was not an error, as it was never corrected by Gallaher himself later in life. It's still unknown why he did this (see my comments to Resolute below on this). Perhaps clarify this in that case. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Clarified Are you really sure we need to specify that Gallaher was on the British side of the conflict? The alternative was that New Zealand was on the Boer side of an Anglo-Boer conflict. Surely this doesn't need to be spelled out (and if readers are interested, there are a number of wiki-links in that first sentence). This is a peripheral point I won't make a big deal out of, but keep it in mind as some people may not know what the two sides were in the Anglo-Boer War. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "Gallaher was given a send-off by his Ponsonby club" what kind of send-off? Was he the only one in the team to get one—didn't any of the others want to render service to their Queen and Country? (do we know Gallaher's motivations for enlisting? was he simply patriotic or was there some additional or other motivation? the wording seems to imply that there was no conscription in New Zealand for the Anglo-Boer War—is this correct?) There was no conscription (see List of New Zealand units in the Second Boer War). Nothing is written about his motivations (Elliott does frequently quote letters written by Gallaher, so I assume if he had found something he would have included it in the biography). It was a dinner, and doesn't specify whether other club members served. OK. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) The picture on the right here indicates that the held the rank of corporal before they left for South Africa. Is there a reason he had this rank rather being one of the rank-and-file privates? And why don't we mention this in the body? I haven't found anything in my sources elaborating on this. OK. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "After arriving in East London on 14 March 1901" we should probably make clear that we mean East London in South Africa and not the eastern part of the British capital. Perhaps "After disembarking in South Africa at East London" or similar. Done we wikilink "Northern Transvaal" to the South African Republic, but this was actually the whole Transvaal, not just the northern part. Is there a better link? Limpopo is probably even less appropriate, and Provinces of South Africa doesn't offer me much help. Why not just link "Transvaal" to South African Republic rather than "Northern Transvaal"? —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Done "Gallaher's contingent immediately embarked for Pretoria,[39] and it was there that, under the command of General Herbert Plumer" this seems to imply that Gallaher's contingent constituted the entirety of the force under Plumer's command, when so far as I know they were just part of a much larger force under his command. Clarified "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company,[42] he served as a scout of the advanced guard[36] – who rode ahead of their column to look for threats." perhaps "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company, he served as a scout in the advanced guard, that part of the column that reconnoitred ahead of the main force." Are you sure we want to use the word reconnoitred? I'm unsure how many lay readers will be familiar with the term. Perhaps "A member of the contingent's 16th (Auckland) Company, he served in the advanced guard, which scouted ahead of the main force." —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Changed Clarify Charlestown is in Natal. Done Perhaps add to the military part of the infobox in which years he was in each unit, for clarity. I'll give this a go. "he had several enemies in his sights" careful regarding POV. Perhaps "had several Boer fighters in his sights" or similar. I don't think this is particularly POV (comrade could be viewed in the same way). They were were his enemy. I've changed it to your wording, but I hope it's still clear that Gallaher felt he could have fired upon them in that situation. Well, yes, since we say they're Boer fighters after making clear he was not on the Boer side in the war. (having spent time in the military myself I always try to be careful about this kind of thing.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Hope this helps—more anon. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC) @Cliftonian: It definitely does. Hopefully I've addressed those comments that I can. Cheers. -- Shudde talk 01:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Cheers. More soon. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Resumption of his rugby career "English and Colonial forces" not British? and why capital c on "colonial"? Changed Copyedited What's the Ranfurly Shield? I've added something on this. Hopefully I've got the balance right and provided enough information without going into excessive detail. Hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Great. Hopefully everything's been addressed. -- Shudde talk 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC) @Cliftonian: Any chance of further comments? -- Shudde talk 11:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC) I'll try later. Capping everything resolved above to make navigation easier. —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC) 1905 tour "vice captain" not vice-captain? changed When we refer to "southern" players, we mean players from the South Island, right? (I'm not so well acquainted with NZ terminology.) If so, perhaps capitalise the "S"? I don't think we should capitalise. Normally one wouldn't capitalise (if you wanted to refer to South Islanders you'd use that term, rather than southerners). Southerners probably refers to those from the south, Christchurch, Southland, Otago. There is nothing more specific about which players were unhappy, but it clearly wasn't all southern players (Billy Stead was definitely 'southern', but he didn't have a problem with Gallaher). OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Did they perceive Gallaher's appointment as part of the alleged pro-Auckland bias, or a second, separate piece of bias? I don't know what other bias they could perceive so I assume the former. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "but many of the players believed that the appointments should have been chosen by the team as per the practice on the 1897 and 1903 tours to Australia" had the captain and vice-captain for these tours been chosen by election and/or consensus? did only the players take part in these procedures, or did coaching staff or anybody else take part too? I recommend changing "chosen" to "elected" and clarifying "by the team" to who exactly did the choosing. The "team" here refers to the players; I can't think what else it could mean. There were only two non-players in the party, the manager, and the coach (referred to as a assistant-manager to placate those who looked down on coaching appointments). OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "During the voyage to England the team conducted training drills" on the deck of the ship, right? Perhaps clarify this as it is to the modern reader it is a mental image very much from another era, and worth stressing. Done OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "consequently accused of obstruction" during the first match against Devon, or in general? He was accused to obstruction in the press following the Devon match -- no mention is made of accusations by players or spectators during match. The article does state The British press, looking to find fault in New Zealand's play, continued to criticise Gallaher throughout the tour in one of the paragraph immediately proceeding description of the Devon match. Is is unclear that the criticism continued throughout the tour? -- Shudde talk 08:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC) No, OK. Looks good. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "The team were not warmly welcomed by administrators from the Scottish Football Union (SFU), the governing body for rugby union in Scotland; they did not receive an official welcome and were greeted by only one official on their arrival in Edinburgh." Why? Later the article does state this all may have been because of David Bedell-Sivright, the Scottish captain of the 1904 British Isles team, but in all honesty, the SFU were known for being incredibly conservative and behaving a little like that. OK. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "the SFU refused a guarantee for the match, but eventually promised the entire gate to the New Zealanders instead" what does this mean? What's a "guarantee"? Did the New Zealanders ultimately get the entire gate as promised? I've preceded guarantee with "financial". They got the gate. I think guarantee was just a guaranteed fee; all it meant was a reduced risk for the New Zealanders. The tour was quite a financial risk -- no one knew what kind of crowds they were going to get before they toured (turned out they got great crowds and it was a financial success). So I think most teams gave them a guarantee to try and ensure the tour was financially viable. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "despite the close score-line, the New Zealanders were clearly the better of the two sides" says who? doesn't sound very neutral to me. attribute this opinion I've added a quote from the source to the footnote. OK, that looks good. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "a number of their best players, including Stead, were unavailable" because they were injured? yes. clarified. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "The match was closely contested, but Wales were the better side." says who? I've removed this. Gallaher's opinion on the matter is quoted later anyway. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Who's Bob Deans? I see you've addressed this. "There was no provision for injury replacements." In this match specifically, or in rugby union in general? The latter, right? Yeah in general. But it's more complicated than that. I know that in New Zealand and Australia they allowed injury replacements in certain matches, but they didn't in Britain and Ireland at the time. I don't want to make a sweeping statement about it (which could be wrong) so I'd rather leave it as is. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Why did they play against British Columbia in San Francisco, so far away from Canada? None of my sources are specific on this. They call them "exhibition games", and the fact that Seddon organised the North American leg makes me think it can't have just been coincidence that they were in San Francisco. But there is nothing specific. I think they travelled down from Vancouver specifically for the two matches. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) "It "remains one of the most influential books produced in the realms of rugby literature"." who says? attribute this weighty quote. It is cited, but I've clarified. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) ""Excessive striving for victory introduced an unhealthy spirit of competition, transforming a character-building 'mock fight' into 'serious fighting'. Training and specialization degraded sport to the level of work."" who is this quoting? Fixed. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Auckland and All Black selector What's the Maniapoto sub-union? A sub-union. A union that is affiliated to a provincial union rather than directly to the NZRU. It's basically minor union. OK —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC) First World War OK Leadership and personality I would move this section to the end, after the memorial section, so we end on the nice peroration about nobody having a disparaging word about him. Done I hope this helps. I'm sorry for having taken so long to get through this, but I'm glad I have done. A worthy subject indeed. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Another suggestion—I realise you perhaps want the close-up photo for the First World War section, but it occurs to me the image we have there at the moment doesn't show his rank. This one, for example, shows his corporal stripes and seems to me a rather better representation of Gallaher in the context of his WWI service. Just something to consider. —  Cliftonian (talk)  02:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestion, but I've got to say, I prefer the upper-body rather than full-body photo. The quality of File:Dave Gallaher 31-G2779.jpg is pretty high. You can even see the wrinkles under his eyes. -- Shudde talk 10:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC) OK fair enough. @Cliftonian: Thanks for your comments as always. I've still got to double check some of your copyedits, but I have replied where I can above. Thanks again. -- Shudde talk 10:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Capped resolved above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nice picture of the reception back in NZ. Perhaps note in the caption where in the photo the team is?
  • It's in a place called Philson's Square. Problem is I don't think it exists anymore, which is why I never thought to include it in the caption.
    • No, I mean where in the photograph are they? On the dais in the centre? —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Cliftonian: Ah sorry. I misunderstood. I know that Richard Seddon (the PM) was on the dais, so I assume that the team is there with him. The caption doesn't specify [23]. I could add that Richard Seddon is addressing the crowd? -- Shudde ^talk 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, why not. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your support and the useful comments and edits. -- Shudde ^talk 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

A pleasure. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Resolute

Resolved commentary

*FWIW, I disagree with Cliftonian. David "Dave" Gallaher (born David Gallaher) is redundant twice over. If both names are desired, "Dave Gallaher (born David; 30 October 1873...) is probably best, imo. I've changed this. Hopefully everyone is happy with it. I've left Gallagher in there, because it is misspelled quite a lot, even though the man himself dropped the "g" at a young age. -- Shudde talk 06:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Oh, yeah, that's definitely better. I missed that his family dropped the extra G off his last name. Resolute 14:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "The next year played in their first home Test" - missing word? "The next year, he played in..."? Fixed I would suggest giving the year of the Originals tour at some point in that lead paragraph. Probably where he retires, since you've moved back and forth in time by that point. I've inserted a date early on. There is a bit of a strange arrangement to the third paragrpah of the lead. He captained New Zealand to a 34-1 record, then we note he was criticized by the press, then we switch back to his being praised for his leadership. Then we go back to the criticism. It's all jarring. Perhaps move the complaints from the British press to the fourth paragraph to join up with the note that his play contributed to strain between the All Blacks and the Home Nations? I've tried to do this. Let me know what you think. Looks good, thanks. Resolute 02:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Is there a reason why the infobox ends with a second shaded header of "Rugby union career"? The problem was introduced with this edit [24]; but it seems rather innocuous. I've spent a bit of time trying to correct this bug (I think that's what this is) but I've had no luck. I'm really out of ideas. -- Shudde talk 05:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Mkay. I know all about infobox weirdness. Resolute 02:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) @Resolute: Three separate threads were subsequently raised on that matter, by Shudde, Lingzhi and Zyxw. I've consolidated them at Template talk:Infobox rugby biography#Error: Template displays duplicate "career" headers for coaches who were also players. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Just a start... I'll try to review more tomorrow.Resolute 00:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC) @Resolute: Cheers. -- Shudde talk 06:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Continuing... "In 1897, Gallaher's Ponsonby club won eight of their nine matches, and also the Auckland club championship." - just a thought, maybe: "In 1897, Gallaher's Posonby club won eight of their nine matches en route to the Auckland club championship"? Changed. Do we know why Gallaher gave a birth year of 1876 instead of 1873 when enlisting for the Boer War? Elliott (2012, p 68) mentions that Gallaher listed a later birth year, but doesn't try and address why. McLean (1987, p 36) says the reason "would now be impossible to guess" but then goes on to speculate a bit widely. None of the sources I've read do better than speculate on the matter. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Damn. I figured as much though. Resolute 00:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC) The first time Billy Wallace is mentioned, I had no idea who he was or why his opinion was important. Clarified As a thought: Put the image of the All Blacks' return to New Zealand at the end of the France, North America and return section. Keeps it in chronological order, and also puts a little more space between the quote box and image. Good idea. Moved. Finishing off tomorrow, hopefully. Resolute 02:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Cool, thanks. -- Shudde talk 05:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Part the third... What is meant by "he coached at age group level for Ponsonby"? I'm guessing that "age group" is the New Zealand equivalent of what we would call "minor" sports, but is there a link for that? It's not minor sports as I understand it (List of developmental and minor sports leagues?). "Age Grade" may be a British English term (see [25], [26], [playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?subsection=64] etc) but I know it's used frequently in New Zealand and Australia. It's where restricted by age, for example Under 20 years old. An example would be the World Rugby Under 20 Championship. I'm not sure what a clear term for this would be in American/Canadian English. Any suggestions? -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC) I think we're alright then. There isn't really a North American equivalent to that term. "minor hockey", for instance, would reference youth hockey. At older age-limited levels, it is usually given by age limit much the way Europe does - U17, U18, Junior/U20. I can't think of an equivalent term for "age grade", but it can be figured out in context. Resolute 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC) "...and the All Blacks eventually won two, and drew one, of the three Tests." - comma poisoning, and "eventually" doesn't really add anything here. Perhaps "...and of three Tests, the All Blacks won two and drew the third" or something similar? Changed. To that end, is "Tests" always capitalized? Not always -- both capitalised and not can be found out there. It seems to depend on the house style adopted by the publisher (see [27] and [28]). Normally I go with whatever convention has been established in an article. -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "During his period as national selector, New Zealand played 50 games (including 16 Tests), won 44, lost 4 and drew 2. They won 13 Tests while drawing two and losing one." - I found this confusing as you went from games to tests to games to tests again. Reworded. Also realised I had violated WP:NUMERAL here. A slight bit of WP:PROSELINE in the second paragraph of First World War. Also, he was promoted to temporary sergeant on 2 June and that promotion was confirmed the day prior on 1 June? Or did you mean 1 July? Thanks for pointing that out. I've made some changes and corrections and also added a bit about the voyage. "...aged almost 44" is really weird to me. Personally, I would go with "...less than a month before his 44th birthday" or something. However if that is normal for New Zealand English, please disregard. In the leadership section, Terry MacLean notes that there were no complaints from a "New Zealand angle". That sort of implies complaints elsewhere. Was his legacy from the UK perspective ever spoken of? Or did the old complaints end when he retired as a player? I'm rather expecting the latter given the lack of a return tour of the UK in Gallaher's life time. Nearly all of the references regarding his leadership come from fellow players (understandably). He was pretty viciously attacked by the press in England and Wales at the time of the tour. New Zealand was also looked down upon quite a lot (rugby was more of a working-class rather than upper-class game in New Zealand) and the unhappiness with the wing-forward continued until it was outlawed. His reputation has definitely been rehabilitated, but I'm not sure exactly when this happened. His death was reported in the British press: there is an interesting article here that was published in 1918. They definitely hadn't forgotten about his role as wing-forward (he was described as an "obstructionist") but it seems the attitude towards him had softened a lot. -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC) @Resolute: I've added a couple of quotes from English newspapers following Gallaher's death. Hopefully this does something to address your comment. -- Shudde talk 07:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC) Sources: Random check of cites 26, 57, 92, 137 and 176 show no concerns. Though site 57 gives Letterkenny's home as "Dave Gallaher Memorial Park". Yeah some sources omit the "Memorial" and others don't. I've added it though. -- [29] [30] Great article overall, as expected. Cheers! Resolute 00:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks very much. As always your input and feedback is greatly appreciated. -- Shudde talk 06:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I was involved in the peer review of this article as well, and it has continually improved. I'm happy to support at this point. Resolute 14:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• • Body text needs nbsp between the dd and mm of ddmmyyyy• Lingzhi♦(talk) 07:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I see you've done some of this. I'll go through again and see if any have been missed. -- Shudde ^talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the lead goes into excessive detail.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 07:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The punctuation of the sentence that begins with "Since the selection" (mixed dashes and commas) is a bit difficult to parse• Lingzhi♦(talk) 07:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think this has been addressed. -- Shudde ^talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain why being "unsuitably dressed" was important.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Clarified. -- Shudde ^talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In direct quotes that are full sentences, the period goes inside the quotation marks."• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I was aware of this as I added the quotes. Hopefully I didn't make any errors so I'll go through and double check. -- Shudde ^talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I double checked them all and corrected where necessary. -- Shudde ^talk 08:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I know nothing about rugby, but it seems that their training and strategies had as much or more to do with their success as anything else...but this point is not strongly developed, and their innovations were not detailed. Am I wrong in these perceptions?• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Lingzhi: Thanks for your comments. I'll deal with the lead in the next couple of hours. Regarding your last comment. There are many factors that contributed to their success. The Original All Blacks#Innovations and tactics goes into some detail (but it's not comprehensive). I tried not to go into excessive detail regarding tangential elements of the tour, and instead attempted to focus on Gallaher's role and experiences. It's a hard balance to achieve, and maybe I've swung the pendulum too far in one direction. If the article has given the impression that Gallaher's leadership was the main, or sole reason for their success, then I'm going to need to clarify that. It was important, but there were other important factors as well. What is the impression you got? Thanks for your comments. Hope to have them all address in the next 24 hours. -- Shudde ^talk 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I have added a link at the beginning of the Aftermath and impact section that will hopefully direct readers to a place where there is more information on this kind of thing. -- Shudde ^talk 08:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Lingzhi: I'm now reasonably satisfied with the changes I have made (diff). I've trimmed down the lead and added enough to hopefully satisfy you regarding why the All Blacks were so successful on their 1905–06 tour. Shudde ^talk 06:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Shudde:I have free time only in spurts. Haven't looked at all your changes yet (sorry!), but please see the article's talk page for a first stab at a Lead section. You are NOT required to adopt my suggestions; don't feel intimidated just because this is a FAC and I am reviewing it. Plus please do tweak my suggested Lead at will; I was in a rush when I put it together. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Lingzhi: I've rewritten the lead using your suggestion. I've made a few changes and corrections. I think it's important to open with the fact he captained the Originals -- many people would only know that about him (and that he died in the First World War). Anyway give it a read and let me know what you think. -- Shudde ^talk 04:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I chenged your version again for the sole reason that I'm trying to avoid mentioning 1905 twice.... look again and see if it's OK... Additionally, when I made the changes I knew that you would revert to putting Originals first, because (I assume) you're an NZ editor and a fan, and that is what NZ fans (and maybe all rugby fans) think of first. And that's OK. But from the perspective of a non-UK, non-NZ, non-fan of rugby, "The Originals" mean exactly nothing to me, whereas being in three different Halls of Fame is notability written in flaming sky-high letters. But again, it's OK. It is not an important point. I am just explaining why I moved the Halls from the nether regions of the lead to the peak. So look at my changes again and see if they are OK. Tks. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: I'm happy with the changes. I can see why you introduced him in that way, but I'd rather make explicit why he was inducted into those Halls of Fame nice and early, rather than say he was honoured for something and then state what that something was. Anyway I'm comfortable with how it reads now. -- Shudde ^talk 07:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• See if compromise position of HoF mentions is OK with you. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: Yes that's fine. -- Shudde ^talk 08:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• In the original quote, is there intervening text between "spoke rarely about football or his own achievements" and " I never heard a soul..."? If so then my edit is wrong, and can b corrected in a couple of different ways. But the way it was before was wrong too. If there is no text between them, my edits are OK. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi: There is text between those two statements (the quote is found here [31] near the bottom of the article). I've made a change. Take a look. -- Shudde ^talk 02:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Good. I'm leaning Support but regrettably it may even take a couple of days, because I have only intermittent free time, and many irons in the fire. Sorry for the slow pace. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Lingzhi: Not a problem. I'm much the same so the pace of your comments is fine by me. -- Shudde ^talk 04:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lingzhi: Hey. Is there any chance that over the next couple of days you'll have the opportunity to give the article another look? Still waiting on a source check anyway so not urgent. -- Shudde ^talk 05:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Conditional Support If passes source review. • Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

@FAC coordinators: Are you going to require a source review? Should I request one? -- Shudde ^talk 07:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes please. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review and spot check

• There are quite a few external links - do you think they all qualify under the external link guideline?
• The publisher of the allblacks.com website should be listed (I think it is the NZRU)

*The publisher of the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography should be listed.

Reference formatting otherwise looks all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding spot checks (hard as much is offline), sentences cited to the news sources are all faithful to the sources, though this one [32] mentions the book rather than the stadium. And doesn't support material in the sentence it comes at the end of (did a sentence on the book Gallaher wrote go missing...)

Looked at 3 allblacks web refs - all looked in order (i.e. they matched up page to source)

@Casliber: Thanks for the checks. I think I've addressed everything; that link you mention it was a harv reference error. The footnote was intended to point to the Horrell article not the Jenkins one. Seems to be working fine now. Thanks again. -- Shudde ^talk 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to have the publisher as well as the name of the site, not instead of (so "allblacks.com" goes in the "work=" parameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: Done. -- Shudde ^talk 02:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Choice bro'! all good then.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Appreciate the time you spent doing this. -- Shudde ^talk 02:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2015 [33].

---

Fremantle Prison

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the World Heritage listed former Australian prison – built by convicts, for convicts, between 1851 and 1859, and used as a prison until 1991. The previous FAC (which included an image review from Nikkimaria) was closed as "not enough commentary to come close to consensus to promote, plus it sounds like restructuring may be in order ... and ask that further improvements be made outside the FAC process". Restructuring/improvements during and slightly after that FAC (mostly trimming WP:SUMMARYSTYLE summaries) has seen the article prose size reduced from 64 kB to just under 50k. Whether or how to mention the "Routine", "Diet", and "Punishment" sections in the lead was an issue awaiting consensus from the previous FAC – I have copied the relevant comments below (note that I have copyedited and trimmed the lead since then [34]). As before, I look forward to your comments, and hope to eventually bring the whole set of Fremantle Prison articles to good or featured topic status. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Wikiprojects notified [35][36][37][38] - Evad37 [talk] 15:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

---

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fremantle Prison/archive2:

...and few changes to mark the passing of time. - I don't know what this means (actually I think I'd remove this sentence as obvious and nonspecific to Freo prison really)

Meals were an important part of the day, breaking up the monotony, eaten in the cells, throughout the operational life of the prison. - I think I'd remove this as obvious and nonspecific to Freo prison really

Punishments for misbehaviour at various points in the prison's history included flogging, solitary confinement, a restricted diet of bread and water, time in irons, lengthening of a sentence, and restriction from visitors or entertainment. - again...don't these happen at all prisons? I'd ditch it....

The above three sentences are meant to summarise the "Routine", "Diet", and "Punishment" sections of the articles. They might be obvious and nonspecfic, but I feel something is needed in the lead (and per MOS:INTRO, the relative emphasis of content should be the same in the lead and the body of the article). - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about whether these particular sentences are kept or removed, just that the topics should be mentioned in some form in the lead. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

sigh - yeah I see your point but I don't think it's essential, especially when the article is so big. Happy to leave it and see what the consensus is when more folks comment here. Cas Liber talk · contribs) 03:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

---

• Support - tightened up since last I read it. Comes in at 49nb readable prose size, just under the size we'd really think about splitting it. Anyway, it's comprehensive and I find the prose engaging with no clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support I read this since I've actually been there and Fremantle was my favourite bit of WA. Like Cas, I can see much wrong with this and it's not too long. Good work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Jimfbleak... assuming you meant "can't see much wrong", not "can see much wrong" ;) - Evad37 [talk] 11:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

mea culpa ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments Very interesting. A few points. Due to lack of time, I am going to have to do this over the next few days.

Lede

• It may not be obvious to non-Commonwealth people that The Terrace is a street. Could this be gracefully signaled in some way, perhaps by saying its address is The Terrace?

It probably isn't significant enough for the lead, so I've moved it to the infobox, where it is labelled as Street address. I also added the other streets bounding the site to the Layout section, which makes it more obvious that The Terrace is a street. - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• " responsible for the entire convict or prison system, " In Western Australia, or just the Fremantle/Perth area?

Added "in Western Australia" - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• "legal place of execution" consider "lawful" for "legal", it may resonate more (the traditional sentence of death sometimes directed that the prisoner be taken to "and thence to a place of lawful execution" I believe. Not sure about Australia.

Done for now. (I don't really have a strong opinion either way, but we'll see if any other reviewers think any differently.) - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Layout

• Am I correct that the present tense is used for features still extant, and the past for those no longer there?

It is a bit difficult with the tenses, in that the physical buildings still exist, but not their functions – e.g. "there is a hospital" wouldn't actually be correct, as while the building is still extant, it is no longer a hospital. Anyway, I've adjusted the tenses, so hopefully the text conveys it a bit better. - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• The last sentence needs sourcing.

Done - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Got to go, more later.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I will be away on holiday from 28 June until 6 July, and may not be able to respond comments until afterwards. - Evad37 [talk] 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In general, is quite good but could benefit by some judicious pruning to avoid repetitions, the ones I've caught, I've laid out below, plus other comments.

Layout

• "Inside the walls, the parade ground is located east of the gatehouse, in between it and the Main Cell Block[1] at the centre of the site,[2] which contains two chapels" This is getting too complicated

Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 02:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The purpose of the tunnels might perhaps be stated on first mention lest we assume The Great Escape.

Done - Evad37 [talk] 02:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Buildings

• "and later part of the prison administration" This says to me that the building was part of the administration, as though it were an officer. Perhaps it is different in Australian English.

Adjusted to "later used by the prison administration" - Evad37 [talk] 02:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• It strikes me that the image of the restored gatehouse might be better placed in the gatehouse subsection. It would crowd a bit, but I think you could rearrange the subsections without any real problems. They don't seem to require a particular order.

I actually have the order matched to the description in the Layout section. And I tried to make it a somewhat logical progression from outside (houses and cottages) through the gatehouse to the Main Cell Block, then the other cell blocks, and then the rest of the buildings - Evad37 [talk] 02:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• ""separate system", whereby prisoners were completely isolated for the first three months of their sentence. A panopticon" There may be suitable links for this system and so forth which I think originated at Eastern State Penitentiary. (I'm doing this offline)

Linked to separate system - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• "and for those condemned to death" Civilian military or both? If just military, then this seems unnecessary though dramatic.

Removed as unnecessary - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "eventually cleared" The "eventually" seems unneeded.

Removed - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• "had been refurbished" Isn't "was refurbished" adequate?

Not really, the first part of that sentence is The tunnels were re-opened in mid-2005, (so it would have to be "were" not "was", and then there would be two "were"s in the sentence - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

History

• "looked for a site ... site" one or the other should go

Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The first priority was the construction of accommodation for Henderson and the prison warders to relieve the expense of paying for private lodging.[22]:3 The prison walls were constructed between 1853 and 1855," I would say that the lodgings for Henderson et al. were actually built, lest a contradiction be seen here.

Adjusted to "...built to relieve..." - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Due to the great expense of sending these convicts back to Britain, the authorities there negotiated with the colonial government to transfer control of the convicts, as well as the prison complex" It is, I think, implied that Britain wanted to relinquish jurisdiction over the convicts, of which there were few remaining, but it might help to state it. Otherwise all this comes a bit out of the blue. See note re overuse of "convict", below.

Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of 19th century contains the word "convict" three times, though once as part of a capitalised term. Possibly one of the three could be gotten rid of. The third sentence contains that word twice, and one might be lost.

Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "a Labor government". Possibly pipe to the premier in question, or the article if any about his government.

Linked to Scaddan Ministry - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• "A hostel providing short-stay accommodation" both sexes? And is this a youth hostel or some other sort of arrangement?

Added a link to hostel. Sources don't mention any restrictions on gender or age, or that its anything other than a standard hostel. - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Staff etc.

• "By the 1940s, the role of superintendent became a position filled through internal promotions" as opposed to?

As opposed to appointment of people from outside the system. It probably made more sense before I had to split content off to a sub-article, and isn't that important, so I've cut out that sentence. - Evad37 [talk] 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• " and their lives were just as regimented as the prisoners.[38]:17–24 In the 1890s warders still had "little more freedom than the prisoners in their charge",[23]:65 " Length might be cut by reducing duplicative prose like this.

Trimmed the quotation - Evad37 [talk] 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• " The warder's role became clearly defined in 1902, having previously been unwritten and poorly known due to a high turnover rate." I'm sure they had some idea why they were there.

Adjusted to be clearer: "Due to a high turnover rate, many had little knowledge of either official policies or unofficial rules and traditions" - Evad37 [talk] 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The number of prisoners in 1897 was 379, and Inspector of Prisons James Roe viewed the prison as "inconveniently full"." prison, prison, prison

Replaced a few different instances in this paragraph and the next - Evad37 [talk] 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Possibly the middle recitation of the routine can be placed in a quote box.

I tried it [39], but it doesn't look good because the image overlaps the quote box - Evad37 [talk] 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• "1890s food was still very limited in diversity" possibly "variety" for "diversity"?

Done - Evad37 [talk] 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• "actually recommended". The word "actually" strikes me as a bit POV.

Removed - Evad37 [talk] 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Labour

• "jetties". A word used twice in this article, with somewhat different meanings.

Not really - per jetty, "a structure that projects from the land out into water". The usage here isn't expanded on at all in the source, but in the tunnels paragraph earlier on, one of the jetties was the South Jetty (see in background of picture here [40]) - Evad37 [talk] 10:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• "the rise of trade unions that saw such labour as a threat to the free market," very high minded of them, when what I was thinking they'd object to is that if the government is getting stonemasonry for free, they don't want to hire members of the WA Industrial Brotherhood of Stonecutters (or whatever). This does read a little POV ...

Oops, that was meant to be free labour, not free market... if you still think that's too POV then I can attribute it in-text to the author of the source - Evad37 [talk] 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• "water pump" You indicated earlier that a steam pump was completed in 1896 and relieved the prisoners of this labour.

As mentioned in the previous sentence, this was one of the "activities with no practical value other than keeping them occupied" - Evad37 [talk] 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Punishments

• I thought the water pump was something they did whilst not playing draughts?

Different era. In the late 1890s they were playing draughts, but in the convict era (mentioned at start of this paragraph) it was hard work - Evad37 [talk] 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would mention earlier in this section that the flogging was with the cat o' nine tails to consolidate the matter, and later you need only mention that the cat (and flogging I assume?) was abolished.

I don't think we can assume that flogging was only done with the cat o' nine tails – especially since the cat. was abolished in the 1910s but flogging continued until the 1940s - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "and were hanged by falling through the opening trap door" I'm not sure "falling" fits the prose here, as this is being done to them, whereas falling is done by someone, an active noun in a passive phrase. Dropping?

Dropping works - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Irish Fenian John Boyle O'Reilly in 1869 and six more Fenians in 1876," I would omit "Irish Fenian" and change "more" to "other". I don't think any information is lost. "Irish", at least by ancestry, is implied by his name (so shoot me for stereotyping!) and his allegiance. I'm not sure what the "Irish" was getting at anyway. Didn't Irish and Australians have the same nationality in 1869?

Adjusted. Irish was just what was in the source. - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It strikes me that these individuals stories of escapees is a place where you might consider shortening. The first one probably can stand more or less as is, but the Fenians story mostly doesn't involve the prison and perhaps you can look to shorten a bit.

Shortened - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "29 April 1875 sailed from New Bedford, Massachusetts on a secret rescue mission. Coordinating with local Fenian agents, the escape was arranged for 17 April, when" Ah, they lost 12 days at the International Date Line, then.

Added the year: 17 April 1876

• "an international diplomatic incident," I think "international" is implied.

Removed - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's a heck of a story. But I recommend a significant cutback. It has its own article.

I have cut down by about a quarter, but its hard to cut much more while still giving the context of the Fenians in Fremantle Prison, the details of the coordinated escape, and the immediate aftermath at sea (Georgette allowing Catalpa to flee). - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• " the prisoners to riot, breaking fittings, injuring three prison officers, three prisoners" They injured themselves? If the prisoners were responsible for the riot, that doesn't make them self-injurious thereby.

Adjusted - those were injuries sustained during the riot - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "without funding from the state government" possibly pipe here to the premier in question or the article on his government if any.

Done - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why is the damage from the 1968 riot priced in $ and the 1988 riot in A$? (with link, too, to the OzBuck)

Changed 1988 to unlinked $ - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I understood there was to be no retribution, yet 33 on trial? Also, "extended sentences" is ambiguous. It could mean lengthened or lengthy.

As far as I can tell, they seemed to have been given a guarantee of no retributions, but later put on trial anayway (but to explicitly say so in the article would probably be OR). And I changed "extended" to "lengthened". - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• Did the fire hasten the closing? If so, this should be mentioned above in the history.

I haven't found any sources which make such a connection - Evad37 [talk] 10:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Conservation

• " eleven convict areas to become World Heritage Sites.[66] Five years later, the prison was one of eleven former convict sites" The dual mention of the eleven convict areas/sites can surely be consolidated.

Adjusted - Evad37 [talk] 10:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• "focused historical interpretation and conservation efforts on the prison's convict era, at the expense of its more recent history. These included its use as an internment centre" After some thought and effort, I determined that "these" referred to "recent history", rather than "convict era". Neither is a plural noun, even given the laxities of Commonwealth English in the area. (as an aside, as Western Australia's convict era started relatively late, it might be worth giving a range of dates early on in the article).

Adjusted it so the first sentence ends at "convict era" – is this better? And added "(1850 – 1886)" to the first use of convict era - Evad37 [talk] 10:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• We're rather clearly getting, since we are told at least three times (counting the lede) that the convict era is prioritised. Could we get an explanation on why this is so for us non-Ozzians? (I have a fair idea but thousands may not). I imagine that were it not for the convicts, WH status would not be in the cards? Say if the identical prison had been built at the identical time in Adelaide ...

That is the implication... but the sources don't actually state it. Joining the dots ourselves when others haven't done so is WP:OR. I could alter that paragraph to begin The process of obtaining World Heritage listing, as one of the convict sites, focused ..., but this seem repetitive of the previous paragraph. - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• The description of how World Heritage status seems very repetitive in the convicts being the priority, as well. It seems to me that this can be boiled down quite a ways by mentioning that the convict era was prioritised in A, B, and C, and finally as implemented. Or some such.

I've tried to simplify the paragraph and make it less repetitive - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Restoration: the left-justified image (if you choose to keep it here) is interfering with the section header right below in my browser. Put a {{clear}} template or similar.

I moved it slightly further up and put it on the right - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Tourism

• "Dennis (NOZ) Nozworthy, who stated that he found art on death row." Since there is no link, the obvious question (was he executed?) somewhat leaves us hanging...

Added a footnote - Evad37 [talk] 02:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Well done otherwise, looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I'll be working through them over the next couple of days. I've done a couple of the easy fixes as noted above, some of the others I may need to double check what the sources say - Evad37 [talk] 01:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I have finished responding to your comments above, if you would like to another look. Thanks again, - Evad37 [talk] 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Support well done--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: GA reviewers Folklore1 and Mitch Ames have been invited to comment (with neutrally worded requests) [41][42] - Evad37 [talk] 03:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Image Review

• File:FremantlePrisonHenry_Wray.jpg could use an {{Information}} template
• File:EdmundHenderson.jpg looks more like a drawing than a photo. I think the museum not having identification is enough to get it covered as anonymous.
• File:Fenians escape Fremantle.jpg is cropped from the original; this needs noted, and the original should be available. I think the museum not having identification is enough to get it covered as anonymous.
• File:RestoredGatehouse.jpg could use an {{Information}} template

All others are fine. These should be fixed, but I don't think they're blockers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I'm not sure what you want fixed for File:EdmundHenderson.jpg, but I've done the other three - Evad37 [talk] 02:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The Henderson one was more of a note, really. It's an odd image, and, as an illustration, is theoretically identifiable with more precision, but as the museum can't identify it - and they have the most resources in that line, it's fine for here.

One other thought: Consider whether File:Fremantle Prison 1909 Superintendent W. A. George.jpg gives enough encyclopædic value to mitigate its terrible quality.

These minor quibbles aside, this is Fully cleared for promotion on the image front Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed File:Fremantle Prison 1909 Superintendent W. A. George.jpg, it's not so relevant since the section content was trimmed down - Evad37 [talk] 02:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

• Source review for formatting and reliability still required unless I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• No deadlinks, and formatting of the citations looks good.
• Fn 13 & 56: You don't have to type "First published" in the "origyear" field, but if you want to leave it, that's OK, too. Doesn't hurt.
• Your text is cited sufficiently -- I didn't see anything that need a cite but didn't have one.
• Did some spotchecks in the Megahey thesis and the Dept. of Finance websites. All checks out. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I prefer having "First published" as it makes it more understandable to readers not familiar with the citation style, and it is actually recommended in the template documentation. - Evad37 [talk] 02:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2015 [43].

---

Last Gasp (Inside No. 9)

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Last Gasp" is the fourth episode of the first series of Inside No. 9, and is a free-standing, half-hour comedy about a terminally-ill little girl's birthday. Critics generally agreed that this was a weak episode of a strong series, but one journalist went so far as to describe it as "not funny ... not clever and ... so utterly, irredeemably, naffly silly that it ends up being incredibly irritating and nothing else". Personally, I thought it very funny, but without the depth/originality which characterised the other episodes of the series (it also stars a number of faces which will be familiar to fans of British television). This article (after Sardines (Inside No. 9) and A Quiet Night In) is the third Inside No. 9 page to be nominated here, and I would like to thank Lemonade51 (talk · contribs) for a GA review, and Rationalobserver (talk · contribs) for a peer review. This is a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose. I gave a thorough review of the article at PR and found very few issues. After another look this morning, I see that it's been improved further since. It still seems odd to me to have an unsourced plot section, but I'll defer to those with more knowledge about those types of sections. It's an engaging read that's worthy of FA. Nice job! Disclosure: I am a Wikicup participant. RO^(talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Neelix

This article appears well-written on the whole. I'm not a fan of dark comedy, but that shouldn't interfere with my reviewing this article. I have read through the lead and the first two sections of the body, and have the following suggestions:

• It is confusing to use the word "series" in two different senses, especially in a single sentence such as the first sentence in the lead. I would recommend that the phrase be reworded from "the fourth episode of the first series of British dark comedy anthology series" to "the fourth episode of the first series of British dark comedy anthology television programme", which is also more consistent with the main article and clarifies that we are talking about a television programme as opposed to a radio programme. The word "programme" might then replace "series" throughout the article wherever Inside No. 9 is being referred to as a whole.
• This article should consistently employ the literary present tense. A guide to doing so may be found here: [44] For example, "The episode was more comedic" should instead be "The episode is more comedic"; the episode is an ever-present entity rather than a past event.
• There should be an "of" after "Jack Seale" in the lead.
• Is it WishmasterUK or WishmakerUK?
• The first paragraph of the "Production" section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of that section do not appear to me to be sufficiently specific to the subject of this article to justify their inclusion here; this information might better be located in the main Inside No. 9 article. It would be sufficient to say that Inside No. 9 is an anthology programme and that "Last Gasp" is therefore unrelated to the other episodes of the programme both in story and in casting.
  • I disagree- I think they provide good context for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I note that similar appear in my other two Inside No. 9 FAs, but I can modify it if you feel strongly or anyone else agrees. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I tend to think that this is an issue that should have been identified during the previous two Inside No. 9 FAs. It seems ridiculous to me to have the same paragraph repeated in every article about an episode of this programme. I would certainly be glad to hear how other editors feel on the subject. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• The sentence starting with the words "In addition to Pemberton" is confusing because of its large number of commas. Semicolons separating entries in the list of cast members would help make this sentence more readable.
• The words "normal" and "utterly freezing" should not be in quotation marks unless the sentences clarify who we are quoting. Otherwise, the quotation marks are likely to be interpreted as scare quotes.
• "The episode was film on location" should read "The episode was filmed on location".
• I would recommend cutting at least half the quotation by Kerr that concludes the "Production" section; we already have a lot of quotations in this section from people directly involved in making this episode, including another quotation from Kerr, and this quotation is unnecessarily long.
• To be more explicit, I would recommend switching from "as she is a 'neutral' party" to "as he considers her to be a neutral party".
  • Partially done- I've used the phrase "a neutral" in quotes, as that's explicitly what Pemberton's character says. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• "Final breath" should not be in quotation marks and the two commas in this sentence are unnecessary.
  • I disagree- it's not actually his final breath, and the commas split off a subordinate clause. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In academic writing, quotation marks are not an appropriate manner of calling a phrase into question. If it isn't actually his finally breath, then we shouldn't be calling it that. In what sense is "and accompanying video footage" a subordinate clause? It appears simply to be the second item in a two-item list to me. Neelix (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm not convinced that the wording was problematic, but I have rephrased this to something hopefully less contentious. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Is there any explanation in the episode as to the source of the loud bang? It might help to add the word "erroneously" after the second comma in this sentence.
  • I've added "erroneously", but there's no clear explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope these help! I will try to find time to review the rest of the article soon. Neelix (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm back! Here are my suggestions for the rest of the article:

• "The Pardoner's Tale" should be in quotation marks rather than italics. It would also be worth explaining what "The Pardoner's Tale" is. Does Dessau explain what connection there is with the episode?
  • I've switched to quote marks and clarified that the Tale is by Chaucer, but Dessau doesn't expand on his comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Given the context, I am concerned that readers will think that "The Pardoner's Tale" is a television episode. It might be helpful to clarify that it is instead a short story. Neelix (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I would have thought that the fact it's by Chaucer would be enough? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Without clicking the link, it is probable that many if not most readers will not know who Chaucer is, and will be as likely to think him a contemporary television director as a 14th-century writer. I would be glad for the entire world to know who Chaucer is, but many do not, especially those outside the UK or without a certain level of education. Neelix (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Ok, sure. I've gone for "a story from writer Geoffrey Chaucer's collection The Canterbury Tales." Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• The literary present tense should prevail in the critical responses.
  • Do you mean that I should treat the reviews as "ever present" in the way that I should consider the episode itself ever-present? This seems a little odd. Is there a guideline on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is what I mean, so long as the reviews are written as opposed to verbal. It is improper grammar not to do so. Wikipedia guidelines tend not to detail grammatical rules, but this one should be clear from reading the guide I link to above (along with other academic guides to the literary present that you might find through Google). Neelix (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I've lost you. It's "improper grammar" to refer to "written as opposed to verbal" reviews in the past tense? This is not something I've come across before, and I wouldn't call myself a stranger to English. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I am not suggesting that you are a stranger to English. This is a grammatical rule that applies only to tertiary literary commentary; it is unlikely that you would have come across it unless you have studied English literature at an undergraduate upper-year level or higher. Few people other than English scholars and encyclopedia writers write tertiary literary commentary, but that is exactly what this article is, and tertiary literary commentary requires the use of the literary present. Neelix (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Could give me a source clarifying this point? And is literary commentary meant to be different from any other academic commentary in this regard? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
            • (Pinging Crisco 1492- do you have a view on this?) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
              • Last I checked, we don't have a part of the MOS requiring this. Personally, I would stick (and have stuck) to the past. A reviewer only writes something once, and opinions can change. Hence "XX opined Y, but recanted a year later; XX then opined Z". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
                • Thanks- that's one thing that struck me. In other articles (EG- A Quiet Night In, concerning Chater) I refer to different comments from different times. I don't think it's fair to imply that people still hold views that they once did; we simply don't have the sources to support that. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• The "S" should be capitalized in "series 1" because it is a proper noun.
• The construction "For critic x" is overused; it appears seven times in the "Themes and analysis" section alone. This construction could easily be replaced with other constructions to avoid repetition. For example, "According to critic x", "Critic x argues that", etc.
• PopMatters should be italicized.
  • I don't italicise websites. We don't have Wikipedia, YouTube or Facebook, so I don't think we should have PopMatters. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia, YouTube, and Facebook are not online magazines; PopMatters is. The Wikipedia article about PopMatters consistently italicizes this name, while the names of the other websites are not italicized on their respective Wikipedia articles. Neelix (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I see now that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics is actually fairly unambiguous on this point. What a disappointing guideline. I'd rather not make the change myself, but I won't revert you if you make it (as long as you change all mentions). Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• There should be citations at the end of any sentence that includes a direct quotation, even if the next sentence is derived from the same source.
  • I'll add them when it's unclear, but I really don't think that's necessary. It's not the norm outside of WP, and I don't know of any guideline requiring it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You can find the relevant guideline here; all sentences containing direct quotations should be immediately followed by citations. The guideline actually goes even further and makes this requirement of paraphrasing as well. Neelix (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • So far as I can see, all that it says is that "[i]n-text attribution should be used" in those cases; it doesn't say that the attribution has to be at the end of the sentence. I do use in-text attribution, and it should be clear in each case where the quotes have come from. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
        • The guideline also says that this in-text attribution is "in addition to an inline citation after the sentence". In my previous FACs and GANs, reviewing editors have often mentioned this requirement for there to be citations directly following direct quotations; I am under the impression that this is the standard interpretation this guideline. Neelix (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I've just realised that we're looking at the wrong section anyway. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Types of citation: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." Meanwhile, "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact." This disagreement is about in-line citations, not in-text attributions, and there doesn't seem to be a requirement that in-line citations are repeated unless material is particularly controversial. From WP:CITEFOOT: "If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Pinging Crisco 1492 - Would you mind weighing in on this point as well? The requirement to have a citation immediately follow all direct citations has been made upon me by so many reviewers in the past that I feel like it would be irresponsible of me to lightly dismiss them all as being incorrect. Neelix (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              • I've made the same point elsewhere, but checking WP:CITE (specifically WP:INTEXT) I see the sentence " An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question." This is not how I remember the guideline, but it does appear to allow direct quotes to be referenced both after the sentence or at the end of the paragraph, as needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
              • WP:V says "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation", but doesn't specify where. In short, I think either way works according to our policies and guidelines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
                • To repeat: I'm happy to add extra citations when it's unclear where material has been taken from, but I think it's pretty clear everywhere in this article, and I've no desire to have practically every sentence with one or two footnotes unnecessarily. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
                  • Sorry for my intrusion... but WP:MINREF may be what you guys were looking for. It clearly says a direct quote needs a citation. That's just an information page, not a guideline, though. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • Thanks for the note: I can confirm that every quote has a citation. The disagreement was concerned with placement of the citations, and, again, I can't see anything on that page that challenges the citation placement in this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• Is the statement that celebrity culture is "a decidedly modern phenomenon" a statement by Upton? If so, this should be made explicit. If not, it should be removed.
  • It's not a direct quote- I'm not clear on what the problem is? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • As this sentence is currently phrased, it is ambiguous as to whether it is Upton or it is us who is calling celebrity culture "a decidedly modern phenomenon". This opinion statement should be unambiguously attributed to Upton. For example, the phrase could be changed to "which Upton considers a modern phenomenon". Neelix (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. I've rephrased somewhat- it should be clearer that I'm referring to Upton's claims, now. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Unfortunately, the issue persists. Do you dislike the solution I proposed? Neelix (talk) 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I think your wording would have led to a little too much repetition. I've restructured the paragraph: "David Upton, writing for PopMatters, called it "easily the most acerbic and most overtly comic" episode of the series. He listed three reasons that the episode did not seem like something produced by Pemberton and Shearsmith: its avoidance of the horrific; the fact that it does not star Shearsmith; and its direct focus on celebrity culture, which Upton considers a modern phenomenon. Instead, he suggested that it feels closer to a story from Charlie Brooker's anthology programme Black Mirror. The focus of "Last Gasp" on comedy to the exclusion of horror, for Upton, left it "stranded" when compared to the other episodes." How does that read? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
            • Much better. Thanks for taking the time to rework this. Neelix (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
• It would be good to clarify that Black Mirror is also an anthology television programme.
• I do not see a reason for "without the breath" to be in parentheses.
• I would recommend rewording the sentence that ends with the phrase "as a critique of the celebrity memorabilia market". At present, it is difficult to determine which clause is intended to be connected to this one. Are they selling the balloon as a critique? Did she feel it may have happened as a critique?
• It would be nice to be consistent with the other sentences and work Daily Express and Liverpool Echo into their sentences rather than sectioning the newspaper names off with parentheses. Perhaps "Paddy Shennan of the Liverpool Echo" or similar?
• There is a lot of direct quotation from Owen in the "Themes and analysis" section and from Blackburn in the "Reception" section. It would be preferable to reduce these direct quotations significantly, either by paraphrasing or trimming most of them. The word "though" after the mention of Owen is unnecessary.
• The quotation "The world's sick..." should include a citation to the episode with the number of minutes and seconds in.
• "Said" is a verbal word and should be replaced with "writes" wherever the medium is textual.
• There are far too many quotations in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. It would be best to paraphrase or trim most of this.
• The caption of the Sophie Thompson image is a full sentence and should end with a period.
• "the The Daily Telegraph" should simply read "The Daily Telegraph". There should also be a comma just before the quotation in this sentence.
  • I've fixed the "the the" issue, but there's a special place in Hell for those commas. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • My apologies; I forgot about this difference between Canadian and British English punctuation. Neelix (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• There is no need to explain that The Star is a South African newspaper twice, nor to wikilink it twice.
• I don't think the semicolon works after the word "hilarious".
• I am not very familiar with viewership statistics, and it is likely that many of our readers aren't either. When the article reads "4.9% of the audience", what does that mean? 4.9% of the audience of what? Surely 100% of the audience of the episode viewed the episode. Also, the paragraph later reads "4.1% of the market". Is the audience different than the market?
  • I'm also not particularly familiar. I strongly assume it's 4.9% of the British audience at time of submission. "market" and "audience" are meant as the same thing- it's just to avoid repetition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Might you be able to add a footnote in the first instance with an explanation of what this kind of statistic means, with an accompanying citation? I will leave it up to you about whether or not to make the wording consistent with either "audience" or "market"; I can understand your desire to avoid repetition here, although I think it more important to avoid the potential confusion that these statistics are not comparable. Neelix (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• The phrase "To tie in with the episode" should be removed; it only conveys information that is obvious from the rest of the sentence.
• It would be helpful to explain who Russell Brand is.
• There are several empty fields in the infobox that could be filled out, such as Music and Editor.
• It might be nice to include an image of Pemberton near the end of the article with a caption of his quotation about delivering something horrible. Just a personal preference; no pressure.
  • I'd love to, but I don't have one! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • My apologies again; I wrote "Pemberton" when I meant Shearsmith, who said the phrase about delivering something horrible. This is the image I was referring to, although I see that it's already in use in all of the other articles about episodes in the first season of Inside No. 9. This image of Pemberton has been released under a Creative Commons license, although I'm not sure that a photo of him acting as Pauline from The League of Gentlemen would be appropriate here. All the same, I'll add it to the Wikimedia Commons for use elsewhere. Neelix (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to review this article! Please let me know if you would like any clarification on my comments above. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to have a look through. I look forward to reading your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay- getting on this now. I may not finish this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've (hopefully) fixed everything apart from those comments I've replied to specifically. I'm a little embarrassed you managed to find so many silly mistakes. Thanks again for taking the time to have a look at this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. I appreciate your willingness to engage with my comments. I have responded above. Neelix (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering your alterations, I have re-read the article, and have the following remaining suggestions and questions:

• I remain concerned about the fact that an entire paragraph is repeated verbatim in this and every other article about an episode in this series. I continue to recommend its removal, or else the solicitation of more editors' input on the subject.
  • Is your objection just to the repetition, or do you think that the information isn't helpful? It seems to me that this is information which is relevant to each episode in the first series; if someone is interested only in the single episode rather than the series as a whole (as is quite reasonable in a series of this sort) this provides a good level of background. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think helpfulness is a sufficient criterion for determining whether or not content should be included in an article; there is plenty of potential content that a reader might find helpful that shouldn't be included in the article. For example, we might devote paragraphs to the careers of each of the actors who appear in the episode demonstrating the context of the episode in their broader filmographies. Such content would be helpful, but is arbitrarily chosen context, just as adding an entire paragraph on general information about the series is arbitrary. The vast majority of readers know how to click on the Inside No. 9 link to get more information about the series as a whole if they want it. Neelix (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• The word "though" after the mention of Owen should still be removed.
  • Ok, sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• I would again recommend adding a footnote and citation to clarify what the phrase "x% of the audience" means.
  • I'll look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I have added some explanation of where the data comes from, but I've not found an explanation of what is meant by the percentages in Broadcast. It seemed fairly intuitive to me, but clearly not for you. I'm still working on this... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is it just a coincidence that both one of the characters and one of the actors are named Tamsin? I have never heard this name before.
  • I assume so; it's not uncommon. According to Tamsin (name), it's more common in some places than others. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Is this connection mentioned in any of the sources? It would be nice to make this connection explicit in the article if possible, but we can't if it's just our conjecture. Neelix (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Just my conjecture from what I know about Inside No. 9, but I would guess that this a complete coincidence. Certainly not something any source has mentioned. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• The parenthetical "the same colour as the one Frankie blew up for Tamsin" could easily be avoided by simply inserting the word "purple" in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section (ie. "Frankie visits Tamsin in her bedroom, and blows up a purple balloon for her.").
  • Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• The quotation marks around the word "real" in the third paragraph of the "Plot" section are unnecessary.
  • I've trimmed the clarification- I think it's obvious why they would be selling the balloons to multiple buyers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• I do not see sufficient reason to italicize the word "without" in the third paragraph of the "Themes and analysis" section; the meaning of the sentences is clear without the added emphasis.
  • I've had a bit of trouble with that sentence- I think the new phrasing captures what Blackburn is saying. Basically, she thinks a story focusing on breath is silly, and a story focused on the balloon would be more sensible. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Only the "s" need be in square brackets in the phrase "riff[s] on the fact..."
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
• Even if you do not implement the literary present through the "Reception" section, the sentence beginning "She felt that the episode..." should not alternate between the past and the present tenses.
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Great job on the improvements thus far! Please let me know if you have any questions about my remaining concerns. Neelix (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks- I really appreciate the time you're putting in to this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, my only two remaining concerns are 1) the first paragraph of the "Production" section and 2) the viewing figures footnote. Issue #1 could be addressed by either removing the paragraph or soliciting a third opinion. As for Issue #2, I like the footnote you have added and appreciate your willingness to continue looking for a source that can clarify what the phrase in question means. Neelix (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as I can't find what the percentages mean and I'm not confident enough in my own interpretation (now that you've challenged it!) I've removed them. The numbers are still useful even without the percentages- I note that a lot of other television articles do the same. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's great. If we can establish consensus on the first paragraph of the "Production" section via third-party input, I will have no remaining qualms. Neelix (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Neelix: Coincidentally, SNUGGUMS criticised another of my articles last week (on "La Couchette", from the second series of Inside No. 9) on similar grounds- a too-general introductory paragraph. As such, I've removed the paragraph from this article, as you originally recommended. I've left the comment about a new cast each week- I think that serves as a valuable introduction to the second paragraph (and contextualises the guest star discussion in the reception section). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - The article looks great. Thanks for grappling so well with the issues I raised. I do see one last minor issue I didn't see before: the Michael Hogan and Rachel Ward quotation misspells Greig as "Grieg". Is this their mistake or ours? If ours, it should be corrected. If theirs, a [sic] should be added after the name. I hope the rest of the FAC goes well! Neelix (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Good spot. It was their mistake, but, according to WP:MOSQUOTE, "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so I've fixed it. Thanks so much for the time you've put into this review- it's thoroughly appreciated. (I've "unindented" your support so it's not lost.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

This is not really my type of article but it does not seem to have attracted enough reviewers, so I will have a go. In general the prose seems excellent and flows smoothly, but there a few rough edges:

• "The episode is more comedic than others in the series" - I don't care for the word "comedic" but perhaps that is just my ignorance.
  • The OED defines it as "of, relating to, or characteristic of comedy"- it's basically a synonym of "comic", but less ambiguous. I'd prefer not to use "comic" as that suggests that the episode is frivolous and/or funny, and some critics would disagree with either of those assessments. Can you think of another word? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• "... as a vehicle to work with new people, and had been keen to work with Greig for some time" - You use "to work with" twice in the same sentence.
  • Changed one "work" to "collaborate". Josh Milburn (talk)
• "She added that the plot "exposes the venality and base instincts lurking behind" the fake grins which adorn the faces of the characters at the beginning of the episode." - I find the quotation marks in this sentence quite strange and think it would be better using only indirect speech.
• Otherwise, its very good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to look! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• I cannot think of a more suitable word than "comedic". The changes you have made seem fine to me and I am now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)/

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Support a bit late to the party (sorry!) but I think the article looks great. The only comment I would make is to explain in the lead why critics viewed the episode so negatively, though I realize you may have avoided doing that because the various opinions are a bit difficult to summarize into one or two sentences. Anyway, nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 14:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

I think we need a source review? Pls request WT:FAC if so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks Ian. To premept some concerns: Chortle is a website best known for the Chortle Awards, and is being cited only for an interview. BeyondTheJoke is the personal website of Bruce Dessau, a comedy critic and author. Dan's Media Digest is the blog of Dan Owen, a freelance journalist/critic who has written for a number of high-profile sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• No dead links, all sources are formatted consistently. No issues with close paraphrasing having selected a few random sources (Ref 2, 6, 14, 17, 29, 30, 32)
• I'd add apostrophes to Ref 4's Inside 'Inside No. 9' to avoid confusion, given the show title's already italicised.
• Ref 13 needs page number, otherwise link it to Highbeam. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! I've added the HighBeam link as suggested (I originally used Nexis, but it's the same article). I didn't add the apostrophes- Inside Inside No. 9 is the name of the film I'm citing- see this press release, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2015 [45].

---

American Pharoah

Nominator(s): Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC), User:Vesuvius Dogg, User:Tigerboy1966 , User:Froggerlaura

This article is about the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years, a delightful young racehorse with a brilliant future. The team at WikiProject horse racing worked very hard on this article. This is, I think, the fourth or fifth FAC presented by WikiProject horse racing, and we look forward to the review Montanabw^(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, and forgot to add that I am a wikicup participant and this is a wikicup entry! Sorry to have forgotten that! Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Owner_Zayat_Stables_Ltd.svg: do you have a source to confirm this design? It's hard to tell from the lead image, and adding a link to the image description would be worthwhile. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Would a better photo do the job? I'm finding that locating official Jockey Club registration silk designs descriptions in the USA is a booger, as each state registers its own, but then grants reciprocity to others. (the UK is way easier) User:JockeyColours does them up, usually based on photos. I'm open to ideas. Montanabw^(talk) 02:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Follow up: Would the stables web site here work as a source? (Has an image of the silks in a graphic and on a t-shirt...) Montanabw^(talk) 02:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Shall I source the image and the article, or will the image do?? Montanabw^(talk) 04:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Just the image description page is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
          • OK, think it's fixed then. Montanabw^(talk) 07:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose

I know nothing about horses, racing and so on but have happily had a look through at prose, formatting etc. I think this is well written and structured and have tried to help out a little with copy-editing. I am sorry not to be giving a more detailed review but I really feel unqualified to comment on the real content where I am so utterly ignorant of the field. Nevertheless I am comfortable endorsing the prose, formatting etc as meeting the FA criteria. I like the 2015 Belmont Stakes photograph very much; great action shot, really rather majestic. Impressive, like your article. Well done to all concerned, and apologies again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support by SchroCat

Nicely put together and well-written. Two minor points for you to consider, which will not affect my support: the link to Littleprincessemma is a circular link back to the article, so it should either be stubbed or the link removed. The second point relates to FNs 31 and 32 with a double set of quote marks because of the horse's name. I think I'm right in saying that we should use a single quote mark within quotes, and this stands true for titles too. – SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• FIXED, make sure I did the fixes to you satisfaction. Montanabw^(talk) 00:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good to me - nice work! - SchroCat (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support with comments (most are preferences) by Victoria

• "When he was a few days old, he and Littleprincessemma went to nearby Pretty Run Farm, also owned by VanMeter, where they remained for a few months,[15] then the mare and foal were moved to Vinery, another Lexington farm that stabled Pioneerof the Nile, where American Pharoah was weaned at five months of age.[16][c]" >> I got lost about half way through this sentence, so suggest splitting or somehow rewriting.
  • Split and rewrote. Better? (Montanabw)
• I added a couple of non-breaking spaces because the day/month were splitting between lines. Can't remember the rules about this, but might be worth taking a look. If you don't think it's a big deal, it's ok to revert, because it's really just a preference.
  • It was helpful, thanks! (Montanabw)
• I removed a couple of instances of "trainer" in front of Baffert. He's blue-linked and I think once it's been established he's the trainer it's okay simply to call him Baffert without his title (though he does deserve a hell of a lot of credit for training this horse!). Again it's a preference and up to you.
  • Also helpful, thanks! (Montanabw)
• There's some repetition in the construction of "Baffert commented" >> I have no suggestion for this. It's difficult to work out but might be worth it to improve flow.
  • Fixed, eliminated all but two uses, and only once by Baffert. (Montanabw)
• The text box is very bright! Again, this is only a preference, but for some reason it's a color that bothers me (I'm prone to headaches)
  • I was trying to get the same shade of turquoise as the Zayat stables' racing silks (see how I used purple and green at California Chrome, it's just for fun) but I'll try to lighten it up a bit, that's fair (I have 50+ year old eyes and so I know how some things can be visually challenging...). Made it several shades lighter, is that better? (Montanabw)
    • I noticed the color matched the silks. It's much better now. Could be that my monitor is too bright! (VE)
• The sloppy track image is great. Personally I'd boost it way high, and made a test edit here to see what it looks like. Up to you, but we won't see another American Pharoah in a while, so I think it's worth showcasing that shot.
  • That's intriguing! I know that sort of layout passed muster at Richard Nixon's FAC - but I also remember the controversy. Wondering if @Nikkimaria: would think it's OK, she's the image person of FAC. Or perhaps @Wehwalt: could opine, as he was a lead editor at Nixon. I'd do it if it won't cause issues for other reviewers. (Montanabw)
    • At the very bottom of the page in teeny-tiny font is the option to view the article in mobile view - just click there and you can see how it would look. I think it looks nice with the sea of mud, but agree that others should weigh in. (VE)

That's all. Nice work to all of you at Wikiproject horse racing. It's been an exciting year! Victoria (tk) 19:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• • I'll see what I can do to fix the above. Montanabw^(talk) 21:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC) @Victoriaearle: I think I have addressed all of your concerns, let me know if they are now OK and if there are further changes needed. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, thanks. It's all good. Nice job. Victoria (tk) 23:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support by Gerda

I like the lively style, showing contagious enthusiasm for the subject, including in many quotes by other enthusiasts. I am not familiar with horse language, so can tell that it's comprehensible to an outsider ;) - Minor points, and just questions you can answer with no:

• In Background: First we know about the colt, only then about the parents. My feeling for chronology would have it the other way round. - Alternatively, the para might be split in Background and Description/Character/you name it.
• Can you create at least stubs on the red links?

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• • It is a standard layout in the racehorse articles to describe the horse and what he or she looks like, then go to parentage. (In many kinds of sales and competitions, they usually describe horses this way: "Foobar is a 2014 bay colt by (stallion) Foo out of (mare) Bar, bred by ..." and so on) I am certainly willing to improve the flow of the prose, though, if you can point out what sounds awkward. Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I killed two redlinks in the endnotes (not super likely to become articles), I already stubbed Littleprincessemma, perhaps we can inquire why @Tigerboy1966: redlinked the others - usually it's because a horse is on the WikiProject Horse racing "to do" list to get an article but just hasn't happened yet. He is in the best position to know if these horses are in the "likely to" meet GNG. In the meantime, I have had articles pass FAC with a few red links. Is this better? Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Do I have your issues addressed now? (Checking to see if you support or not yet...) Montanabw^(talk) 19:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, can support, thank you for adjusting, - I will not go and fight the standard ;) - Please link the dam also in the body, - some people have opted out seeing the infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:: Ian needs someone to check sources. This one has been languishing. Montanabw^(talk) 01:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN60 links to the main ABC Sports page - is there a more specific link available? Also, 60 and 61 appear to be the same source
  • Fixed that with a wayback and consolidated dup link. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Dead links
  • Dead links should be resolved now. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if they appear again later
  • Cited quote in lead. (Froggerlaura)
• The quotes that are ." are ends of sentences anyway. I see three examples of ". and all of them are LQ for the context. I don't see a problem, but if you do, feel free to fix it. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• "The Times reported breeding rights had been sold..." - since there is a publication called The Times and you've put in a different source between this and the previous NYT mention, should say NYT explicitly here also
  • OK Fixed Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• FN8: Zayat Stables is the publisher, but this ref is also formatted differently from the similar FN33
  • Fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • You've still got Zayat listed as the work - it's the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It's the web site, I think the two refs are now identically formatted.
• FN29: newspaper name should be italicized

Fixed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• FN34: why the different formatting from other sports television refs?
  • that ref is specifically to a video, not just an online story attached to a video, hence needing the time stamp and all. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Timestamp is fine, but the italicization is off - elsewhere you've italicized channel names. Video titles that aren't full-length movies generally get put in quotation marks, not italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • • Tell that to the people who created the "cite video" and cite av media templates - I changed the template to citeweb so it matches the others. Better? Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Some Racing Post refs use work title, others website name - should be consistent
  • Fixed. Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• FN71 and 54 don't match - 71 is closer, although you could omit author entirely
  • I think I fixed those... check? Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• FN63: Leverage Agency is publisher
  • Yes. Is this a problem? Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Was italicized before, now fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• FN66: AP should be listed as agency

Fixed. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Some inconsistencies in wikilinking throughout - how are you deciding what gets linked?
  • We are behaving in a completely random fashion! (Multiple editors) but where I spot it, I'll unlink unless consensus is that the particular source needs a link... flag anything you see that we've missed? Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• FN85: per the article the work title is written as ESPNEWS
  • Just made it ESPN. Will that do? Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks links
  • Respectfully disagree; in the past I've seen some of these have pages taken down and such... "need" maybe MOS disagrees, but is that a huge deal? Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If it's taken down, you won't be able to find an archived link unless you create one yourself now and add it in. Plus the citation details are to the book itself and the link is merely a convenience. It's up to you, but these really don't provide any value. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The URL is what is important to me (much, much faster to find the work if the link is there) but I can take down the accessdate, not a moral issue. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• FN126: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Publisher added for GSB. (Froggerlaura)

@Nikkimaria:: Did we get them all? Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

One more thing - what did you settle on for Racing Post? You've still got some racingpost.com and some Racing Post. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• • @Nikkimaria:: Whoops, missed some, Racing Post - did I get them all now? Montanabw^(talk) 05:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Yep, should be good to go now. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2015 [46].

---

Serpens

Nominator(s): StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the only one of the 88 modern constellations to be split into two separate regions in the sky. It has had feedback from a professional astronomer (Mike Peel), and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Suppport: my concerns were addressed or explained, Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Praemonitus – it looks good overall. Here's a few points that may need correcting:

• "Notable extragalactic objects include Seyfert's Sextet, one of the densest galaxy clusters known, Arp 220, the prototypical ultraluminous infrared galaxy, and Hoag's Object, the most famous of the very rare class of galaxies known as ring galaxies": There's some ambiguity because of the commas. It might make sense to include semi-colon separators between the objects.

• Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Part of the Milky Way passes through Serpens Cauda"; part of the 'Milky Way disk' perhaps? Or Galactic plane of the Milky Way, for consistency.

• Changed to galactic plane. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• "inverse P Cygni profile": this technical term is red linked, and therefore remains inaccessible to the casual reader.

• Explained. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Should "post-common-envelope binary" be linked to Common envelope?

• linked

• "neutron star" should be wikilinked.

• done

• "The star's metal abundance is incredibly high" is rather vague.

• rewritten

• "The eclipses of the system very erratic": unclear what this is trying to say.
  • I changed it to "The eclipses of the system vary erratically", which appears to be what is covered by the ref. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• The article randomly switches between parsec and light years.

• The reason I've done it this way is I've used whatever units the source was using, which I think is better just to stay closer to the sources. If you still want me to change it, please let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we should go more for light years, as that is a more common unit for the kind of reader who would look at this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "MKW 3s — NGC 5920 — appears": spaced em-dashes

• fixed

• "Gavin White" should be "White, Gavin".

• Fixed

• "Spectroscopy and BVIC photometry of the young open cluster NGC�6604" has a non-printing character, at least on my browser.

• fixed

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• There are several uses of the deprecated cite doi/10.1... templates. Hopefully these can be merged into this article.

• completed merge

• A couple of references seem to have excessively long author lists, perhaps they can use display-authors to reduce the list.

• fixed I have set these to 9, but there is still one ref with a couple more

• the Testa, Vincenzo reference has spelt out formatting.

• fixed

• There are a few titles using all capitals.

• fixed

• "Thehipparcoscatalogue" needs splitting.

• fixed

• "Vasil'Yanovskaya" is incorrectly capitalised.

• fixed

• "Van Den" is incorrectly capitalised.

• fixed twice

• "3C?317" has ? included.

• fixed

• Incorrect capitalisation in "IbanoǧLu"

• fixed

• Same reference includes extraneous "★" in the title.

• fixed

• "TheGALEXUltraviolet" needs splitting.

• fixed

• Journal title "IAU Circ" needs expanding - (nearly every other title is good here though)

• fixed

• "Central Bureau Electronic Telegrams" should expand to "Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams"

• fixed

• o’Sullivan, Ewan needs uppercasing

• fixed

• There is also another use of "★" in error in the "Abell 41" reference

• fixed

• Do any planets, apart from Pluto, ever enter Serpens?

• I was unable to find any sources stating so, and found a few (unreliable) sources stating the opposite (their quality isn't good enough for any inclusion in the article, but in the absence of any source stating the planets pass through, I think they're sufficient enough to omit inclusion). StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Check if Van Dishoeck or Van Dyk should have lower v.

• fixed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe for a topic like this that we only have one arxiv: reference.
• Inconsistent ISBN13 format 9780955903700 and 978-1-55407-175-3

• fixed

• The coordinates at the top of page do not appear to be in the constellation (17h 00m 00s, +03° 00′ 00″)

• Ah, that was a relic from before I ever started work on this article; I never noticed it until now! I've now set the template to point to the center of Serpens Caput, but it doesn't seem to be possible to add another to point to Serpens Cauda, unfortunately.... StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I am now happy to say support Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Urania's Mirror should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Images all need alt= text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alt text done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Actually the alt= text is supposed to give information about what is seen in the picture rather than rewording the caption. This is because people that use alt= text get both the caption and the alt text. See WP:ALT. So for example Hoag's Object could be: "a starry and nebulous ring surrounds a dark circle containing a diffuse yellow ball". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you; I have changed the alt text accordingly. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• That looks much better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Good work, but needs some tweaking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Should HII region have a space as in the linked article?

• I've seen it commonly spelled both ways in academic papers; if you still want me to change it, please let me know. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Asclepius was known for killing a snake that was resurrected because a different snake"—sloppy, shouldn't need "was known" and snake/different snake is vague to say the least.

• I remember when I was writing this, I spent around 5 minutes just staring at the sentence trying to make it flow better, but couldn't think of a way. I've tried to make it less awkward; how does it look now? StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Sometimes, Serpens was depicted as coiling around Ophiuchus, but the majority showed Serpens"— majority of what?

• Added. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Galactic plane is lc in its own article

• Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• You have a tendency to repeat word in the same or contiguous sentences, "was known/were known being one of many examples, please check this and vary the wording.

• I caught a problematic instance down in the "tail stars" section and fixed the "was known/were known" example as well. I just gave the article a read-through and didn't notice anything else egregious, so how does it look now?StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• the reason for Serpens' presence with Ophiuchus, the true reason…/ and loosely corresponded to Hydra. Bašmu was a horned serpent (c.f. Ningishzida) and loosely corresponds/ Located near Alpha... located only 12 parsecs away... a binary star[10] located, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• All issues you mention fixed, and more instances of "located" changed to other words as well. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article is over-linked, please fix. You can use User:Ucucha/duplinks.js to check

• Fixed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• There are still more dups than I am happy with, for example three galactic planes (with differing capitalisation). If you are doing it by inspection, you are bound to miss some Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, I definitely fixed that earlier today, and for me there's only one link in the lead and one in the body. WP seems to be having some caching issues today where changes aren't showing up immediately and sometimes appear to go away for a bit only to return later. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support The repetition has been cleared and dups are minimal now, so I pleased to support this comprehensive article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I've read through this a few times over the past several months and done some minor tweaks. It's a bit listy but that is unavoidable in these articles. No prose clangers are jumping out at me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Coord note -- about ready to close this but first, we generally expect all paragraphs to end in citations; second para in History and third in Tail stars do not as yet. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• References added for those two. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 08:10, 8 August 2015 [47].

---

Ursa Minor

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We've buffed over twenty constellations to FA status now - this article is the next in line. I think it is as good as the others. It's had an astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) look it over as well as a few astronomy wikiproject folks. (and yes it is a wikicup entry) Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Urania's Mirror should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

italicised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – comprehensible even by an astronomic ignoramus like me. Clear, evidently comprehensive, very pleasingly written and well illustrated. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I wondered if there might be a suitable citation for the pleasing line about testing one's eyesight, but it's hardly a matter of great moment. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

SupportComment: I'd expect to see W Ursae Minoris, RU Ursae Minoris, and SS Ursae Minoris all mentioned somewhere; they're all well-studied and interesting star systems. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I was deliberating about some of these and how long to make the section. Will investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Have added the two eclipsing binaries. The dwarf nova is tricky as, although referenced in alot of articles, finding some specific characteristics of interest to a lay reader is proving elusive (I think we need something more concrete than lots of superhumps and periods....NB: this is best bet and there's not much on SS UMi in it, sadly) - and I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe it is FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It's an enjoyable read and is just about ready for FA status. However, I did find a few small issues that I think need to be resolved:

• "The star is thought to have undergone a helium flash, a point where the shell of helium around the star's core reaches a critical mass and ignites...": This is a 'helium-shell flash', which occurs later than the 'helium flash' event.[48] (Note the slightly different link.)

it was linked to that spot but I clarified in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the link only redirected to the page; not the section. I've addressed it by adding an anchor to the helium flash article. Praemonitus (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "semidetached system" can be wikilinked to Semidetached binary

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The margin of error format flips between unspaced "487±8 light-years" and spaced "62.2 ± 3.9 years". Can you make it consistent?

removed spaces Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• The article is inconsistent in its format of thousands. For example, "42 000 years", "16300 light-years", and "200,000 K". I personally prefer the comma separator as it is more difficult to misinterpret. But opinions vary.

I prefer the comma too - it's a "val" format that's doing it - removed and comma'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, you can add the '|fmt=commas' option to the {{val}} template. It's a bit of a nuisance though. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "HD 150706 is a sunlike star of spectral type G0V some 89 light-years distant from our Solar System that was thought to have a planet as massive as Jupiter at a distance of 0.6 AU that was subsequently discounted in 2007": I think this could be written a little better.

I tried this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "It has been characterized as a starburst galaxy, which means it is undergoing a high rate of star formation compared to a typical galaxy": opinion needs a cite.

reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "It is also noted for its radio lobe": opinion needs a cite.

reffed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Ursa Minor is rather devoid of many deep-sky objects": devoid of many?

removed "many" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's a few issues with the footnotes:
  • Shouldn't "Guilherme de Almeida" be "de Almeida, Guilherme"?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• • "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian".

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

• • Benson et al is missing a date (1994).

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Kirkpatrick et al is missing a date (2011).

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Some of the citations have a linked title plus a doi or arxiv. These frequently resolve to the same address. For example, Sato et al (2013)

removed urls from journal cites Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Footnote #66 says only "SIMBAD". It should be made consistent with the other SIMBAD references.

reformatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

I'm moving to Ursa Minor Beta!! At last, a proper constellation, i.e. one I can see all year round. Just a couple of quibbles before I support this excellent article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• planet orbiting it. It and..— I don't like consecutive "it"s

tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ursa Minor is notable as...— "some centuries" is vague to say the least. Three? 40? I think we should be given some idea. How long has it been the pole star?

several centuries - will nose around for a reliable source to tweak (the ref used is vague - will look for a better one) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Sun" inconsistently capped

all capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Further study published— "A further study" or "Further studies"

fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak:anything else needs fixing you can see? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Sorry Cas, I thought I'd done this already Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

no worries/thx for looking over it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

While we wait for a formal source review, citations for the end of the second para of History and mythology and the first para of Characteristics? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

oops, forgot about them. will ger on it.... ok, added one and checked that other actually covered following sentence too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done; footnote numbering is as of this revision (18:16, 1 August 2015 UTC)

Notes

• The inline ordering of notes and refs should be consistent; currently we have [17][a], [b][17], and [c][23]

After recent edits it is now [12][a], [17][b], [c][17], and [d][23] - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

all aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Should foonote c start with a capital letter?

Now note d. after recent edits - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Citations

• Capitalisation (sentence case or title case) should be consistent, at least for same type of citation. E.g. (journals/periodicals) cites 5. and 7. uses title case for the article while cites 43. and 47. uses sentence case; (books) 9. uses sentence case while others use title case. (these are just some of the examples)

all converted to title case now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

update: sorry, not sure how but missed these last two....title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Some ISBNs are plain numbers, others use dashes – should be consistent (either way)

dashes added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 3: Missing a period after H.J.P

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 4, 8, 17: "self-published" appears after a period, so it should be capitalised

capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 7: Why use the abbreviation Proc. Am. Philos. Soc?

laziness on my part. Unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 14, 15: Citation elements should be separated by periods rather than commas, for consistency with other citations

accidentally left in old "citation" format, converted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 17: Ridpath, Ian should be linked on first occurrence (cite 8.) rather than here

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 45: Is the double hyphen (--) meant to be a dash (–) ?

yes. converted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• 51: Missing publisher (and possibly other details)

added now. no author listed to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

- Evad37 [talk] 04:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved issues struck – still waiting on the Notes issues - Evad37 [talk] 12:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I must have missed the notes on scanning the FAC with my eyes. ok all done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all looks good now - Evad37 [talk] 23:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

Very nice! A few things (as always):

• "Beta Ursae Minoris, traditionally called Kochab, is only slightly less bright than Polaris with its apparent magnitude of 2.08" - This sentence is ambiguous. Which star does the magnitude refer to?

Kochab - I rejigged the sentence now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Eclipsing variables are star systems that vary in brightness from one star passing in front of the other ..." - "perhaps "because of".

tried "due to" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• #9 Partially supports cited sentence.

Hmm, am going off discussion on section 2 of page 130, where they are discussing the fact (mystery) of Homer having only one Bear - what do you feel is unsupported? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence "leading to speculation over what he saw the stars of Ursa Minor as", I don't see anything about speculation in the source.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I was a bit mystified but realised it is my view of the word "speculation" (akin to "pondering"), the author doesn't come up with any proposals as to what ursa minor was viewed as, so changed to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• #15 Page of Google book not available to me.
• #17 Source supports cited sentence.
• #22 Source supports cited sentence.
• #34 The figure 855 (light years) that this cites does not appear on a page of, to me, incomprehensible figures.

The distance is derived from the parallax - in this case 1000/3.81 x 3.26 = 855 light-years (starbox does it automatically). Have tweaked it to include margin of error anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• #44 Article states "The star is thought to have undergone a shell helium flash ... in 1979." The source is less specific.

Ok point taken, I have aligned it more closely - i.e. the flash is marked by the 1979 change (which is what the source says as it stops short of saying the 1979 event is the flash) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• #46 Source supports cited sentence.
• #55 Source supports cited sentence.
• #66 Source supports cited sentence.
• #69 The source mentions lobes in the plural, and as far as I can make out, the new discovery was a stream of plasma and not the lobes themselves.

aaah the statement predated the source that I found. Wasn't a good one and I had some difficuly. Found a better one now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why does the article use "Ursae Minoris" in some places and "Ursa minor" in others? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ursae Minoris is the genitive ("of Ursa Minor" if you like) and it is how anything "of Ursa Minor" is denoted as with Bayer designations etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 08:07, 8 August 2015 [49].

---

Mascarene grey parakeet

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

This short article is about an obscure, recently extinct parrot, which lived alongside the dodo and other extinct Mascarene species. Most, if not all, scientific sources that deal with the bird have been cited and summarised here. As in other FAs about recently extinct species never described in life by scientists, contemporary accounts are quoted in the article, as little else is known about the animal. I have included a selfmade restoration of this parrot based on the sources, which is one of the few (I only know of three others) ever made that depict it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the size of the first engraving. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Made it 300px, too much? FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No, but I'd suggest using upright=1.2 or similar to scale it rather than fixing a pixel size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. What exactly is the difference? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

We have the ability to set a default image size in our preferences. If you fix a pixel size, it overrides that preference entirely. If you use upright, it scales the image relative to the preferred size. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to take a look through.

• "Apart from their size and robustness, Holyoak did not find the bones to be distinct from those of the Mascarene parrot genera Lophopsittacus, Mascarinus (the Mascarene parrot), Necropsittacus (the Rodrigues parrot), and Psittacula (which had three other species inhabiting the Mascarene islands), and he considered them all to be closely related" The subject of the sentence is "the bones"; presumably you do not mean that he considered all of the bones to be closely related. Can I recommend splitting the point about the relatedness of the genera into a separate sentence?

Split.

• "wide-beaked Mascarinus" Why "wide-beaked"? Do you mean that the MGP could have been a wide-beaked form/taxa of Mascarinus? If so, I think this needs to be clearer. It currently reads that this was possibly a small form of N or a small form of M, but I'm not clear where the wide-beaked comes into it.

Changed to: "or a wide-beaked form of Mascarinus". FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• The way the text is sandwiched between the taxobox and the engraving is possibly problematic; also, I'm not keen on the way the range map shows only one of the two islands.

The engraving was originally smaller, but it was requested above that I make it larger. Personally, I don't think it's much of a problem, though I do prefer to use standard thumb sizes. As for the range map, I can try to make a new one, though I haven't been able to find a free high resolution map of the Mascarenes... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have spaced out the taxonomy text a bit more and moved the engraving down, which gives a bit more "air" between it and the taxobox (less text is "sandwiched" now), better? FunkMonk (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "from the Mare aux Songes swamp" It'd be good to be clear which island this is on

Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "No live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known to have been exported. An unidentified brown parrot specimen housed in Cabinet du Roi was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779. Hume has suggested the possibility that this might have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, if not a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). The specimen is now lost.[7][9]" Could this perhaps be rephrased a little?

I merged the last dangling sentence into the second one, not sure if you had more in mind. FunkMonk (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

How about something like "While no live or dead Mascarene grey parakeets are known with certainty to have been exported, Hume has suggested that a brown parrot specimen—once housed in Cabinet du Roi but now lost—may have been a discoloured old Mascarene grey parakeet, or perhaps a lesser vasa parrot (Coracopsis nigra). This specimen was described by Comte de Buffon in 1779."?

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The Alexandrine parakeet has been proposed as the founder population for all Psittacula species on Indian Ocean islands, during southwards colonisation from its native South Asia." It wasn't proposed while colonising

Changed to "may have been", better?

A bit, but it's still not clear what happened "during" the expansion; how about something like "islands, with original populations settling during the species's southwards colonisation from its native South Asia"? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Took your suggestion, but changed "original" to "new". FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• "mandibular symphysis was 2.7-2.9 mm (0.10-0.11 in) thick along the mid-line, the palatine was 31.1 mm (1.22 in), and the tarsometatarsus was" Undefined jargon

Explained in parenthesis under description, but all terms are linked already in taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry; if they're already linked earlier, don't add explanations on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I feel there's a little bit of inconsistency in the article about whether it definitely inhabited both islands

Anywhere especially? It is considered Psittacula cf. bensoni for now, since it can't be confirmed they were the same species until bones are found on Réunion. This is not explained as such in the source, as the author probably assumed it would be stating the obvious. It would probably be helpful if I added something like "Until subfossils of P. bensoni are found on Réunion, it cannot be confirmed whether the grey parrots of the two islands belonged to the same species", but again, the source does not say this specifically. I have rejigged a bit of text at the end of taxonomy which might make it a bit clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've found an article which states "Psittacula aff. bensoni — dubois (1674) and Cossigny (1732–55) mentioned a grey parrot on Réunion, which may have been conspecific with P. bensoni. However, no skeletal remains have been found to determine its relationships."[50] May that be enough to source the sentence I proposed above? FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

For my money, yes. That would be a useful addition to the article, especially as the article's so recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "the arrival of man" We should probably try to avoid this kind of gendered language

Changed to humans. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "[Pteropus sp.]" If you're meaning to refer to multiple species, I think it would be "[Pteropus spp.]"

In this case, I think it means that the exact species meant isn't identifiable, as there are several types it could have referred to. The source doesn't elaborate... FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "them being excessively hunted" "excessively" is a value judgement which doesn't belong here. "Extensively" may be preferable, but there are other options- you could explain that you specifically mean hunted at unsustainable levels.

Is "overhunted" better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It still sounds judgmental. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned we might get too far away from what the sources say, though, all use terms like "overhunting", "excessive hunting", etc., and are not shy on laying blame. After all, humans really are some destructive bastards... FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Both "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" imply that both that there is some amount of hunting that is "OK", and that this hunting exceeded that amount- this involves value judgements, and so is not something that should be said in Wikipedia's neutral voice. (To drift closer to my own corner of real-world work, some anthropocentric and/or contractarian accounts could hold that any amount of hunting is unproblematic as long as it does not impact humans, meaning that this was arguably not overhunting, while some animal rights approaches could hold that no amount of hunting is acceptable, and as "excessive hunting" and "overhunting" presuppose that there is some level of acceptable hunting, they will be rejected.) If you're opposed to "extensive", you could say "unsustainable"; both seem relatively value-free. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Used extensive. I thiought I had replied here yesterday, but apparently not... FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The French began" Could you be more specific? French soldiers? Settlers? Explorers?

Added settlers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• "but since they were last mentioned by Cossigny in 1759 (published in 1764), they must have become extinct shortly after this time." That's a very strong-sounding claim

Changed to "had probably". FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Category:Extinct birds of Indian Ocean islands?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Great article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support from Josh, unless I've missed something. Very interesting article; you've done a good job with relatively limited literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again! FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support from Jim I can't find anything significant I object to, great job, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I came here to do a source review, but here I am with almost nothing to suggest in the way of improvements - all the sources are consistently cited using the {{cite}} template and variants thereof, page numbers are given where available, and every source has a functional hyperlink. My one quibble is that the books cited are not consistent in their ISBNs; some use ISBN-10, others use the newer ISBN-13. I'd suggest converting them all to ISBN-13; there's a tool here that will calculate the ISBN-13 for you from the older version. The Hume (Zootaxa) citation also needs an ISBN adding (it's 978-1-86977-124-9 for the online edition). Beyond that, everything looks good on the sources front. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, the isbns should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Based on the source review and a read-through of the article (nice job, btw!), I'll throw my support into the ring as well. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• On comprehensiveness and prose....Support Comments taking a look again now...(read this awhile ago on my phone and forgot to post anything!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The only query I have is using the word "parakeet", which I always viewed as antiquated and colloquial as it is used for such a disparate range of psittacines and mainly in old texts (in Australia anyway). But not a huge deal-breaker as it may be more of an issue with Australian readers only.

You mean in the intro? I can replace that with parrot. Or are there more instances you find iffy? FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, just that one. All good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 07:43, 8 August 2015 [51].

---

Annunciation (Memling)

Nominator(s): Victoriaearle, Ceoil

Hans Memling painted this pretty Annunciation scene around 1480. It's simple, striking, and has interesting iconography, yet someone must not have liked it very much because when a Polish prince found it in one of his family's estates early in the 19th century, it had been pierced through by an arrow. Early in the 20th century it was brought to America, transferred to canvas, and now resides in New York at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ceoil helped with suggestions, copy-editing, image placement, and encouragement. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Support Maile (talk)

The word "stunning" comes to mind about the images. All images are on Commons and appropriately licensed. Is there a way you could scan "Boucicaut hours visitation" so it's not crooked? The prose is well-done, almost as if walking through a museum and having a tour guide explain it all. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66, thanks for checking the images. We discussed the crooked Boucicaut hours and decided to leave it as (it's really hard to get scans of these centuries-old books) but I did initially upload a cropped version on the source, and can revert to that if consensus is to be straight. I can't load images at the moment - a thunderstorm came through about an hour after I nominated this and I've had on-and-off internet connectivity since, but when that gets fixed I'll take another look. Victoria (tk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

RE the crooked image - the original is here. The margins are lost if cropped, and it's probably worth having the margins to show that it's from a book, whereas the other paintings aren't. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, thank you for answering. I'm not going to oppose this nomination based one crooked picture. As far as I'm concerned, you've answered the only issue I had. — Maile (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66, it's straightened now, [52], thanks to Sarah. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks really great now! — Maile (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm now happy to be giving this article my support. I just gave it a second thorough read-through. The sources come through credible publishers. The prose and the way you have laid this out visually is good. I was particularly impressed with the close-up of the light shining through the flask, and the detailed explanation of the symbolism. I can find no fault with this and think you made a great presentation of the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for taking the time to revisit. Victoria (tk) 20:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the IR Nikkimaria. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I've read this through twice. It's beautifully written and illustrated. The symbolism is explained well and is fascinating. Very happy to support it. Sarah ^(talk) 04:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Sarah - thanks so much for taking the time to read through twice and for the support. I think it's fascinating too. Victoria (tk) 15:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support and comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

I don't see anything here that would be fatal to promotion, although I do note a few small issues that should be easy to resolve. I did not perform a thorough prose review; as usual, I'm focused primarily on references and reference formatting.

• The Hans Memling navigational template in the article foot lists Annunciation as (c. 1467–1470), but that's not at all what is reflected in the text.

• Good catch, thanks. I believe that's for another painting, but it needed fixing. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Are page ranges available for the journal sources: Blum (this one is 43–58), Koslow, Meiss, Weale?

• If an entry from a journal is used and its page numbers provided in text, then the page range isn't always necessary in the references as long as it's been formatted consistently. I'll double-check MLA (Modern Language Association) but we're not required to adhere to a specific citation guide/style here, and because there are quotations I prefer to provide the page numbers in text. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• page numbers added. Victoria (tk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Should the publisher location of Turnhout provide either province or country for context? It's certainly not a widely known location.

• It's in Belgium. I just looked on WorldCat and they don't identify it. For consistency we'd have to add country to all of entries, which I suppose we could do. Thinking about it. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed the Jolly source location is already given as "Farnham, Surrey", which made me think something should be done for Turnhout. New York is the only other publisher location given and it, of course, is on the shortlist of cities that never needs further clarification. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• You make a fair point; I've added Belgium. Victoria (tk) 20:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In general, I don't see any significant modern sources overlooked, so this does appear to be a comprehensive review of literature. I find one 1930s journal article that appears to be a comparative study of this scene in period art. I don't expect it would have anything novel to add (and I cannot access it from my location today), but you might want to peek in case I'm wrong:

• Robb, David M. (1936). "The Iconography of the Annunciation in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries". The Art Bulletin. 18 (4): 480–526. doi:10.2307/3045651. JSTOR 3045651.

• Thanks, I noticed last night I have that article bookmarked on Jstor but it's a huge file and I couldn't download it. I will take another look and if there's anything there. If so, will add to the article. Victoria (tk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
• Re Robb's article - I've skimmed it quickly now so as to remind myself why I didn't use it. It's quite good, but goes into very specific detail about the iconography used in the Annunciation scenes in general; regarding this painting it only mentions Memling's debt to van der Weyden, which is covered. Thanks, though, for reminding me about this. Victoria (tk) 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds totally reasonable to me. It just came up on my comprehensiveness check, and I couldn't pass up mentioning a 40+ page article that seemed to be germane. With that taken care of, I think I'm satisfied that you're reviewed the extant literature quite admirably. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, nicely assembled, and I'm happy to offer my support on referencing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Squeamish Ossifrage looking and for the comments, and the support. I'm off to check my MLA guide and will report back here. Victoria (tk) 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 07:33, 8 August 2015 [53].

---

Chetro Ketl

Nominator(s): RO^(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest Ancestral Puebloan great houses in Chaco Culture National Historical Park. It was recently the subject of a two-month-long peer review, where eleven editors commented, including several of our most prolific and respected writers. One of the world's leading Chaco scholars and Chetro Ketl experts, Stephen H. Lekson, was kind enough to vet the article and give me notes via google docs. He said it was "great" and an "excellent" presentation of a complicated topic. Having benefitted from substantial input from others, I believe this article meets or exceeds the FA criteria. RO^(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

• Maps and diagrams could generally stand to be a bit larger

I'm not sure what to do about this one, because several people have told me to not mess with images sizes. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally that is true - you should not fix a px size without good reason. However, MOS:IMAGES#Size explicitly allows for increased image size for "images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart)". You could also play around with using the upright parameter to scale sizes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Alt text should be concise but accurate — for example, File:Chetro Ketl overlook.jpg is not a black-and-white image

Oops. Thanks for that. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Ancestral_Puebloan_territory.svg: what data source was used to create this map?

I'm really not sure, but it looks pretty accurate to me. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but we do need it to be verifiable...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Where appropriate, it's preferable to use the more specific NPS tag rather than the general USGov - the former links to their particular copyright policy

Will do. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Chacoan_turquoise_pendant.jpg: is a more direct source link available? Same with File:Sandal-12thcentury_ChacoCanyon_NM_USA.jpg, File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg, File:Jar_Chaco_Anasazi_Obelisk_Grayware.jpg. File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Bowl_Chaco_Culture_NM_USA.jpg: because US does not have freedom of panorama for objects, we need to explicitly account for the item's copyright status as well as the photo's. Same with File:Chaco_Anasazi_abajo_black-on-orange_trade_ware_NPS.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to answer this one. Maybe We hope can lend some assistance. RO^(talk) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Because of the age of the items, pretty much any age-based tag would work - pre-1923, life+100, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Added "old-100" tags to these photos. We hope (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just added direct links to the photos and their descriptions for all items from the NPS Museum photo gallery that are in the article. The photos were taken by the National Park Service. The dating of these objects is included on their gallery pages. They all seem to be 13th century or before. We hope (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, We hope! RO^(talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Jimfbleak, Brianboulton, and Jaguar

• Support My few concerns were addressed at PR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Echoing Jim, above: a most impressively researched article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support Before looking at this FAC I had the intention of leaving another review here, but after reading through this again I see that there isn't any need. This is an amazingly comprehensive article! JAGUAR  21:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone! RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments and support from Mirokado

I also looked at this during the PR. It is a very well presented and thorough article. Just a few further comments:

• Timber
  • species of tree: perhaps "tree species" would be better?
• McElmo
  • McElmo black-on-white pottery, McElmo Black-on-white pottery: please decide on a consistent capitalisation (in this section and an image caption)
  • While McElmo Black-on-white pottery was abundant in later contexts at Chetro Ketl, the problematic McElmo style masonry was used in several later additions to the building, including very characteristic Chaco-style kivas. R. Gwinn Vivian (son of Gordon Vivian) notes, "The jury is still out on this question, a problem that poses intriguing possibilities for future work.": I haven't understood from this what is being contrasted by "while" and what the question or problem is...
• Abandonment
  • Chetro Ketl's great kiva might have been remodeled and used well after 1140: "may", since "might" would imply a following "but". After noticing this I looked at other occurrences of "might have been" and I think "may have been" would probably be better for all of them ("may" if scholars think something but there is no direct proof, "might" if it is a possibility but we go on to explain why it is unlikely).
• Rediscovery
  • Richard Kern: I suggest we refer to him as Richard H. Kern (see File:ZuniPueblo1850.jpg), since our article Richard Kern is about someone else.
• Excavation
  • reverse stratigraphy: I have wikilinked reverse stratigraphy (and added a general reference to that article, but it is still poorly referenced). There can be various causes. Can you add a brief explanation of the origin of the reversal in this case (flooding, mound collapse, previous excavations, ...)?
  • Twined sandals have also been recovered there.^[107] Bones from the ferruginous hawk and the great horned owl have been found at Chetro Ketl.^[108]: Perhaps combine these two sentences for better reading: "Twined sandals^[107] and bones from the ferruginous hawk and the great horned owl^[108] have been found on the site."
• Purpose
  • In-text attribution for the quote "confirming their affiliation with the larger ritual alliance" (presumably James Judge)?
• General comments:
  • I imagine you have already tried to track down Kern's lithographs? Incidentally, looking at File:Narbona 1849.jpg, it's a great shame he never met Irataba!
    • Yup. He did some nice work alright. I haven't come across anything pertaining to Chetro Ketl, but if I do I'll try and find a way to include it. RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any particular museums with collections from Chetro Ketl? If so it would be worth mentioning them.

--Mirokado (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These are some great comments Mirokado. Thanks for the review! I addressed most of the points with this edit: ([54]), and expanded on the topic of reverse stratigraphy here: ([55]). I've made this edit regarding the Chetro Ketl artifacts and their present whereabouts: ([56]), which sadly explains that "one of the great archaeological mysteries of the Southwest ... [is] the almost total disappearance of the Chetro Ketl materials". Please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks again! RO^(talk) 17:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and additions. All the above now sorted out (with one further copyedit taken from McElmo Phase).

• One final question: where does the name McElmo come from? The origin is not mentioned here, not in McElmo Phase. We need a brief explanation here, I think.

This is an easy one to answer, but a difficult one to source. McElmo refers to a creek and canyon near Mesa Verde (see: File:McElmo Creek.JPG). The problem is that RSs tend to say it's derived from the Mesa Verde region, but not the specific creek and canyon. I'll keep looking for something explicit, but I've looked at five sources this morning that all say the same general thing. The term was coined by Vivian and Matthews in Kin Kletso: A Pueblo III community in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico (1965), but I can't find a free copy of it online, and I'm reluctant to spend money on this for one point that is quite possibly a misnomer in the first place. RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy to support this article. --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! RO^(talk) 17:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Dr. Blofeld and Wehwalt

• Support I was the one who promoted this to GA during RO's absence a while back but I only had to make minor edits. Not enough to consider myself a co-contributor anyway. I found very little fault with it, and thought it read like the work of a scholar and had FA potential. I'm even more certain of it by the fact that an expert has been consulted to take a look at it and is impressed with the quality of it. I think this really illustrates what a great editor RO is. Excellent job. My only minor quibble is that I don't like the current main black and white image. Even when I click it I can barely see anything I'd prefer a better quality colour one for the main image like File:Chetro_Ketl_overlook.jpg, but I can see why you switched it to cover the site from above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr.B! I basically agree about the lead image, but I worried that because the other one was flipped upside down compared to the site map it might confuse rather than enlighten. Maybe I can save some money and next year fork out for a helicopter ride and a much better camera! I've made a request at the graphics lab ([57]), so hopefully they can improve that black and white aerial. RO^(talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think it would be possible to obtain a grant from wikimedia to cover that. Ask them to fund a trip which also covers some of the poorly photographed areas and tell them you'll take several hundred photographs to benefit the project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. RO^(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support My concerns were answered at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt! RO^(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus

The article is really impressive, and has improved a lot since the peer review. I haven't had a chance to check the new material or read upon any new sources used, and I probably won't be able to before the review ends. My one reservation at the peer review is the way the Mesoamerican connection is presented in the Collonade section, which I still think is not optimal. It presents the argument in a muddled way, by not tracing adequately the chain of evidence and associations: the argument goes 1. Chetro Ketl has a collonade, 2. Tula, Hidalgo the center of the Toltec realm has a collonade (Toltec = people from Tula). 3. Tula style collonades are seen as suggestive of some kind of influence of the Toltec culture. 4. Tula is considered to have been the center of an expansion of a Quetzalcoatl cult. 5. Maybe then it was the quetzalcoatl cult that inspired the colonnade at Chetro ketl (as opposed to for example conquest y Toltecs). The argument here is presented backwards by posing the last link in the chain of the argument first and without making the reasoning explicit. At some points I find the prose a little off putting, especially the use of direct quotes where I think they are unnecessary. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your support, Maunus. I left a more detailed reply at talk: ([58]). RO(talk) 00:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC) I have witrhdrawn my support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC) How embarrassing. RO(talk) 17:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, not having read the new material in detail, I gave the support as a show of good faith. Good faith which I no longer have, given your insistence in being combative, misrepresenting others' arguments on talk, using personal communication as a source and an argument from authority, and demonstrating poor understanding of the very sources you are using. I shouldnt support articles on good faith alone, and I will not make that mistake again.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC) The Toltecs are no longer mentioned in the article, so Maunus' above concern is resolved. I will say that Lekson gave me notes on the entire article and had no issue with my handling of the Mesoamerican issue. After bringing Maunus' comments to his attention he responded with: "I'm not sure I get the point of the criticism ... Maybe get rid of Di Peso/Vivian? He's not adding anything to what Ferdon said, and that sentence introduced Tula, which is a bit of a red herring; get rid of "Tula, Hidalgo" in the last sentence, too. There were colonnades all over Mesoamerica in the PostClassic." Which seems to refute Maunus' assertion: Tula style collonades are seen as suggestive of some kind of influence of the Toltec culture RO(talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I think everyone is now aware that I said those things. Those who have read Lekson et al. 2007 will also be aware that the statements are correct. My concerns about the section have never been about the factual accuracy but about coherently and meaningfully representing it instead of representing disjoint bits and pieces of an argument. The section still does not do that since it now merely states that scholars have seen signs of Mesoamerican influence without explaining what those signs are and why they are considered to be so. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC) The signs that pertain to Chetro Ketl are the tower kiva and colonnade, both of which are mentioned in the proper context ([59]). RO(talk) 19:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC) And for the record my own personal communication with Professor Lekson (which I believe he will forward to you shortly) suggests that contrary to your claims we are in fact in substantial agreement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC) Yes. I've seen it and I asked Lekson if we can post his response in its entirety to talk, so there's no confusion about what's been said. RO(talk) 19:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

• Support – A most impressive piece of work, both scholarly (as far as a layman can judge) and readable. It has been further polished since I had the pleasure of reviewing it for GAN. The sources are broad and well cited, the balance of the article strikes me as well judged and the images are admirable. Happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 18:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! I put the better part of four months into this, and I wanted to do the very best I could. Editors like you make the tremendous effort needed to get an article to this level seem worth it. Thanks for your encouragement and advice at the PR and here! RO^(talk) 18:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2

• Support – Really impressive article, RO! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ssven2! RO^(talk) 15:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

Have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Also I think this might be RO's first solo FAC if promoted, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks Squeamish for source review below, I think we just need a spotcheck of a few sources now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Review and support by Squeamish Ossifrage

It's nice to be back on the project, and I'm happy to return to my FAC reviewing work by looking at this excellent, (nearly) comprehensive piece. Chaco Canyon is amazing, and I'm happy to see an article about part of it here. This review focuses on sourcing comprehensiveness and reference formatting. I did not perform a thorough prose review.

Resolved concerns

Content: In the Timber subsection of Construction, the implication is that timber was transported from long distances solely due to local resource depletion, and precise sourcing for timber for the Chaco great house construction is not given. However, this paper uses radioisotope analysis to make more precise claims about the origin of timber used in Chaco Canyon construction; it's a more recent study that the ones you cite, and is one of the few important works I think this article overlooks. Happily, it's freely available! Awesome suggestion. Thanks for catching the omission, and double thanks for doing some research to aid in the improvement of the article. I'll get to this by the end of the weekend, but I have big plans for tonight. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I added some text from that source: ([60]). Thanks again for providing it here. RO(talk) 19:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC) In the last section, Artifacts and deterioration, I might alter the causes of degradation to "Treasure hunting, livestock grazing, and 'early National Park Service stabilization efforts" (emphasis mine) to distinguish problematic period work from modern conservation efforts. Speaking of which, a hit against comprehensiveness comes from the lack of discussion of recent efforts, including partial reburying. There are a variety of sources that discuss this process; this one is not freely available but is probably the most direct coverage. The techniques pioneered in the Chetro Ketl reburial project have been used elsewhere in the southwest (as discussed in this paper), so this is quite a relevant topic. Another fantastic point. I'll add some text this weekend and ping you when there's something to look at. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I added some text to address this point ([61]). RO(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Notes: Note i: Regarding the conch species, Species 2000 has reassigned it to Lobatus; the National Center for Biotechnology Information database still places it in Strombus. I'd follow the lead of our article on the conch itself and link to it under the Lobatus name (rather than piping), but I'm not sure there's a policy requirement. Regardless, binomial names need to be italicized. Done References: I'm better at checking template minutiae with the cite family of templates than with citation. Call it an anti-comma bias. Regardless, the same template was used throughout, so I'll largely assume it was done correctly unless something jumps out at me. I'm still not back my previous level of availability, so have not performed spotchecks for close paraphrasing. Regarding the various Reports of the Chaco Center: First off, for The Architecture and Dendrochronology of Chetro Ketl (Report #6) you link directly to the pdf, while for most of the rest of them you link to an archive accession page. Report #1 has no links given at all. Unless there's something prohibiting doing so, or a compelling reason to the alternative, you should probably link all of them to the pdf; that (and not the databse record) is the source, after all. Sadly, the Chaco Research Archive does not include a link to #1. RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Second, the "Reports of the Chaco Center, Number #" are not formally part of the titles as library science considers them. "Reports of the Chaco Center" should be moved to the |series field and the number to the |volume field throughout to properly match how OCLC and other library databases stlye these works. The public-domain template probably should also be edited to remove the series/volume information also. Because it's vaguely confusing, I'll confirm that Excavations at 29SJ 627, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico: Volume II. The artifact analyses (note the colon) is the actual title of report #11. Fixed/done Additionally, these should all have OCLC numbers since they were not issued ISBNs. #1 (Lyons) is OCLC 3907525. #3 (Powers, Gillespie, and Lekson) is OCLC 9416843. #6 (Lekson) is OCLC 10366311. #8 (Judge and Schelberg) is OCLC 11711668. #9 (Atkins) is OCLC 14755644. #11 (Mathien) is OCLC 28760356. Thanks for providing them here. That helped a lot! RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Similar issues apply to Great Pueblo Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. I would link the pdf rather than the accession page. Its OCLC number is 15296586 (although the 1986 reprint was assigned an ISBN number, that's not the edition you're citing, so go with this). Likewise Culture and Ecology of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin, which is OCLC 61717732. Thanks for providing them here. That helped a lot! RO(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) The Architecture of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico should have its series title moved to the |series field. Done The Vivian and Reiter book source should have its title given in Title Case. Done The 2006 Lekson source should probably have its edition field changed to |edition=1st; Likewise, the Vivian and Hilper source to |edition=2nd. Fixed These generally minor topics aside, this is excellent work. Conditional on reference formatting cleanup and inclusion of more recent timber research and some coverage of modern conservation, I am pleased to support promotion to FA status. Nicely done, RO. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That was a kick ass review, and thanks for your support, Squeamish Ossifrage! I'll deal with all these concerns by Monday morning, maybe sooner. RO^(talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, I've applied your advice with these edits: ([62]). If I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks again for taking a look and providing these helpful suggestions! RO^(talk) 20:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Glad I could be of assistance. All of my concerns have been neatly resolved. I look forward to seeing this with the bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support by RHM22

Support (I also made a small contribution to the peer review, for the record.) First of all, I apologize for taking so long to get to this! As you might have guessed, I haven't been very active lately; this time of the year is busy for me and I don't get as much time as I would like to undertake work here on Wikipedia.

Overall, this is a very well-written article and quite informative. As an utter layman in the area of native architecture, I found this informative and easy to understand. I made a few minor changes, which you should feel free to alter or revert at your whim if I have made any mistakes or introduced any inconsistencies. Although I think this is generally up to snuff, I do have some minor considerations. (I don't care for the use of external links in the body of an article, but I believe that is widely accepted now.)

• Masonry: "Chacoan masons also frequently included intramural beams, horizontal logs completely enclosed in the wall core, which were probably intended to reduce horizontal deformation of the wall." I assume that the portion that I've italicized here is a parenthetical meant to describe the intramural beams. If that's correct, I would suggest using some other method instead of commas, which almost make it seem like you're running through a list of things the Chacoans frequently used. Maybe a pair of em dashes would do the trick.
• Phases: I'm not a grammar expert, so maybe someone who is could be of some help here, regarding this sentence: "Archeologists subsequently discovered that her second period (1030–90) structure was built directly over an earlier (990/1000–30) one-story tall, two-room wide row of rooms." It seems to me that "one-story tall" and "two-room wide" would be incorrect. I would probably hyphenate all three words, like "two-room-wide", since they all form the adjective, but others might disagree. I would welcome opinions about that.
• McElmo: This seems to be intentional, but why is "Black-on-white" capitalized as such? Is that a proper name of some type?

"Black-on-white" is capitalized in almost every, if not every, source I consulted. I agree that it looks a little odd, but I think this is the accepted form as a proper name of this specific type. RO^(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Excavation: "In 1937, W.W. Postlewaite..." I believe it is preferable to include a space after each period in the initials of someone's name.

That's all I've got! It looks quite good overall, so even considering the minor quibbles above, I think this is perfectly suitable to be a featured article.-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support, RHM22. I agree with your edits, and I've made the suggested changes ([63]). RO^(talk) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Nikkimaria

• Some of the pagination from the NPS survey appears to be incorrect. For example, FN188 is to page 7, but the "pace of dissolution" quote appears on page 6

You're right. Thanks for correcting me. That's on page 6, not 7. RO^(talk) 23:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Still seeing errors with regards to pagination — for example, the "decimated ponderosa pine stands" quote is actually on p. 207, not 205. Can you do a bit more checking in this regard? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1982 Robert Powers theorized that the road network "suggests an intercommunity organization and settlement system of regional extent".[173]" - can't find this in cited source

I had that sourced to Powers 1984, but it's in Powers et al. 1983. RO^(talk) 00:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Because "Chaco Canyon is the convergence point of all presently documented extra-canyon roads", the area might represent a locus of regional control, or "the apex of the hierarchical system".[174]" - don't see this either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The PDF pages and the source material pages are different. In Powers, page 32 of the report is page 44 of the PDF. RO^(talk) 23:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I had that sourced to Powers 1984, but it's in Powers et al. 1983. Sorry about that. Thanks for taking a look. RO^(talk) 00:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

These are fixed now. RO^(talk) 00:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've gone through the entire article top to bottom and double checked each and every ref: ([64]). The pagination and links to sources are now all accurate and correct. RO^(talk) 21:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. One final thought: I think it might make more sense to leave the "resource depletion ... distance, and time" quote as it appears in the original - to me the omission of "with" doesn't improve the meaning. But as far as spotchecks go this is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed: ([65]. Thanks for the spot check, Nikkimaria! You've been a great resource during this FAC and before, and I want you to know how much I appreciate all your hard work around here. RO^(talk) 15:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from John

I am happy to support this; I changed some date formatting from slashes to dashes which I believe is preferred. I also changed formatting of black and white/black-and-white/black on white/Black on white. Hyphenated forms are adjectival and I believe capitalisation should be minimised and used only for proper nouns. --John (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John! RO^(talk) 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Question: As The Ancestral Puebloans were an ancient Native American culture, why do we talk about "Americans" discovering the buildings? They were built by Americans. Could we say European Americans or white Americans? I realise this is a sensitive area, but I think it is an important one to get right. --John (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with that in general, John, but the way I read the rediscovery section it's clear that Navajo people were first to rediscover Chetro Ketl, then the New Mexicans via Vizcarra, and then American soldiers looking for Navajo. "American exploration of the region" really means US exploration, so maybe that's the change that should be made. RO^(talk) 23:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

United States soldiers works for me. --John (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

But if we want to split hairs, the US soldiers looking for Navajo were led by Francisco Hosta, a Native American, and the Kern brothers were civilians. RO^(talk) 00:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't want to overdo it. Does this work for you? -John (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks, John! RO^(talk) 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 [66].

---

History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959)

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the formation of Liverpool F.C. up until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager. The article is currently a GA and I believe it is close to attaining featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments - taking a look now. Will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Despite the scoreline, only 200 spectators attended the match, but as the season went on and as Liverpool continued to win their attendances increased. - I'd remove the "Despite the scoreline," as it doesn't make sense as a contrastive (the attendees wouldn't have known the score beforehand..)

Done NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Approximately 2,000 people watched Liverpool defeat South Shore in their penultimate match at Anfield - huh? Liverpool still play at Anfield now...?

change to penultimate match of the season NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

with a realistic chance of winning their first League championship. - "realistic" is redundant here. With one game to play any chance is a chance....

done

More success did not follow as Liverpool were unable to repeat the feat; - I'd remove "More success did not follow" - let the facts speak for themselves.

done

McQueen was initially successful, as Liverpool retained the championship, this owed much to the form of their goalkeeper Elisha Scott, who only conceded 31 goals during the season, a league record at the time - long sentence. I'd split after "championship"

done

A significant development occurred at Anfield in 1920, as the Kop was redesigned - I'd remove "A significant development occurred at Anfield" and let facts speak for themselves

done

This paragraph has alot of "spectators" in it, might be good to remove one...

done

Are there any other key players during this period to mention?

I've tried to include a bit more now NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the extra material was exactly what I was looking for, to give it some atmosphere and help the reader feel it more. Looking more now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Did they play in all-red during this period?

Nope, the all red kits were not introduced until 1965 NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is only 16 kb long in prose size, so any key events with interesting anecdotes could be expanded a little. Otherwise is a little "this happened, then this happened, then this happened etc."

I've had a go at this and added a bit more NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom Watson left as manager in 1915 - says on his talk page that he actually died (?) - so he likely got sick there (?)

Yep expanded on this NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Any idea why Ashworth left to manage Oldham?

Yep, added a bit about that now. NapHit (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall, fairly engaging. I think I'll need to read it again. I do think this is within striking distance of FA-hood...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber, I appreciate the comments and the kind words. Hopefully, it's not too far off! NapHit (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately, I think I tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose, but don't know much about Liverpool so this is sort of pending on other folks' views as well. good luck..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments–I'll gladly read this article. I haven't seen many sport articles on FAC these days.

A comma is needed after "his 56th birthday".

Scott joined Belfast Celtic after 24 years at the Club–I think club shouldn't be capitalized.

Is it grammatically correct to write "in front of 34,140 crowd (or attendance)" instead of " in front of a crowd of 34,140"?

I think you can drop who from Liddell's image without losing the meaning of the decription.

I support the prose, I've rarely seen an article with neat writing as this one. My notes are easily fixable, and I believe this article deserves the FA barnstar.--Retrohead (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and the support Retrohead, much appreciated. Regarding the attendance comment, I'm not 100% sure about this, so I'll leave it and see if anyone else picks up on it. All your other comments have been addressed, thanks again. NapHit (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Consider it done. I wasn't sure either, and must admit, it sounds like an American English feature.--Retrohead (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comments by User:Dweller I'm looking it through and comments will appear here: --14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. I notice the history of the club is broken into three periods. This article covers 67 years. The other two cover 26 and 31 respectively. Does that seem like POV recentism? --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. The only reason I did it like this was to separate the articles at significant points in the club's history. 59 for the appointment of Shankly and 89 for Hillsborough. I guess they are arbitrary in a sense, could potentially be seen as recentism I suppose. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Lead mentions "club president" Houlding. Unclear which club is intended (presumably Everton) but in any case this position is not mentioned (and therefore not cited) in the body text. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
2. "moving to Goodison Park from Anfield" - last two words are a redundancy.
3. "Thus, he founded Liverpool to play there The first match was against Rotherham Town in the Lancashire League." Choppy and missing a full stop
4. The lead jumps straight from winning promotion to the League to winning the League itself. Did they not need to get promoted? That progress must be worth a mention - it's not like the Lead is excessively long, currently.
5. "More success followed in the 1920s; ... Despite this success, the Inter-war years were unsuccessful for Liverpool" Hmmm. Repeated language, a rogue capital I and an apparent explicit contradiction in terms. Try deleting "more success followed in the 1920" and changing the rest to "Despite this success, during the inter-war years, the club often finished mid-table" --Dweller (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
6. "a dispute between Everton and Houlding". Everton are an inanimate organisation. Do you mean the directors?
7. "Houlding was left with an empty ground" Eh? Surely John Orrell was.

This is a bit confusing. The history pages on the club's official website state Houlding bought the land off Orrell, yet some of my books state he rented. I suppose it would be best to go with the club's version? NapHit (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Fairly sure "rebuked" should be "rebuffed"
2. "the League refused to admit the club" why? Because of the dispute?
3. "its first match ... thus they" You need to decide whether Liverpool is a singular noun or plural. Either works for BrEng, but you must be consistent. So "their first match ... thus they" or "its first match ... thus it" and then apply it to the rest of the article
4. "Incidentally" Yuck. Very colloquial. The sentence works far better without the word anyway.
5. "the resignation of Accrington Stanley and Bootle" two clubs, so surely "resignations"?
6. "the city's colour of red" I have no idea what this means
7. What colour were their original shorts and what did it change to?
8. I can't believe the forebearance in not pointing out that Newton Heath, who were relegated and then replaced by Liverpool are Manchester United! It's a historically interesting moment.
9. "regular attendances of 20,000 spectators" That's quite freaky. I presume there's an "approximately" missing.

More later --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at addressing these comments @Dweller:, think I've responded or got most of them. NapHit (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde ^talk. Thought I better do a review now that I've nominated an article myself. This one piqued my interest. Probably won't get the review done in one sitting, but here goes:

• This escalated into a dispute between Houlding and the Everton board over how the club was run -- this is a bit vague, can more detail be included about that this exactly entailed? Did the board decide to relocate the club? How did Houlding end up with Anfield? Had he purchased it, or was the lease in his name?
• You should check for duplicate wiki-links. There are a couple in there (including Anfield linked twice in the opening paragraph).
• The League, unimpressed with their hubristic application, refused to admit the club and they were forced to join the Lancashire League. -- "their hubristic" could be interpreted as the League rather than the club, maybe change to "the hubristic application"
• They had arrived following manager John McKenna's trip to Scotland to recruit players for the club. -- It seems this sentence could be improved (and made a little more precise?). How about "Manager John McKenna had recruited the players while on [or after?] a scouting trip to Scotland."
• won the Lancashire League on goal average from Blackpool. -- Is it "from Blackpool" or "over Blackpool"?
• The trophies that Liverpool were awarded were stolen and the club had to pay £130 to replace them. -- Again wonder if the prose could be tighter, how about "However Liverpool had to pay £130 to replace the trophies after they were stolen."
• You mention the fact the club won more and more matches and their attendance increased, but how many Lancashire League games did they actually play?
• You've linked both Football League Second Division and Football League Second Division on their second mention rather than first.
  • See the lead. -- Shudde ^talk 05:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• The club's first match in the Football League -- it would be really good to specify the date here (considering how historic it is).
• Should it read "which they won 2–0, with Malcolm McVean scoring Liverpool's first goal in league football" ?
• There is a redirect to Playoffs#Association football that may as well be corrected.
• who would later be known as Manchester United -- "who were later renamed Manchester United" ?
• You've used "Test Match" and then later "test match" -- which one is it?

I'm done for now. I'll come and finish this off later. -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) More:

• 12 wins in their final 14 matches resulted in a first place finish. -- this is a violation of MOS:NUMERAL and should be reworded.
• You've linked to the article 1896–97 in English football (which I think is a good idea), but when discussing earlier seasons not linked to the relevant article. Maybe correct this.
• Maybe link to Merseyside in it's first mention.
• Some editors really don't like the construction "would continue" in cases such as league championship would continue as Villa. Maybe just replace with "continued" ?
• Maybe replace The club also reached the semi-finals of the FA Cup during the season, where they faced Sheffield United. with "The club again reached the FA semi-finals, where they faced Sheffield United."
• The tie resulted in four matches being played before either side won. -- I know what you're trying to say here, but I think this should be clarified because not all readers are going to be familiar enough with the FA Cup and British English to make sense of this.
  • I still think this may be confusing to some readers, but I have to think about how best to word this. -- Shudde ^talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Liverpool's wait for their first championship is this their first championship, or do the lower league titles not count?
  • This is how winning the top division is referred to in the UK, simply as winning the championship. So I can understand the confusion, I can try and re word it so its clearer?
    • Yes I think it's worth rewording to avoid any possible ambiguity. -- Shudde ^talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe appropriate links to Association football positions where necessary
• like the previous relegation it was only for one season as they won the Division the following season. -- maybe try rewording this, the close-repetition of "season" is a little jarring.
• The following season four Liverpool players were implicated in the 1915 British football betting scandal. They were found guilty of conspiring with Manchester United players to fix a United win in a league match between the teams and were banned for life. -- I wonder if more could be said on this. Is it as big a deal as it sounds?
  • I wouldn't say it is that a big a deal, but I've added an anecdote and the names of the players. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's definitely worth saying why the players' ban was rescinded. It's also worth noting if their were any long-term repercussions because of this? Was this kind of thing common at the time? -- Shudde ^talk 05:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Done for now. More to come. -- Shudde ^talk 08:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I should have fixed most of these now. Thanks for your time and comments Shudde, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

More comments:

• He would lose his life -- again maybe just "He lost his life ..."
  • He lost his life on 6 May 1895 -- this is clearly an error. -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Should this not read "Such was Watson's popularity amongst his playing staff [that] Raisbeck, Ned Doig" ?
• fourth place the following season, before the club regained the League Championship in the 1921–22 season. Liverpool were favourites to win the league towards the end of the season -- it's the close repetition of season here that is a little off putting. Could it be reworded?
• However, a 4–1 victory over West Bromwich Albion was enough to secure Liverpool's third League Championship. -- Because of the previous sentence it may be worth stating when in the season this match was played (was it the last game?)
• I've noticed that sometimes you write "League Championship" and at other "league championship". On top of this when you write "championship" by itself sometimes. Should the first letter not just be capitalised in all cases?
• You probably don't need to link Second World War
• , as the club's form declined this seems redundant and can probably be cut
• Despite the increase in, Liverpool could not repeat their earlier success. -- this makes little sense
  • Despite the increase in spectators, Liverpool could not repeat their earlier success -- (Italics are mine). It makes more sense now, however I'm not sure what an increase in attendance is expected to do to help a team's form. This implies that their form should improve with more spectators, and I don't quite get that. -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• McQueen was unable to replicate his early success at the club and he retired in 1928 after his leg was amputated following a road accident, while he had been on a scouting assignment. -- not sure about the grammar here, it reads a bit funny
• McQueen was replaced as manager by George Patterson. -- Can more be said on why he was selected for the job?
• The Second World War brought about the loss of seven seasons to competitive league football in England. -- Again I'm not sure this makes sense. How about "League football in England was suspended for seven seasons due to the Second World War."
• The first game played at Anfield after the war was against Middlesbrough -- Again it might be worth mentioning the date of the match here -- considering football was suspended for so long and all.
• Their form declined towards the end of the season as they progressed further in the FA Cup, by the time they faced Everton in the semi-finals, they were out of contention and eventually finished 8th. -- This could do with a reword. It could be read to imply they finished 8th in the FA Cup even though I know that's not what you mean.
  • This is better but still a bit odd. Their League form declined, but they kept advancing in the FA Cup? -- Shudde ^talk 05:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this now, should be clearer they are separate competitions. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

*There are still duplicate links. There is tool to help with dup links (User:Ucucha/duplinks) that I recommend. Comments on the lead:

• through their first period of success -- maybe say when this was (I just read the article and I'm not 100% sure)
• You mention that Houlding owned Anfield in the lead but not in the main text. I'd add it in the main text, it'll help address a comment I had above
• I think the lead could do with a bit of an expansion. Mainly about the period 1914-1945. At the moment there is only two very short sentences on this period.

I am not really qualified to probe too much into whether this article meets the comprehensiveness criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. But there are a few things that I think could be expanded upon.

• Obviously some football was suspended due to the World Wars. Was this all football? What did this mean for the finances of the club? What happened to the professional players? The coaches? the staff? They all had to make a living right?
  • Again, very little of this is documented, I know player and future manager Bob Paisley fought in the war and that Liverpool won a few of the wartime competitions, I can try and work this in somehow? However, detail is scarce, so it may not be much. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a little bit out there ([67] for example, which looks like a reliable source to me). There were regional War Leagues -- did Liverpool play in any of these? Did any players serve in the "football battalion" [68] ? -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• On top of that, did any of the players or former players fight in either war? Were any killed?
  • As above, players did fight in the war, none were killed in the First World War I believe and seems to be the case for WWII aswell. One of the players found guilty in the 1915 betting scandal was killed during the war. Despite the fact he played for Manchester United I've added this detail. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I did find some information on the Second World War without much trouble (or books). Did Liverpool play in the Wartime League? According to [69] 76 players and staff enlisted during the Second World War. Also finding snipets of information at google books [70]. -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• It seems to me that managers were appointed for quite a long time. In fact many seem to have resigned for one reason or another (rather than being fired). I think more could be said on some of them considering how long they were in the role.
• On that point, did the nature of their role change at all over those 67 years?
  • I don't think the role changed too much during those 67 years, I think the appointment of Shankly in 1959, signalled a change, but other than that, I don't think it changed during this period. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Very little is ever mentioned about the financial state of the team. Can anything be added on this?
  • Going through my books, there is next to nothing about the finances of the club. I don't think the financial state of the club was as important historically as it is today. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I obviously don't have access to the resources that you do, but I did find [71]. I imagine finances were still an important consideration for the club. -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Another question -- ownership. This isn't mentioned other than Houlding -- but surely it changed during those seven decades? -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think I'm done now. I may need to check some of the references and images, but as far as prose goes, I don't have anything more to say. Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 00:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again Shudde, I've had a go at most of these now and they should be fixed. I'm going to the Netherlands for 5 days tomorrow, so I won't be able to do anything in that time. I've left the expansion you've suggested for the moment as I will look into that once I return. NapHit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have struck the comments that have been addressed. A few still need work, and I have added further comments where I think it's helpful. It's no rush, but do ping me if you address them further or have any questions. -- Shudde ^talk 06:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at these comments @Shudde: and have addressed your comments about where you felt expansion could be made. Thanks again for the comments. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I would expect there to be more information out there on some of those points I raised, but I don't have time to address your replies for a few days. I'll get on to it early next week. Sorry for the delay. -- Shudde ^talk 11:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty happy with prose now, but I do have a few concerns regarding comprehensiveness. Seems there are a few gaps that need filling. But it's very hard for me to be sure as I'm not an expert. -- Shudde ^talk 04:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments Shudde, really appreciate your review here. I've added more detail about finances and ownership, I'm going to try and address the rest of your concerns tomorrow. Hopefully we're not too far off now! NapHit (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i've added more information now in regards to wartime, ownership of the club, managers and the finances. Let me know if you feel there is anything still missing. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for those edits. I think the information you've added has definitely addressed my concerns. I'm pretty happy to Support now. -- Shudde ^talk 05:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I didn't spot an image-licensing check or source review for formatting/reliability, you can request them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added it to the list now. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

While we're waiting for a source review, it's expected that each paragraph in a featured article should end with a citation; third para of Consolidation and second para of Inter-war years don't at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Must of slipped through the net, during the review. Fixed it now, thanks Ian. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment (images need work) -- not a complete in-depth check, but make sure that every image contains source and author information (as detailed as possible) - they should all have a detailed "Summary" and a "Licensing" section. Several images lack author details or have extremely short and vague source info. Anonymous images like the lead image need a "reasonable enquiry" for authors and a brief description of this research in the author field (see UK tag). Source information like just "LFC" should be expanded whereever possible (where exactly was that image published and found?). I sympathize, it can be difficult to obtain such details for old photos (especially when you are not the uploader), but several of the source and author details are too thin to do a qualified copyright check. On a more positive note, most or maybe all of the images are likely PD - it's just not possible to ascertain that status based on the current info. 2 more tips: If you don't know a detail for sure, you can also add your best educated guess ("probably ...") - any information is better than none. If an author is unknown, add "unknown" in the author parameter (ideally with some background information about your research). Plan B: consider replacing some of the images with better documented files. GermanJoe (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @GermanJoe:, I've had a go at updating the images and have found sources for almost all of them. I removed one that I couldn't find a source for and have included one from the commons that is fine. hope that improves things. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD, CC)

• All PD-files have active source links, authors are "unknown" (due to a age of 70-100+ years) - OK.
• I changed the other 2 PD-files to "UK unknown" and "US 1923"/"US" as well. Considering the evidence, that licensing should be (slightly) better.

Of course the source and publication info is still quite thin, but for such old photos it should be sufficient. GermanJoe (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks not carried out
• F/n 26: I believe the publisher of this website is the National Football Museum
• Inconsistency in providing publisher locations. Show all, or none.

Otherwise, no issues with sources.

Finally, on a point not related to sources: the hatnote at the top of the article refers to History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959) and History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present). But there is another WP article, History of Liverpool FC which, dreadful though it is, is what anyone googling "History Liverpool FC" is guided to. In my view, the content of that article should be deleted, and replaced with simple links to this, the pre-1959 and the post-1985 articles. At present, there is every chance that yours and the other two articles will be entirely missed in an internet search. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the spotchecks Brian, they have been addressed. This has been mentioned by a few editors now at the talk page and I have to say I agree. I think I'll be bold and introduce the changes you and others have suggested. NapHit (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Further comment: The lead and text say that Liverpool's first match was against Rotherham Town in the Lancashire League. Rotherham is in Yorkshire, not Lancashire and, more to the point, Rotherham Town played in the Midland League; indeed, they were its champions in 1891–92 and 1892–93 – see here. According to the LFC official website, that first match against Rotherham was a friendly, which seems much more feasible. I recommend you amend the text accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Good spot, not sure how I missed that one. It has been amended now. Thanks Brian. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Leaning to support: The article has undoubtedly benefitted from its long sojourn at FAC, but I would like to give it a general copyedit and tidying before committing myself to full support. Coordinators, please indulge for a further couple of days! Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Later: I have carried out a copyedit, which incorporates many of the points raised by Mattythewhite, below, who began his review while I was still working on the text. As I suspect he knows much more about football than I do, I suggest his comments are looked at carefully, although some will have been superseded by my alterations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem Brian, thank you for taking the time to copyedit the article, I greatly appreciate it. I've let Matty know that most of his points should be addressed. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mattythewhite Lead "following the resignation of": shouldn't this be resignations, as suggested above? Shouldn't Football League First Division be piped to just First Division? Should Championship be capitalised? Considering the context, I'd have thought it is a common noun and should therefore be lower case. "the club won further League Championship": plural so should be Championships. "increased the Anfield stadium's capacity": you've already mentioned that Anfield is a stadium, do readers need reminding here? Per Wiktionary, midtable is preferred to mid-table. "Liverpool became League Championship again": needs rewording. Formation "to a ground owned" -> "a ground owned". "The Football League": shouldn't "The" be lower case? "Unfortunately, theft of the league and cup trophies": I think I'd start this sentence with however, as unfortunately is a little POV. "first goal in league": Shouldn't league be capitalised, as you're referring to the Football League here? "Test Match" doesn't need capitalising, and I'm not sure we need the quotation marks either. "Their stay in the division lasted": to me, the wording of this sentence implies they were relegated by finishing bottom, but as the following sentence explains they were relegated after the test match. I'd suggest rewording it. Consolidation "promotion to the First Division in 1896": could you refer to the season here, for consistency? "followed by success in the play-offs": you mean the test matches, right? "semi-finals" -> "semi-final". "the first replay in Bolton": do you know what ground the match was played at? "which Sheffield won 1–0": should be Sheffield United, as they're never referred to as just Sheffield. "as they won the Division": I'm not sure about division being capitalised on its own. I'd either change it to lower case or write Second Division. "famous hill": Spion Kop (mountain) would be a more appropriate wikilink. "a local regiment had suffered heavy losses": wikilink this to Battle of Spion Kop. "many of them from Liverpool: wikilink to Liverpool. Is there really nothing to say about the 1910–13 period? "first FA Cup final, which they lost 1–0 to Burnley": is it worth mentioning where the match was played? Inter-war years "lost his life": isn't this a euphemism? "due to a desire": I'd cut this out. "His replacement, Director and former Liverpool player Matt McQueen": Director doesn't need capitalising. "age of their side": pedantic, but a side doesn't have an age. Replace with players. "They entered the 1923–24 season aiming to win a hat-trick of league titles. Yet they could only finish a disappointing 12th": I'd merge these sentences. "some football grounds": take out football, I think that goes without saying. "West Ham" -> "West Ham United". Decline "players weight": apostrophe missing. "The season had started well as the club was unbeaten" -> "The season had started well as Liverpool were unbeaten". "8th" -> eighth. "third round by Norwich City who were in the Third Division": perhaps shorten to "third round by Norwich City of the Third Division"? "During this season the club suffered the biggest defeat in its history, when they lost 9–1 ": mix of plural and singular in this sentence. "but their form began to tail off" -> "but their form tailed off". Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the comments @Mattythewhite:, I think a combination of Brian's alterations and mine should have fixed all these points. Let me know if there is anything that you feel is not right. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC) Comments from Mattythewhite I'm a little concerned about the balance of the lead. There's a four-sentence paragraph for a two-year period, a four-sentence paragraph for a 27-year period, and a four-sentence paragraph for a 39-year period. I'm not sure about the best way to tackle this. I've taken a bit off the first para and extended the second one a bit. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) After the sentence starting "They finished in second place behind Aston Villa", we move straight from 1910 to 1914. Is there nothing to say about this period? Added a bit about the club's best finish during that period. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "The following year, 61,905 spectators watched Liverpool beat Wolverhampton Wanderers 2–1 in the fourth round of the FA Cup": the reference does not give the scoreline. It also says the match was in the fifth round, whereas 1951–52 FA Cup states it was in the fourth round. I'd use RSSSF to cite the scoreline and the round. Done NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) "Liverpool's first season in the Second Division in 1954–55": this sentence is unsourced. Added a ref NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Referencing in general: a lot of sentences do not have citations, so I'm assuming you're only citing when a paragraph ends or you reach a sentence that requires a different reference (if that makes sense)? After all the chopping and changing of the last few days, I think it would be worthwhile you checking that everything is still properly cited. That makes sense and that is the gist of what I have done referencing wise. I've had a run through and it appears all the references are in their proper places. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks again @Mattythewhite:, I appreciate the time you've taken to review the article and copyedit it. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns. NapHit (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Happy to support as I feel the article now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Crikey, is this still open? Support conditional on reasonably addressing Matty's comments. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: Looks good now, worth rthe wait and effort. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2015 [72].

---

Halifax Explosion

Nominator(s): Resolute, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Halifax Explosion was the largest man-made explosion before the development of nuclear weapons. It was also a key moment in Canadian history, one that is still studied and commemorated to this day. This article has successfully undergone a MilHist A-class review. All comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Minor nits: This is a superb article. I found it completely engrossing, I just didn't want to stop reading it. It's laid out well, reading both logically and chronologically. The only thing I've seen so far... so was anyone ultimately charged for the collision? The article mentions some of the charges being thrown out, and an appeal, but there's no direct statement about the outcomes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Charged yes, convicted no: only Wyatt's charge made it to trial, and "a jury acquitted him in a trial that lasted less than a day" per the Investigation section. Anything you might suggest to make this clearer? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a statement noting that no party was ever convicted of a crime related to the disaster. Resolute 14:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess my concern is the 2nd of the 3 paragraphs, the "correctly predicted" part. It is not clear what this is referring to, as there are several appeals? And why is this mentioned here at all? The appeals are mentioned later, and I think moving this part of the sentance out of here improves the entire para - it's sort of jarring now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm inclined to agree. I've just removed that predicted part for now. Resolute 23:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Excellent article, and I'm leaning heavily to support. A few points to consider first:

Background

• We have Royal Navy first then British Royal Navy second - perhaps move British to the first mention?
• "the European theatre": perhaps add "of war" at the end, just for clarity?
• "to reduce losses transporting goods and soldiers to Europe": to my mind "while transporting", but feel free to disagree

Explosion

• "White-hot shards of iron rained down": I'm not sure "rained down" is encyclopaedic.
• "The shock wave ... was felt as far away as..." The distances are probably understood by Canadians, but some numbers in km and mi would be useful for those of us ignorant of the geography!

Rescue efforts

• FNs72–75 could be bundled here?

Destruction

• "$545 million today": best to put a year date to anchor the inflation calculation.

I have RVed this change. The number in question changes as the data is updated, so someone reading this in 2017 will see the 2017 number, and putting "as of 2015" is decidedly incorrect. I suspect the source text was not examined? SchroCat, comment? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Investigation

• "'street fighter' argumentation": I know exactly what you mean, but I think "street fighter" isn't encyclopaedic, and I'm not sure "argumentation" works, unless it's more common used in Canadian Eng. than I realised.

That's it from me – a fascinating read on a topic I was unaware of before. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, thanks for your comments. I've addressed most of them. I'd prefer not to bundle the references, and I'd really like to keep that "street fighter" quote if possible. I've made a slight change to the wording there - does that work? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – that looks good to me, and I'm happy to support now. Thanks for such an interesting read. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to you for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

An interesting article on a topic on which I previously knew nothing. A few points struck me:

• "Halifax Harbour is one of the world's deepest natural harbours to remain ice-free most of the year." - This sentence jars because I would prefer "which remains", but apart from this, there are hundreds of ports and natural harbours around the world where ice is no problem so the statement is rather pointless.
• "The two main points of departure were on the East Coast at Sydney in Cape Breton ..." - Could add Nova Scotia to clarify where this place is.
• "... German submarines had resulted in a relaxing of regulations." - Perhaps "relaxation".
• You mention that Francis Mackey was an experienced harbour pilot. Is anything known about the experience of William Hayes?

• This came up at the GAN as well - the best we can do given the sources is "many years". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The death toll could have been worse if not for the self-sacrifice" - I would suggest "had it not been for".
• "They also played a role after the blast, with members arriving ..." - I would suggest that "members" is not an appropriate word here.
• "... quickly led to rumours of a second explosion." - Perhaps "that a further explosion might follow" or somesuch.
• "... continued working uninterrupted from the harbour." - Do you mean "at the harbour"?
• "... pulling people from the harbour ..." - Do you mean "from the water"?

• Not just that - there were people in the water but also in wrecked ships at the water's edge, collapsed buildings, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "An estimated $C35 million in damages resulted ($545 million as of 2015)." - The phrase "in damages" is normally used to express a settlement awarded by a court.

• Disagree on this point - it's commonly used in this context. Compare Typhoon Paka, Hurricane Fabian, History of flooding in Canada, etc on-wiki, The Guardian, World Bank etc off. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Nikki. Certainly in Canadian media, "$x in damages" is extremely common when discussing disasters. I've used the same terminology in two other disaster articles I've helped write: 2011 Slave Lake wildfire and 2013 Alberta floods, and there are many historical news articles that use it for other incidents. Resolute 13:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It sounds odd to my British ears, but language changes over time and varies between countries, so I'm happy with your responses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Many people in Halifax at first believed the explosion to be a German attack." - I suggest you add "the result of" to this sentence.
  • Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• "The Halifax North Memorial Library was built beginning in 1964 to commemorate the victims of the explosion." - This sentence needs additional punctuation.
• "MacLennan and MacNeil exploit ..." - This sentence is a bit convoluted and could be split.
  • The prose is of a high quality and I only found these two further minor points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The end of the article seems a bit abrupt, leaving many unanswered questions. The war had another nine months to run. Were other parts of the port sufficiently undamaged to continue shipping supplies and men to Europe? What happened to all the shipping that had previously reported to Halifax before moving on to ports in the US? Where did convoys gather subsequently before crossing the Atlantic? Or do you think these points are beyond the scope of this article, which is specifically about the explosion? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The CBC's educational primer for it doesn't go into great detail, but it does make mention. (last couple paragraphs of page.) So I think this can be added. Unless Nikki beats me to it, I will see what else is available, as I imagine what you are looking for could be added as a paragraph in the Reconstruction section. Resolute 14:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• The paragraph that has been added about the aftermath of the explosion is excellent; I think it is a considerable improvement to the article and I now Support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Johnbod

• Seems good, and more later, but it should mention Harold Gilman's large painting in Ottawa, which was commissioned as a memorial. Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Added, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – Brilliant article, I enjoyed reading it. I couldn't really detect any problem. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment—I probably won't have time to read the whole article, so I'll never get around to supporting (overall it looks good though). However, I do feel that the introductory sentence is rather insufficient in summing up what the article is about. That is to say, it only says when the Halifax Explosion occurred, not what it even is. Perhaps fitting in a brief "was a (maritime) disaster that occurred" in there will do the trick? The Wikipedian Penguin 21:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Done this, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - I read through top to bottom without stopping, found it a fascinating story, no prose glitches to make me stop, just really well done imo. Maybe I like explosions? Who knows. On the trivia side, I always wondered why Boston's Christmas trees came from there. Also, I looked at all the images: each is nicely and appropriately licensed (for a cheap & nasty IR). Well done! Victoria (tk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers! Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. A few quibbles:

• Lead
  • Is it really helpful to link "fire"?
• Disaster
  • See the MoS – we don't link the names of major geographic features and locations, which would include the Netherlands, New York and Belgium. (For my part, I don't think we want links to "blizzard" and "Christmas tree" later in the article, but I don't press the point.)
  • "She intended" – is it customary to attribute intentions to the ship itself rather than its owners/officers? (Question asked from pure ignorance.)
• Collision and fire
  • "propellor" – perhaps a WP:ENGVAR thing, but the OED, Chambers Dictionary and Collins Dictionary all spell the word "propeller"
  • "Towing two scows" – a link to scow would be helpful here, I think.
• Bibliography
  • Is having this header one level down from that of "Footnotes" intentional?
  • At FAC level perhaps we should comply with WP:ISBN and standardise on 13-digit ISBNs with hyphens. At present we have a mixture. WorldCat and the ISBN converter make this a simple job.

That's all from me. This impressive article meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 11:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I delinked all those words, added the link to scow. It appears that "propellor" is a valid alternate spelling, albeit less used. On the "she intended" piece, it may be a bit of a colloquialism, but the phrase would be used to indicate a decision was made on ship, but we don't necessarily know by who. I'll try to come back to the ISBN bit, but the converter tool seems to be taking the existing ISBN13 numbers and converting back to 10 rather than give me the proper hyphen spaces - which to my understanding are essentially random anyway. Thanks for the feedback and support! Resolute 14:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the ISBNs. Tim riley talk 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties, I copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and after checking changes made since then I see no reason not to support here.

• Image review -- no new images since I checked licensing at ACR, and the one minor issue raised then was resolved.
• Source review -- all footnote, bibliography, further reading and external links work; formatting generally looks fine and none of the sources appear problematic, but:
  • Per Tim, I'd have thought the Bibliography heading could go up a level.
  • You seem to eschew retrieval dates for web sources that have a publication date but compare FN93 with FN101 -- both Canadian Encyclopedia with publication dates but one has a retrieval date and the other doesn't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I've fixed these. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2015 [73].

---

No. 450 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the first fighter squadron raised by Australia under the Empire Air Training Scheme during World War II, and Rupert and I hope to make it the first such article in WP to achieve FA-Class. Operating P-40 Kittyhawk fighter-bombers, No. 450 Squadron saw action in North Africa and Italy before its disbandment at war's end. In the former theatre it earned its nickname of The Desert Harassers thanks to none other than Lord Haw-Haw. The article history and talk page speak to the number of people who've helped get it to this stage, and we thank them all, along with our Milhist A-Class reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Well done. Very few comments.

History

• This seems to be something of a sandwich of material related to No. 450 on either side of a fair amount of background. Would it be feasible to bring the 450 material together?
  • Fair enough, have started with 450 and then moved onto EATS, but it could be the other way round if that seems like it would work better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Middle East

• "the troopship Queen Elizabeth" granted, but would it be possible to note that she was a converted passenger liner?
  • Can you suggest how you'd put it, as it might be a mouthful to get "troopship" and "converted passenger liner" in there together? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• "Rommel" should probably be linked.
  • Nicely spotted, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Europe

• "which dropped incendiary, anti-personnel and high explosive bombs, for more than an hour. " Not sure the final comma is really needed.
  • Agree, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• "Because the personnel camp had been placed some distance from the operations facilities, " this strikes me as unnecessarily jargony.
  • Had a go, let me know if you think it can be improved further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• "became covered with seawater" in other words flooded. See above comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)
  • Agree, done -- tks for your review/support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:450SqnRAAFCrest.png: bit confused here. You've got an older, black-and-white version of this badge which is claimed as PD - when did the design change? Its overall appearance is quite similar. Also, source link is dead
  • Tks for reviewing the images, Nikki. Boy, that one didn't take long to go dead -- anyway, Rupert's updated with an archived link now. Re. design change (or more exactly going from rough design to 'official' design) I don't know, so I opted for for the usual FUR for crests on the latter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• File:No._450_Sqn_RAAF_Ops_Tent_1942.jpg: am I correct that this is the first publication of this image? If so, the given licensing is not correct. See Works created but not published. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I think the Australian PD notice is still correct because it was taken before 1955, so I guess you mean the issue is satisfying all three PD-1996 clauses? Correct, this would be the first publication, so what licensing would you suggest? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • It's an interesting case in that the Australian notice is correct, but despite the fact that this would have been PD in Australia before the URAA date the American copyright is still problematic. The easiest solution would be to find out who holds the copyright. If we don't know who owns the copyright, or if the copyright holder is not you and did not die over 70 years ago, quite likely we can't use the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Well I own the photo through right of inheritance but I can't say with any certainty who took the photo, so though he might well have died 70+ years ago given the vicissitudes of war, we can't say that for certain. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • American copyright is not problematic. It was in the PD in Australia before 1996, so is PDF in the US under URAA. It meets all three of the URAA criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Not the second, as it is a previously unpublished work - see Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Unpublished_works. Since this is its first publication, we can consider it to have been first published in the US after 2002, so URAA does not apply - life+70 would. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Well if we have to remove the picture so as not to hold up the review's progress, then so be it. OTOH if you have advice on how we might best be able to use it under a different licence them I'm all ears, otherwise I guess I'll just be donating it to the Australian War Memorial... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
              • I've removed the image for now at least to expedite things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • I reviewed at ACR so am comfortable with its content and prose etc. Regardless, I've looked over the changes since then and couldn't see any errors or typos that might have crept in, and re-read the article in case I spotted anything I didn't see the first time.
  • Ref spotchecks:
    • I completed reference spot checks on Barnes, Eather, RAAF Historical Section, Gillison and Herington (both 1954 and 1963), as I have access to these in my collection. All references to these works seem to support the information as presented without any issues of close paraphrasing that I could see.
    • I added an archiveurl via the Wayback Machine for the AWM squadron page here [74] as the page that was used in 2013 when this article was first written now seems to have been reworked by the AWM and didn't include some of the information used anymore (specifically squadron casualties of 63 killed etc). The archive link provides a version of the page which does support this information now.
  • Otherwise fine in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Many tks AC -- the AWM has changed the links to the official histories as well (must be about that time of year!) so updated those too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• Probably worth footnoting the attribution of the crest design in that caption
  • Added a citation to the AWM website. Please let me know if I misunderstood. Thank you for taking a look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• Per WP:LAYOUT, Further reading should be its own level-2 section. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Adjusted. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks Nikki/Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 [75].

---

Stanley Price Weir

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first commanding officer of the 10th Battalion of the 1st Australian Imperial Force, the first battalion of that force raised wholly from South Australia. He commanded the battalion at the Landing at ANZAC, at the Battles of Pozières and Mouquet Farm, and only requested relief when he was one of the oldest commanding officers of the original Australian force. He was relieved at the age of 50, and returned to South Australia to lead the public service before retiring as a brigadier general. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment/Weak oppose I'm a bit uncomfortable with documentation of the lead image:
  1. The fact that it is cropped from the original is not mentioned, nor is the original source uploaded and linked to. Indeed, given {{CSS image crop}}, I'm not quite sure we need an uploaded cropped image in the first place. A CSS-cropped image has the advantage of directly linking to the full image. That, however, is a highly technical solution, so having a crop is fine, but not an undocumented, "secret" crop.
  2. It seems strange to crop it, quite tightly, no less then immediately surround it with copious white space. A more generous crop would make the infobox look far less strange.

The other two images are fine. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Uploaded an uncropped original. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Alright, that deals with that. Image check passed. Thank you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually.. hold that for one moment. Let me check something: Australian photographs prior to 1955 are out of copyright, and he died in 1944, right? So what's preventing use of the rather more detailed image at http://discoveringanzacs.naa.gov.au/browse/person/355598 ? It's a nice, big image, and I honestly can't figure out any way it could be in copyright barring some strange rule. @Crisco 1492: you see any issue with that being {{PD-Australia}} / {{PD-1996}}? For that matter, any reason we couldn't grab his official record from the same link? The Governmental copyright expired 50 years after its creation, and, as Price died in 1944, his copyright expired in 1995 - (see commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Government-produced_works and the section below - the increase to 70 years was not retrospective) so URAA is perfectly fine. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I'll wait for confirmation from Crisco before substituting. Cheers for the find! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
          • G'day @Crisco 1492: do you have a view? Just wanted to check before actioning the above suggestion. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I didn't receive the ping last time. Adam's right: Australian copyright for photographs taken before 1955 does not require a publication before 1955. That the images were (obviously) created in 1944 or earlier means all photographs of the individual are free under Australian copyright laws. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Thanks, Chris! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Adam Cuerden, could you have a look at the licensing I've used here and tell me if it ok? Once it is renamed, I will replace the pic in the infobox. Thanks for your help here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox pic replaced with the one suggested above, using PD-AustPD-URAA licenses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- just a placeholder for now, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and plan to recuse my coord duties and look it over here, but would like to give others a chance first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2015‎ (UTC)

• Rather than check changes since I lasted edited/reviewed at ACR, I looked at the article afresh from top to bottom, and just tweaked the odd thing. I think it's only improved since ACR and am happy to support.
• The only minor thing I'd raise is that, although the new infobox portrait is excellent, the original picture was interesting in its own way and I'm a bit sorry to lose it entirely -- I wonder if it could fit under the Westert Front heading, though I realise that's not strictly chronological. Just a thought. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• How are you ordering References?
• The Advertiser ref needs some format changes - the publication title is not the author, and the first parenthetical should be omitted
• Similarly, AWM cannot be all three of author, work, and publisher - it's definitely not author, so pick one of the latter two
• ADB is the work not the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikki, I'm on it. Will ping when done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria all done I think... Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • All good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this at ACR and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. I made a few additions, though, so please check that you are happy with these and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• All good. Thanks, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • I was a little unsure about this: "making him the first South Australian to be commissioned in the AIF. He was also made an honorary colonel..." Specifically I'm confused by the honorary colonel part. Does this refer to the honorary colonel appointment he received for the 10th Battalion post war which you mention later in the article also? Given that this info appears in a paragraph starting with "On 12 August 1914" I tend to interpret the paragraph as saying the honorary colonel appointment occurred around this time also and therefore that it relates to something other than the 1921 appointment but I'm unsure and couldn't really envision why or how this would occur (honorary colonel of the battalion at the same time he was also its CO, was that common or even possible? I guess he could have been honorary colonel of the AIF unit in 1914, and then in 1921 the CMF unit which carried on the lineage of that unit so perhaps it does make sense). I'll admit I'm no expert on how this system worked at the time (and the lineage of the Australian Army at this time is also fairly confusing), but it just doesn't sound right to me and I wonder if it is actually referring to the 1921 appointment instead and that its just the proximity to the statement about 1914 and its appearance in the World War I section that is making it sound like it occurred then (to me). If that is the case I would suggest only mentioning it once (retain the later instance for chronology would probably be best). At any rate could this pls be clarified (at least here)?
    • I admit it is a bit quizzical. Lock says "He immediately accepted same (command of the 10th Bn), and on August 17, 1914, was appointed a lieutenant colonel in the A.I.F., and subsequently was made an honorary colonel." Now, I take this to mean that he was an honorary colonel in the CMF while serving as a lieutenant colonel in the AIF. I think this implies he could not hold a substantive position in both forces at the same time, but retained the level of his former substantive rank in the CMF (on an honorary basis) while serving in the AIF. Given he returned to the CMF as a colonel, that sort of makes sense. The Honorary Colonel of the 10th Battalion is the position we are familiar with, almost like a patron. My thinking is that the earlier "honorary colonel" was a rank only, not a formal position in a regiment or unit. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the ADB volume should be included in the citation (i.e. volume 12) and the location of publication? Come to think of it I'd even suggest using the {{cite book}} template for this one but its obviously a judgement call (suggestion only - up to you, I can see why you have made the choice of cite web etc here).
    • Volume and loc added.
  • This caption seems a bit "wooden" or "rigid" as a result of using his full name: "The grave of Stanley Price Weir at West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide, South Australia." Might the same not be achieved with something like: "Weir's grave at West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide, South Australia..."?
    • Good suggestion. Done.
  • Otherwise fine. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Anotherclown have adopted the suggestions, and tried to address the query. Interested in a better way to explain the honorary colonel, Honorary Colonel dealio. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Gday, your thinking may well be correct (i.e. LTCOL in the AIF, but retained his rank of full COL in the CMF) so not what we understand by the term "Honorary Colonel" (i.e. position of patronage). If there is a source which says it in those terms I'd ditch the term "honorary colonel" in the first instance and word it like that. If there is no source and the only one you have uses "honorary colonel" I'd almost consider just deleting it altogether as it is a loaded term that seems to be being misused by the source. Its a minor point though so I'm happy to leave it up to you. Hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
        • This is now addressed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks for this PM (and AR), that looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: I think this one is very close to being over the line. Can I have approval to nominate a new FAC while the wheels turn? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• As I'd always planned to recuse and review here (and have done now) I'll leave this to Andy or Graham. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2015 [76].

---

Jeremy Thorpe

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thorpe was the most talked-about politician in England 40 years ago, for all the wrong reasons – see Thorpe affair for details. Last December he died, and a new biography came out – publication had been delayed for fear of libel laws. I've used this new material to expand Thorpe's biographical WP article, and provide a fuller account of his life. I suppose, however, that what will always remain most prominent in readers' minds are the sensational events that finished his career prematurely. Comments are welcomed.

Support. I was a traveller through PR, where my minor concerns were happily dealt with. Since then the article has improved further and more than meets the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – having (as a young, very junior official) encountered and liked Thorpe in the early 1970s, I found this a painful article, but it seems to me to present the known facts fairly and without undue sensationalism. Widely sourced, fully cited and with good pictures. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Support—never met the Dog Terminator meself, despite going to school right next to Lib-Dem HQ, but I did very much enjoy reading Brian's recent piece about the Thorpe affair and Bomber's unfortunate downfall. I read through this biography a couple of times and had my say at PR (a seizure on an assault course, indeed). The article is of FA standard in my view regarding prose quality, sourcing etc and I have no qualms about supporting its promotion. —  Cliftonian (talk)  00:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support – Tim will curse me for saying this, but I don't remember Thorpe in the 1970s (not so much as an itch in dad's pants then), nor do I remember reading about him when I eventually did come along in the 1980s. Either I'm too young or too stupid; or perhaps both? Anyway, what I have read here has certainly educated me on about a man whose glowing career sadly ended in scandal as a result of his own promiscuity. An excellent account and one I'm happy to support to FA status. Cassianto^Talk 10:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I had my say at the peer review and my concerns were answered. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• There's little for me to do here at the moment, apart from thanking the above supporters, all of whom made significant contributions to the peer review, here. Their comments and suggestions were, as usual, of great benefit to the article. Thanks, also, to Nikkimaria for her image review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support I knew nothing about Thorpe until I read the article but I found it the article a comprehensive and interesting account of his life. Personally, I feel for what happened to him after he was acquitted. I only spotted one minor nitpick. Z105space (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Pompfret is linked to the type of fish and not to the town in Connecticut.

So it was, and many thanks for spotting this. I have corrected it. Thanks, too for your comment and support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support. I can find very little to object to here, and certainly nothing substantively affecting promotion. However, because I'm obligated to pick nits in reference formatting for any FAC review: all ISBNs should be presented as properly-formatted ISBN-13s. ISBN-10s can be converted to ISBN-13s with this handy tool, which I strongly encourage all FA-bound editors to bookmark. The Partington source needs an ISBN added, likely along with an edition number (the absence of which prevents me from determining the ISBN for you). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have that tool. Unfortunately, every time I type in a 10-digit isbn it tells me that the number is incorrect, even when it is manifestly not, so I've given up on it. Fortunately, I've been able to find the 13-digit versions from WorldCat or ABE. I've never understood why the 10-digit version is deemed unacceptable, apart from the desire for uniformity – reason enough, I suppose. I've found the Partington isbn. Many thanks for your zeal, and for your support here, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• Spot checks done on online sources only; no problems found.
• The false titles (using the semi colon) is frowned upon: best to go for sub-sections as titles;
• FNs 76 & 120 is inconsistent (three digits on the second page number);
• FN 129: we should probably include the journalist's name here;
• For those sources from behind database protection (FNs 129, 130, 187 and possibly others), it's probably best to add the {{subscription}} template;
• It is not compulsory, but it may be a good idea to archive the web pages to protect against link rot; this is one of the possible archive sites. (Let me know if you want me to do this).

That's it from the sources side: ping me if I haven't been clear on any of this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2015 [77].

---

Master of Puppets

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, acclaimed effort by both critics and fans. I think it meets the FA criteria and hope to receive positive feedback.--Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury Markowitz

Support: Left my comments two rounds ago, has only improved since. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Teh Thrasher

Support: The article is well written, plus Retrohead has put a lot of effort into it.-Teh Thrasher 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff

Support: All of my points have been addressed; good job. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• "The April 2006 edition of Kerrang! was dedicated to the album and offered readers the cover album Master of Puppets: Remastered" - The source is a forum post from an anonymous source stating that the album is coming. Can we get something more substantial here? Also, it looks like the albums were actually given away, not just 'offered'.

Replaced it with Blabbermouth.net and corrected the wording.

• "The album was less successful on international level, entering the top 40 on the German and Swiss album charts in its inaugural year" - on an international level. Also, doesn't the source show top 40 on several other countries as well?

Copyedited it and added other countries.

• I still believe now, as I did during another review, that the second paragraph of 'Commercial performance' belongs under 'Accolades and legacy'. I also think that 'Accolades and legacy' should be a full section,coming after 'Commercial performance'. If this is not clear, I can make the change myself if you want.

Rearranged.

Thank you.

• Source 11, "Ulrich bored Hammett in Metallica's Puppet sessions" is dead.

It seems the website is under reconstruction. Is this appropriate for use?

I fixed it using wayback machine.

• The 'Background and recording' section could use a link to underground music for American underground scene.

Linked.

• How are you getting the years 2004 and 2008 etc for the international chart peaking from the given source? I can understand certifications happening years later, but chart peaks??

If you click on any flag, you can read the information related to the album in that country. For example, the album peaked number 67 in 2010 in Italy and stayed on the chart for 1 week.

Thanks, its hard to believe, but I guess its true. One more thing: Given the high total sales in Canada, did it ever make the charts there?

Yes, thanks for reminding me. Peaked number 52 in 1988.

• I cannot confirm all the certifications in the table. For example, ARIA shows Death Magnetic, not MoP; New Zealand is a dead link.

I think New Zealand works now. Check number 33, the album is marked as platinum with a silver bar. I removed Australia, it seems MoP is not certified there yet.

BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now File:Metallica - Master of Puppets cover.jpg has an appropriate FUR Ok, noted. The lead should include certifications from Canada, Finland, and UK Included certifications in the "Commercial performance". With all due respect, but I think the international plaques are the least important aspect of the article. It makes the lead look US-centric (not good) to only include commercial performance in America Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) There you go. "Instead of releasing a single or video to promote Master of Puppets" is somewhat misleading since the title track was released as a single. Yes, only in France (noted in "Live performances"), but I don't think that is worth mentioning in the lead. I'd personally go with something like "Instead of focusing on singles or videos" rather than "Instead of releasing a single or video" (this is for both lead and article body) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Ok, I'll add "in the US" to clarify it. File:Metallica (1986) Welcome Home (Sanitarium) sample.ogg is too long per WP:SAMPLE, which says that audio samples should never exceed 30 seconds (or whatever 10% of the song length is, depending on which is shorter). For both that and File:Metallica - Master of Puppets.ogg, I would include the song titles within the captions. Added. You still haven't included "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" in the sample's caption, and its sample still needs to be reduced to 30 seconds or less per WP:SAMPLE Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Check the second sentence. As for the shortening, I'll ask Curly Turkey because he is more handy in that area. Just saw that now. My mistake. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Rick Allen didn't exactly "sever" his arm; he lost it in the car accident Well, Google defines "severed" as "to divide by cutting or slicing, especially suddenly and forcibly" The sound of "he had severed his arm" suggests he cut it off himself, though. Misleading connotation. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Changed it to "lost." Shouldn't an exact date rather than "early 1986" be given in "Commercial performance? Added. Lots of nations mentioned in "charts" are missing for "Commercial performance" section. While you don't necessarily have to go into extensive detail about all of them, they should at least be mentioned within prose. It currently looks incomplete. The Canada, Finland, and UK certifications should also be mentioned here Ok, added all top 30s. It still needs all of the certifications, and there are still missing nations. I'm especially surprised not to see Germany (3rd biggest music market after US and Japan), Norway, Australia, or New Zealand listed since they reached top 40. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Germany, Norway, and Australia positions added, plus the certifications in US, UK, and Canada. I believe Finland is not as big as the music markets listed first. "Between the beginning of the Nielsen SoundScan era in 1991 and 2009, the album has sold 4,578,000 copies"..... if this is saying it sold 4,578,000 copies between 1991 and 2009, then remove the "has". If between 1991 and now, make this more explicit. Something doesn't seem right about its current phrasing. Removed "has" because it's a finished action. Not up to par at the moment, but has potential to become so. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Snuggums, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns.--Retrohead (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC) The only thing left to do is reduce the "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" sample to 30 seconds or less. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Done with that too.--Retrohead (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nergaal

There are a few small issues from my previous review:

• "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot? unless you are an expert in the field this says little. Give some comparison to mainstream music.

220 bpm is a metronomical measure for tempo; I've linked beats per minute to provide the reader further information. Fast and slow are relative terms (depends what you compare). For example, Slayer's "Necrophobic" is 248 bpm, and Metallica's Hit the Lights is about 160 bpm.

I wasn't talking about me. I was pointing out that a reader going through the article would have no idea what 220 bpm means. Consider having a footnote or something that gives a reference point. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, further information is provided at the link.

• "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean? jargon should be at least wikilinked

Linked.

• "1986 is" never start with a number => please show me a couple of FAs with numbers starting a sentence

I've asked Greg Fasolino, who works as a professional copyeditor, and he said there's nothing wrong in starting the sentence with a year. 1986 is not used as a number, but as a year, which counts as a noun.

Even if it is ok, does the sentence have to start with a number? Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You want me to write "Nineteen eighty six is seen as a pinnacle year for thrash metal"?

• accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together => I have a feeling that many of the acknowledges this album received were put together more than a decade after the album came out. this would be worthwhile clarifying in the text because it shows a long-term impact, as opposed to just trendiness of the likes of People's Awards and crap

Well, I can insert years if you insist, but they are already given in the "date" field of the references.

People reading the text wont check for date in the reference. I think giving some sense of when were these accolades given would put the awards in perspective. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo => still think the same. there can be reviews listed in the table that are not discussed in the text

The reviews by Spin, BBC Music, and Popmatters didn't grade the album, therefore they are not in the table.

• how come the certifications list is only 4 entries long? I would have guessed to be much much longer

Expanded.

• "after having been retired for a number of years" => why were "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired?

I assume because Metallica was promoting Load and Reload back in 1995–1997 and had to drop some of the older songs from the setlist.

Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Blastmaster11

This article has defiantly come a long ways now and I salute the work put into it. I noticed though that on several album GA's, such as Aaliyah (album), the Background and the Recording sections are separate. Perhaps the same could be done here? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Could do it, but it would be some five or six sentences into a section, which might give the reader a perception that it's not well researched.--Retrohead (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Borsoka

Upon Retrohead's request I read the article. It is well-written, interesting, neutral and well-researched article which also present media. I hope that it will be presented as a TFA on the main page after its promotion. My lack of knowledge of arts, music and heavy metal albums is the only reason that I do not state that I support its promotion: I cannot decide whether the article is comprehensive. Sorry, for it. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from L1A1 FAL

Overall, seems very well written! In fact, I learned something while reading the article (regarding the Mustaine/Leper Messiah controversy).

• Kind of nitpicking, I know, but I think that the first sentence in the body should be perhaps toned back a bit (re: Kill Em All laying thrash foundations, other bands could arguable make that claim (i.e. Motorhead)), but it is sourced, so I don't see reason to remove it. Only thing for me is, change it to "American" thrash metal... its a little more consistent with the source, and there were earlier pioneers of thrash elsewhere.

• In "Touring", in the first paragraph, the Osbourne stuff seems kind of broken up. Instead of:

" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7]

Maybe it would be better like this:

" The group used to play Black Sabbath riffs during sound checks, which Osbourne perceived as a mockery toward him. Referring to that occasion, Ulrich stated that Metallica was honored to play with Osbourne, who treated the band well on the tour.[7] Metallica was noted by the media for its excessive drinking habit while touring and earned the nickname "Alcoholica".[2] The band members occasionally wore satirical T-shirts reading "Alcoholica/Drank 'Em All".[7] The band usually played a 45-minute set often followed by an encore."

Just seemed like the "Alcoholica" bit kinda broke up the middle of the paragraph there...

I'll probably add a couple more things as I see them, but that's all I got for now. Overall, seems very well written, it explores the background of the subject in-depth and seems to be well-sourced.

Additionally, it appears to meet all featured article criteria. Tenative Support, pending discussion of my commentary above.

--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey L1, thanks for the comments. I've switched the two sentences in "Touring" as you suggested. As for the first note, the second sentence states that "the album revitalized the American underground scene", implying that the first sentence is referring to the American thrash scene. I can add another "American" in the first sentence if you require, but I think it's not that necessary.--Retrohead (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, the American thing... it is probably okay as is. You've done a very good job on this one. I fully support FA for this article--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

Sorry for the long awaited review.. You did a fantastic job with this article and I applaud your hard work! I now support the article's promotion to FA status. Best, jona^(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• What is tempo? Readers who do not know music terminology would not understand, even if its a term that you may believe is universal. A link would suffice.

Linked.

• A lot of repetition of the word "song" (Music and Lyrics) and "album" (Accolades and legacy)

Tried to compensate with "track" and "record".

• Inconsistency with the spelling of beats per minute (see the last paragraph in Music and Lyrics as an example; 220 beats per minute vs 136-bpm)

Corrected, used the full term.

There's still one left in the same sentence. Best, jona^(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Done with the 184 bpm too.--Retrohead (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Coord note

Have I missed image and source reviews? If not, pls request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ian, I beleive Snuggums did the image review. You can also check the previous nomination, where GermanJoe did the image review and nothing was added since. A partial source review was done by Bollyjeff, I think.--Retrohead (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian, I don't think I did a full source review. Actually, I am not really sure what that means. Could you define that or point to the definition? BollyJeff | talk 18:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Check if the sources are reliable, if the links are okay, if the prose doesn not contain something that is not mentioned in the references, if they are properly formatted, etc.--Retrohead (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a citation for the last bit of Reception. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cites added. They were already given in the "Certifications", but regardless, task completed.--Retrohead (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Media check - all OK

• (just for clarity) no image or file changes since 3 May 2015 (diff), all media still OK (see last FAC-nomination for details). GermanJoe (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Niwi3

• Ref 7: You should include the Volume and Issue numbers. These are 2 and 5 respectively. You should also include the page number where you found the information.

Added.

• Ref 27: Same as ref 7. Volume = 2, issue = 4.

Done.

• Ref 29: Instead of citing the Christgau website, you should cite the book Christgau's Record Guide: The 80's, published on October 17, 1990 by Pantheon Books [78]. If you want to keep the URL, use this one istead.

Went with the second option (the url).

• Ref 73: You should wikilink AllMusic to be consistent.

Linked.

• General: I highly recomment you to archive all URLs and move all the refs to the References section. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2015 [79].

---

Mary Margaret O'Reilly

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a woman who rose from the ranks to become the effective head of the Bureau of the Mint for many years, at a time when such things weren't usually accomplished by women. I doubt this will ever get that many hits, but I think it's worthy. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

-- recusing myself from coord duties; I spotted a couple of formatting thingies and then became interested enough to review in earnest...

• When copyediting I tried to get consistency with (non)capitalisation of position titles but I'm open to discussion on them -- even with all the titles I contend with in my military bios I don't think it's always obvious what's best.
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate, and tone is neutral.
• "She was not interviewed when the Mint in 1944 investigated how several 1933 double eagles, never officially released, had come onto the market, an omission Burdette finds unusual." -- is the implication that there may have been some level of corruption, or incompetence?
• Sources appear prima facie reliable to this admitted non-expert, and no major formatting issues leapt out, but looks like you need a "subscription required" caveat for FN16.
• Image licensing looks acceptable to me.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Her successor, Howard, actually became somewhat notorious (and remains in bad repute among numismatists who care about that sort of thing) because he confiscated those 1933 double eagles. Why he would not talk to O'Reilly about it, given that she might know stuff, is a bit unclear. I guess incompetence, but we really don't know. Burdette is not very illuminating on this point, but as he was an expert witness for the defense in the trial about the ten 1933 double eagles a few years back, I'm inclined to take his word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Just pinging Ian Rose to see if my replies and changes were satisfactory.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my tardiness in checking back -- I just tweaked some formatting and I think it's all cool now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Looking forward to seeing this one on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Images

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Preceded by  position created – this is probably not needed, given that the infobox already shows that she was the 1st Assistant Director
• Religion  Catholic is in the infobox, but not in the article prose (also not referenced)

I felt her work for Catholic charities established she was Catholic.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's seem a rather weak link – and WP:OR, if not directly supported by the sources. - Evad37 [talk] 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Religion cut. (although it is hard to imagine an Irish Protestant working for Catholic Charities).--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph of the lead, "she" is used three times in a row – suggest chaning one to O'Reilly
• attended night school to get training as – get doesn't sound right in this context, suggest "to train as"
• numismatics – link on first use (numismatic author Roger Burdette) rather then second (letters to numismatists)
• ''.., but numismatic author Roger Burdette, in his account of pioneering female Mint officials, does not mention this. – suggest rewording to ".., but numismatic author Roger Burdette does not mention this in his account of pioneering female Mint officials." to avoid having so many commas in that sentence
• She was called upon to testify frequently before Congress. might read better as "She was frequently called upon to testify before Congress."
• What does 1931-S mean?
• her frequent role as Acting Mint Director – positions should be lower-case when used generically, per MOS:JOBTITLES

This is one where that is difficult. I conform to the literature in capitalizing Mint, when referred to as a bureau. It's kind of difficult to go lower case surrounding that. Open to suggestions.

Capitalising Mint is fine (proper noun), but even so, the positions are common names per the MOS – with the French president given as an example, so similarly we should perhaps have "Mint director" instead of "Mint Director" (when not followed by a person's name to form a title, or to refer to a specific director as a substitute for their name).

As for the acting position, if "acting Mint director" doesn't suit, there are alternative wordings – "acting director of the Mint", as in the lead, or perhaps just "acting director", if there'e enough context in the rest of the sentence.

Perhaps Ian Rose might like to comment, given that he mentioned the issue above. - Evad37 [talk] 09:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've massaged it a bit. How is it now?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks fine now - Evad37 [talk] 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bit late responding to ping, looks like we're all good anyway... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• FDR's – per WP:MOS#Abbreviations, 'write out both the full version and the abbreviation at first occurrence'
• no facilities to accept anything other than gold bars with a government stamp. – should "anything" be "any gold"? This currently implies that the Fed dealt exclusively in gold.
• Hoover administration – link?
• Note b. should probably have a reference

Looking good otherwise - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Except for the one noted above, I think that's everything. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved issues struck, see reply and remaining comments above - Evad37 [talk] 05:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support - Evad37 [talk] 14:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Support

A few prose quibbles:

• Lead

• "She was known as the "sweetheart of the Treasury". Was she widely known as this, or was this just the NYT's description of her?

• The Times said that is how she was known.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Early life and career

• Perhaps be a bit less oblique concerning the fate of the liquor business. Was it closed down after Austin O'Reilly's conviction – and what precisely was he convicted of?

• Rise to prominence

• "According to Teva J. Scheer, biographer of Nellie Tayloe Ross, O'Reilly's final Mint Director before retirement..." – I found the weight of three introductory clauses a little stifling. Could this intro be rendered a little more fluently?

• I've put the last clause into parentheses. Hard to do much else.

• Assistant director

• "Von Engelken during his six-month term as director in 1916 and 1917 left almost all supervision of the mints and assay offices to O'Reilly." What happened to Chafflin?

• He died on a westbound train in around 1935. Oh, you mean then. Chafflin was an accountant, basically. There always had to be an acting director in Washington and (in Philadelphia) superintendent, and Chafflin filled in repeatedly. O'Reilly was much more involved in day-to-day administration.

• "The new director had little interest in Mint operations, and O'Reilly not only supervised the bureau's operations..." Close repetition of "operations"
• "effective in 1924" → "effective from 1924", surely?
• "traumatized", which suggests a state of shock, seems a little strong to describe the country's postwar mood in 1921.

• Changed, though the language is a borrow from Peace dollar.

• Roosevelt administration and retirement

• "This left O'Reilly as acting director". Not really; you've just referred to the "usual division of labour" that left Assistant Director O'Reilly in day-to-day charge. Unless you're now saying that O'Reilly assumed a policy-making role at this time?

• There always had to be an acting director in Washington if the director was yet to be appointed, traveling, or, I imagine, home sick with the flu. I'll make it clearer. That does not mean she made policy, outside the clear emergency like the Peace dollar.

• Retirement and death

• "Never having married, O'Reilly died on December 6, 1949..." Slightly awkward, sounds as though her unmarried state caused her death. You could flip the sentence: "O'Reilly died on December 6, 1949 in Washington, never having married."

Other than these points, a neat complete job. A sources review is on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 1 subscription required
• Ref 3: is there a page refce for this source?
• Ref 16: subscription required

Apart from these matters, sources are of appropriate quality and are correctly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for both reviews and your comments and kind words. I think I've caught everything now.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a need for something further on this nomination? It seems to have the conventional number of supports and things checked.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Support by Gerda

I met the article in DYK review and appreciate its clear layout, with attention to detail in image placement and concise TOC, also the irony of "with many of the directors under whom she served having little knowledge of or interest in the bureau's operations". Minor points, in no way in the way of this being FA quality:

• I wonder if her possible move to New Orleans might be mentioned before her Mint career.
• I could imagine the quote "it must have required an almost unprecedented combination of drive and intelligence for [O'Reilly] to have climbed so far up through the organization in her male-dominated work environment" in the lead.

I enjoy the irony of the last statement also ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and kind words. I'm not sure about the lede containing the quote, but I've made the focus on her advancement, rather than the male ranks, in the lede. The whole quote I think, would be difficult to include. I should add that the Mint was always in the forefront of women in the workforce; our Franklin Peale article reveals it was the first to employ women for wages for jobs with defined duties, and Margaret Kelly rose very high as well. So without doubt she was very talented indeed, but what she did was not unique. In fact, since Nellie Ross, most Mint Directors have been women. So she was at a place where her talents would be recognized, not resented and suppressed.

As for New Orleans, I think there is so much doubt that she moved there (it is only mentioned in The New York Times that I don't see the point of moving it earlier when I do not feel it's very likely. It would be unusual for a Northern woman to move to a Southern city at that time, unless there are facts we don't know like friends there. The only reasons I mention it at all is a) The NYT should be taken seriously and b) The New Orleans Mint remained open until 1909.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thoughtful explanations. I would consider to move the move to sooner, because (!) it's unlikely. A reader skipping the first para and going directly to her career doesn't need to be held up by that questionable thing which - if it happened - happened before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough I removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.