Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2015

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:32, 31 October 2015 [1].

Assassination of Spencer Perceval edit

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Spencer Perceval, the only British prime minister to suffer death by assassination, yet this singular event is scarcely known about. It happened in 1812, during the Napoleonic wars and at a time of great economic distress and industrial turmoil—yet these great events had nothing to do with his death. It happened because John Bellingham, a Liverpool-based trader, was piqued that the government wouldn't compensate him for losses and imprisonment in Russia a few years previously, after a deal had gone wrong, and decided on a personal act of revenge. The suffering populace thought Bellingham a hero, and rejoiced; the establishment had their revenge by trying, convicting and executing him within a week. And then everybody forgot about Perceval and wrote him out of history. Here's the story. Huge thanks are due to a patient team of peer reviewers, whose primping and polishing is such an essential part of the process. Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Singora edit

Hello Brian. I hope you're okay in sunny England. I read your article earlier today and made a couple of minor tweaks. Your comments about the peer review ("such an essential part of the process") amuse me. But let's not get into that.

Your article is excellent. You say that Wellington was "pinned down in Portugal". In 1810, yes; in 1812, no. But this is neither here nor there.

I'm sure little Timothy and Mr Schrocat will be along soon to give you your gold star. Good luck!

Singora (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good wishes, and for spotting and correcting the isbn error in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I distinctly perked up when I read in the preamble, above, "the only British prime minister to suffer death by assassination, yet" – but alas… That grave disappointment apart, I have nothing but praise for the article itself. Such quibbles as I had, which were few and small, were dealt with at the peer review, and the article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. – Tim riley talk 16:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of inserting "so far" or "alas" at appropriate points in the preamble, but I can't risk an incitement charge, Thanks for your sturdy help with the review and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I had my say at the peer review. Meets the criteria in my view and I have no qualms about supporting. I think this is one of my favourites from among the articles you have done—I particularly like the supposed revenge part at the end. Well done indeed, Brian. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the "revenge" bit is probably the least convincing part of the story from a historian's perspective, but it rounds the article off nicely, I think. Thank you for your earlier review comments and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose etc. Very informative, interesting and well-written, I think this article meets the criteria nicely. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support had my say at the peer review. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To both of the above, I am grateful for your encouragement and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support − I found the article to be a comprehensive and well-written account of Perceval's assassination. In my view, the article meets the FAC criteria easily. Z105space (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your interest in the article, and I'm glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brianboulton, I've just finished my comprehensive and thorough review of your article and I assess that it most definitely meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I find that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. While Wikipedia:Alternative text for images is purely optional, I always suggest incorporating alt text for users with a screen reader due to a visual impairment. Following a review of media, I find that all the images are properly licensed as either Public Domain (PD and PD-US) or CC BY-SA 4.0 and are therefore eligible for inclusion in this article. Otherwise, I concur with the comments, assessments, and previous reviews by Tim riley, Cliftonian, SchroCat, Wehwalt, and Z105space. Fantastic job on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your various kind words, and for checking out the images. On the question of alt text, I stopped adding it some time ago, when I found there was a division of view among the visually impaired about the usefulness of such text. I would be open to persuasion if there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Meanwhile I appreciate your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Long GBooks links can be truncated
  • I don't know how this is done. Is there any practical advantage in making the change? Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Bibliography entries, you can either truncate after the id=...& (where ... is the book id) or after printsec=frontcover. The advantage of this is that not only do you reduce clutter, you also ensure that the reader ends up somewhere helpful. For example, if I click on the Gray title right now, I end up in the book's bibliography with the words of the title highlighted - that's not useful to me. I either want to see the About this book page (which I get with the first option), or the front cover (the second). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, most useful to know for the future. I have shortened the urls to provide more useful links. Brianboulton (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to co-ords: An image review is incorporated into West Virginian's comments, above. Brianboulton (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

  • You have a duplicated link to William Pitt the Younger, first piped as "Pitt" in "Biographical details", then as "William Pitt" in "Troubled times". Perhaps a more serious problem is that Pitt is referred to entirely by last name for two sections before being explicitly named as William.
  • Lord Liverpool is first linked in "Troubled times"; the link in "Aftermath" is a duplication.
  • Books with editors rather than authors should use the editor fields in cite book instead of of the author field. That also ensures that the ed. indicators are properly and consistently formatted (note that Pelham and Seaward don't match as it stands). This also makes the data-extraction people happier.
  • All your ISBNs are properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s... except Seaward. You should hit it with the converter.

All of these are easily remedied, and I am otherwise happy to support. Nicely composed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for raising these issues. I have dealt with them all, and am most grateful for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:33, 31 October 2015 [2].

Æthelwulf edit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King Æthelwulf of Wessex was the father of Alfred the Great, and one of the most successful and important Anglo-Saxon kings. The article has gone through thorough peer and A Class reviews. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • Extensive image check has been done during A-class review.
  • All images are PD or CC, with sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • Tweaked a few license tags (all PD, just minor clarifications) - OK.
  • Source information for map provided - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber on comprehensiveness and prose edit

Taking a look now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelwulf was first recorded in 825. - comes across as fairly abrupt and needs some context. Maybe semicolon to next sentence?
destroying the long Mercian ascendancy over southern England. - "destroying" is a funny verb here (I keep thinking it should be with solid things...)...I'd go with "shattering", "disrupting", or even "ending"
"silver penny" - can this be linked somewhere?
Should Liber Vitae be italicised?
Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was low in the twentieth century. - I'd say either "poor reputation" or "low regard or esteem" - but not "low reputation"
I prefer the existing wording. "Poor reputation" to me suggests someone untrustworthy, which does not apply to Æthelwulf. Maybe see what other editors think? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough - a minor style issue anyway and not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor and easiy fixable - looks on target for the bronze star...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GermanJoe edit

Only two for now (more later)

  • Wiki-links for counties - the article links the counties in "Laverstock in Wiltshire", "Steyning in Sussex", and "Carhampton in Somerset", but the same counties are not linked on first mention. Not sure, which handling is best (the towns are linked anyway) - but it should be consistent for all similar terms throughout the article.
  • The last lead paragraph mentions a drastic change in opinion about Æthelwulf as a ruler, but is quite vague about the actual reasons. To paraphrase a bit: the main article lists internal administration, foreign relations, and the adaption of new ideas among his strengths. Some of this background information should be summarized in the lead as well to explain this change in historians' views (the last lead para is short anyway and would benefit from a minor expansion). GermanJoe (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better now with the additional details, thanks. I'll try to have a more thorough read "soon" (weekend or so). GermanJoe (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Joe and Cas for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more minor points:

  • Family - "The second son, Æthelbald, is first recorded as a charter[d] witness in 841" -> link "charter" to Anglo-Saxon charters? This would also make the footnote redundant - a bit distracting here in the middle of a statement.
  • Thanks. I looked for a link but did not think to check Anglo-Saxon charters. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life - "...ending the long [Mercian ascendancy]" -> link to Mercian Supremacy (similar to lead)?
  • Ah. I see it was a red link because I put Mercian supremacy instead of Supremacy. Now corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decimation charters - "Susan Kelly described them as "one of the most controversial groups of Anglo-Saxon diplomas"" -> should have an immediate source. GermanJoe (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very interesting article, detailed and thoroughly sourced. Some parts like the "Decimation Charters" cover complex sub-topics (at least for a layman like me). but the article does it best to present the information as clearly as possible. Suggestion: in the long run, when more analysis or details become available, information and research about those charters could be split and covered in a more specialized stand-alone article about those documents. GermanJoe (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joe. I will have a think about your suggestion. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, and the article was in fine shape then. It has subsequently been polished and expanded further and certainly commands my support for promotion to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria handsomely. Two tiny queries: St. Bertin gets a full stop but St Peter, St Paul and St Neot don't; and "where it is less then the tenth part" is in a quote, but I'm just checking that the source has "then" as opposed to "than". That's my lot. A fine article: revisiting it has been a pleasure. Tim riley talk 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim, very helpful as always. I have deleted the stop - I don't know why I put it in as I was taught that there should be no stop when the last letter in the abbreviation is the last letter in the word being abbreviated. As to "then", I do not now have access to the source but I am sure it is correct. I have added a comma after "less" to make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course – sorry, that was just my misreading of the quote. Tim riley talk 18:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Will have a look soon. Wondering if Anglo-Saxon (and other terms only linked in the intro) should be linked at first occurrence in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carolingian-style" Carolingian is never explained or linked. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-native English speaker, words like debacement, numismatist, and decimation were unfamiliar in their context, and could perhaps need links.
I have linked debasement and numismatist. There is no suitable link for decimation (which is unfamiliar in its sense here to almost all native English speakers), but I have explained it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the charter image under Pilgrimage to Rome and later life not in the former section, where it seems to belong?
I have moved the charter image. It is not one of the decimation charters, but that probably does not matter. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes I did. Thanks for the further input. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All were minor issues, but glad they were addressed, nice work. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks FunkMonk. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

  • "would not have expected their successes to yield permanent fruit. ... When Æthelwulf succeeded in 839": "successes" in the previous sentence may influence the reading of "succeeded". "succeeded to" something would be better.
  • Thanks very much Dan. I have reverted the change "Æthelwulf did not give his son the same power as his father had given him" to "this son" as I think it could imply that he was giving Æthelstan less power than he gave his other sons. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I follow ... shouldn't it be "his sons", then? - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's complicated. Æthelwulf is not known to have appointed another King of Kent after Æthelstan died until he went on pilgrimage, so he seems to have given his surviving sons even less power until his absence from Wessex changed the whole situation and he had to give more. Maybe it is best just to replace "his son" with "Æthelstan", in spite of the repetition? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Support. I commented at the peer review and I think the article is in fine shape, and easily worthy of featured status. A couple of minor points that don't affect my support:

  • The lead doesn't make it clear that the battles at Carhampton and Aclea were against the Vikings.
  • "granted ten hydes": I've always seen "hides" as the usual spelling; is the "y" now standard?
  • Changed. It is listed by OED as a variant spelling but I see I did spell it "hide" elsewhere. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Michael Enright described as American, when the nationality of other historians is not given?
    • In the past editors have objected to me referring to each historian repetitiously as "historian x", so I left it out. Then an editor at A Class objected to me leaving it out. Describing him as American was part of my attempt to satisfy both views by introducing some variety to the descriptions. I am open to suggestions/advice. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      If this is the result of other comments then I'll strike my comment. I think I'd leave out "American" myself, since it gives the impression that his nationality is relevant, but it's a judgement call. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nortonius edit

Support I too was involved in the earlier reviews, and likewise I have some minor comments to make that don't affect my support – I'm a bit pushed for time right now, but I am looking and making notes so here's this for now, more later: having discussed the points listed below I can only say that I think this article deals with its complex subject in an exemplary fashion.

In the lead:

  • The wikilink to Anglo-Saxon England now points to a redirect, since that article was moved by consensus to "History of Anglo-Saxon England" on 28 September. Of course there's WP:NOTBROKEN, but in this instance, for example if the link were being added now, I see no benefit in pointing to the redirect. Unless there's reason to think the article might ever be moved back...? Just a thought, ignore or dispute at your pleasure!
  • I was told off years ago for putting in a pipe when a redirect already exists. It is considered bad practice. I can track down the rule if you are interested. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can imagine! It's just that in this instance the rule seems silly, as the redirect didn't already exist. As I said, ignore this point at your pleasure! Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note Mike Christie's comment re battles, I was thinking the same. Danes might be specified, or the sentence with the battles and the preceding one might be run together with "... reign: in 843 ...".
  • Done.
  • Was Æthelwulf the sole operator in his daughter's marriage to Burgred? If so that might be explained in the appropriate place, otherwise "In 853 his daughter Æthelswith was married to King Burgred ..." might be more accurate.
  • Changed. Personally, I see no objection as a marriage then would have been a political alliance by the father, but I see that historians generally prefer your wording.
I do get the (presumably) political aspect of the marriage but I prefer the accuracy of the changed version, thanks for doing that. I don't see why it couldn't say "Æthelswith was married to King Burgred" – I think it would also fit, and remove any suggestion that romance played a part – heaven forbid! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that romance did not play a part? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't – it's just that I think to modern eyes "X married Y" carries a presumption of romance and happy families. We can't know either way. Whereas to my eyes "X was married to Y", albeit wordier, is a simpler statement of fact in that it presumes nothing at all. Of course YMMV. Nortonius (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a completely unscientific survey of the articles on the Norman kings (excluding William II) and "married" and "was married" seem to be used randomly, with one or two "father married his daughter to", and a majority for "x married y". I do not see the implication you find in the expression. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'll settle for your unscientific survey! Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would ... leaving the west in his son's hands be clearer as "in his son Æthelbald's hands", since there's talk of more than one son?
  • About Æthelwulf's "low" reputation, per Cas Liber I think "poor" fits better, especially since exactly why is explained in the same sentence.

Background:

  • Following Offa's death, King Coenwulf of Mercia (796–821) maintained Mercian power: would "dominance" be better? At this point I think saying only "power" begs the question of what this was.
  • Given the discussion of relationships here, I find myself wondering who Baldred was: WP doesn't seem to know, but I expect someone has offered an opinion. For example Hasted has him driven "across the Thames into the northern parts",[3] so Mercian seems a reasonable guess; but K.P. Witney, The Kingdom of Kent, 1982, pp. 226–7 says that "[t]he probability is that Baldred ... was an ealdorman, perhaps from Sussex," and describes him as an "adventurer"! Witney's not great, I wonder if there's anything better or more recent. Just a word or two here would be good I think, if a source can be found. Even if it's just e.g. "of unknown provenance".
  • He has a brief entry in ODNB by Kelly, who describes him as a "very obscure figure", and speculates that he may have been a relative of Beornwulf as both their names started with B. I do not think there is anything which can usefully be said about him which is relevant to Æthelwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I just think ending the sentence with merely "a sub-king of Kent, Baldred" looks a bit, well, bald – but no biggie. Nortonius (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the same applies to many other people mentioned, and explaining them all would bloat the article with details not specifically relevant to Æthelwulf. I think it is better to rely on the link for people who want to know more. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's fine. Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • England had suffered Viking raids in the late eighth century, but there were no attacks between 794 and 835: for accuracy, might this be better as something like "but there were no attacks reported between 794 and 835"?

Family:

  • I think Judith needs naming in the (currently) final sentence of this section, beginning "There were no children from this second marriage ...", in place of "she".

Early life:

  • Unlike their Mercian predecessors, ... Æthelwulf and his father cultivated local support, governing through Kentish ealdormen, and promoting their interests. Is there a consensus in the sources – or any suggestion – that Egbert and Æthelwulf's Kentish connections made them more attractive as rulers in Kent? Or less objectionable. If so, that might be made explicit.
  • Changed to "and his father successfully cultivated local support by governing through Kentish ealdormen and promoting their interests." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the same condition is specified in a Winchester charter: I would like to see either the charter specified, if only by a ref, or a change to "a charter preserved at Winchester" followed by a ref. I'm assuming that's the case, not knowing which charter is concerned...?
  • Corrected to charter in favour of the see of Winchester and ref for charter added. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Kentish monasteries chose Æthelwulf as their lord, and he undertook that after his death, they would have freedom to elect their heads: I think there's either one comma too many there or one too few – I'm looking at the one in "death, they", which I think ought either to go or be paired with one in "that after".
  • Egbert's conquests brought him wealth far greater than his predecessors had enjoyed ... The wealth of the West Saxon kings was also greatly increased by the conquest of south-east England ...: an unintentional bit of duplication, or...?
  • Repetition deleted.
  • The sentence about fatalism seems a bit throw-away to me, and I wonder, is it a view that's held widely these days? I seem to remember noticing it being added to the article, apologies for not bringing it up before; but it is a bit of a new one on me. I'm nowhere near as in touch with current thinking as I'd like to be, but this fatalism doesn't seem to have affected Æthelwulf's grandson Edward the Elder, or his great-grandson Æthelstan. Does it deserve the prominence it's given here, in closing the section? Otherwise this is the kind of thing I'd put in a footnote, suitably qualified.
  • This is a difficult one on a subject I know nothing about. It is from a leading Anglo-Saxonist, Richard Abels, in 1998, and Anglo-Saxon fatalism is discussed elsewhere, for example at [4]. The notion of wyrd, fate, is discussed in Pratt's The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great, which I will have to read some day. I do not think we know enough to say that it did not affect Edward and Æthelstan. It certainly did not prevent them acting effectively, but then the fatalism of their pagan forebears did not either. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then, if in doubt, I would leave it out, or put it in a footnote: "acting effectively" is what I had in mind regarding Edward and Æthelstan, and is what seems most pertinent here; and the notion seems to me at any rate more appropriate for a broader article on Anglo-Saxon kingship than for this bio. Nortonius (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK I have taken it out. I think it is an interesting point but speculative as worded. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King of Wessex:

  • Towards the end of the section, two close occurrences of "bookland": the first time this word crops up it is linked, but an explanation is held over to the next sentence. I'd be inclined to simplify this by changing to "... on 26 December 846 he made a large grant of land to himself in South Hams in west Devon. He thus changed the estate from royal demesne, which he was obliged to pass on to his successor as king, to bookland, which could be transferred as the owner pleased ..."

Viking threat:

  • At the Battle of Aclea, might it be better to say "Æthelwulf and his son Æthelbald", partly because Æthelbald hasn't been mentioned for a while, and partly because there are several occurrences of that name around that time (although most may represent the same man)?[5]
  • About Ealdorman Alhhere, is he not identical with the ealdorman "Ealhhere of Kent" who was killed by Vikings in 853? My copy of the ASC has "Ealhhere" under 850 and 853 (Garmonsway, 1972). PASE has no record of an "Alhhere", but has "Ealhhere" fighting a great army and capturing ships at Sandwich and fighting alongside Huda against a pagan army on Thanet.[6]
  • Ahem. Thanks for picking up that error. Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coinage:

  • The silver penny was almost the only coin used in middle and later Anglo-Saxon England: I think this sentence needs re-casting somehow, as the locative "middle [Anglo-Saxon England]" conflicts with the chronological "later Anglo-Saxon England". Maybe something like "The silver penny was almost the only coin used in the mid- and later Anglo-Saxon period in England".
  • I do not see what is wrong with it. In the context it is clear that middle is being used in a chronological sense, as in Middle Ages. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder myself – one can be "in the middle of [doing] something", which obviously is primarily chronological (or sequential), but it's a bit colloquial (Cambridge Dictionaries Online has it under "idioms"[7]) and every other dictionary definition I've seen is locative. Remember though that I'm insisting on nothing here! Nortonius (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were four main phases of the coinage distinguishable at both mints ...: I think it would help lead the reader if "during Æthelwulf's reign" were tacked onto the end of that.
  • I'm a bit confused by this sentence: In about 848 both mints switched to a common design known as Dor¯b¯/Cant – the characters "Dor¯b¯" on the obverse of these coins indicates either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), and "Cant", referring to Canterbury, appeared on the reverse. Does "Cant" always appear on the reverse in this series? I'd be inclined to change the sentence to "In about 848 both mints switched to a common design known as Dor¯b¯/Cant – the characters "Dor¯b¯" appeared on the obverse of these coins, indicating either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), and "Cant", referring to Canterbury, appeared on the reverse." Otherwise I think it needs clarifying.
  • Mike Christie can you help with this? I do not have access to the source now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the source "Cant" was always on the reverse. I think Nortonius's phrasing is an improvement, but it's also a bit closer to the source -- this is one of those cases where it's very hard to paraphrase far from the original wording. What the source says is "A new non-portrait coinage was issued with DOR¯B¯, for either Dorobernia (Canterbury) or Dorobrevia (Rochester), in the obverse field and CANT (Kent) in the reverse ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, silly me – "Cant" for Kent, not Canterbury! Well, I did say I was confused... Agreed re the difficulty in paraphrasing, I wonder if something like the following would be adequately varied: "the obverse was marked with "Dor¯b¯", which could represent both Dorobernia (Canterbury) and Dorobrevia (Rochester), while the reverse was marked with "Cant" (Kent)." Although I'm sure Dudley will have his own thoughts on that. Nortonius (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like the confusion is my fault -- the confusion of Kent and Canterbury is in the current text, and I believe I wrote that sentence; must have been a moment of inattention on my part. Sorry about that. How about just switching "Canterbury" to "Kent" in the existing sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it would then make perfect sense! Nortonius (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you or Mike could make the correction as you understand the problem? I might get it wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link for "debasement" to the earlier occurrence of "debased" (in the same sentence)?
Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add "under Æthelwulf's reign" to the end of the sentence introducing the Middle Temple hoard, again to help the reader.

Decimation charters:

  • The "decimation charters" are divided by Susan Kelly into four groups: can we lose the scare quotes there, as the phrase appears in scare quotes in the first sentence in this section?
  • Scare quotes again for second and subsequent occurrences of "first decimation" and "second decimation" – lose them?
  • Historians always distinguish the terms in some way, quotes or capitalisation or both, and I think rightly as signalling that it is a special term. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per your complaint below (with which I completely agree), could you justify capitalising here, instead of the scare quotes? If not then stay with the scare quotes by all means, it's just that I've been told off for using too many of them myself in the past. Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree in preferring capitalisation to quotes but is it against Wikipedia rules? Dank can you advise? on this - also on "one of the most perplexing problems", and Liber Vitae below. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Decimation is "unfamiliar in its sense here to almost all native English speakers", then either capitalize it as a proper noun (if your sources support capitalization), or don't use it. I'd rewrite "... one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic" as one of the "most perplexing problems" in the study of ninth-century charters. No opinion on Liber Vitae. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan. I have changed to capitalisation, and also deleted "diplomatic" as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Keynes' first alternative there is a second explanation of the significance of "booking" land: I think that's perfectly reasonable here, especially since "folkland" crops up here for the first time; but I think it could healthily lose "... and could be disposed of freely by the owner. "Booking" land thus converted it by charter from folkland to bookland."
  • I am not convinced on this. The earlier explanation was in a different context and I think it is helpful to remind the reader of it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry – I suspect I was just getting a sense of déjà vu there having looked at the article so closely, looking again today it looks fine to me. Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the decimation Æthelwulf may have conveyed royal folkland by charter to become the bookland: "the bookland", or just "bookland"?
  • For example under Keynes' second alternative, scare quotes could be lost from every instance of "booking", since the first occurrence of the word (also in this section) does without them.
  • [Æthelwulf] displayed a sense of dynastic insecurity evident in his father's generosity towards the Kentish church in 838: should that be "also evident", since Æthelwulf's sense of dynastic insecurity presumably didn't drive Egbert's generosity in 838?
  • Another hyphen needed in "mid-twentieth century", in reference to Eric John?
  • Done. (There is far too much ugly hyphenation in Wikipedia and not enough helpful capitalisation!)
  • According to Pratt: no first name for the first occurrence of this source?
  • Added.
  • In the quotation from Kelly about 844, I would replace the ellipsis with "[and]" to make it grammatical.
  • "... one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic" (study of charters): I remember that the meaning of "diplomatic" was an issue in one of the earlier reviews, I just find "(study of charters)" a bit inelegant, and would ordinarily want to avoid those brackets. Would something like "... diplomatic", or the study of charters" be better?
  • I agree that the brackets are inelegant, but I think "or" might be misunderstood as an alternative rather than an explanation. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage to Rome and later life:

  • Should "Liber Vitae" be in italics, given that the link is to a page that (barely) describes this type of book, rather than to a page for the particular Liber Vitae that is mentioned? The italics led me to expect the latter. If the italics arose from the mention of the book being in Latin, I would suggest removing the italics and having scare quotes instead. My own inclination would be to say the same for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle when referring to the varying manuscripts, as is the case later in the same sentence, rather than to a published volume such as Garmonsway's. But I know that I seem to be out of step with most on that, both on WP and elsewhere!
  • Well on that one I agree with what I understand to be Wikipedia practice. I think italics are a helpful signal to the reader that a book or manuscript is being referred to.
It just occurred to me that "Liber Vitae" need not be capitalised, as a liber vitae is a type of book, of which the one from Brescia is just another example. That would shut me up – but just as you like! Nortonius (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On his way back from Rome Æthelwulf stayed with King Charles the Bald ...: "stayed once more with King Charles the Bald"?
  • I remember that the identity of "Kent and the south-east" came up in an earlier review, but I've just noticed there is now a footnote in this section, currently "p", that says "The sub-kingdom of Kent included Essex, Sussex and Surrey." I wonder if that shouldn't be moved to an earlier position in the article, and possibly then duplicated as necessary; or perhaps it might be dispensed with entirely if that information, with its ref, were moved into the body of the article. For example, under "Early life", it might be worked into the sentence "Æthelwulf was descended from kings of Kent, and he was sub-king of Kent and the south-eastern provinces of Surrey, Sussex and Essex, which were included in the sub-kingdom, until he inherited the throne of Wessex in 839."
  • Done - and "south-eastern provinces" deleted as it seems superfluous with the revised wording.Dudley Miles (talk)

King Æthelwulf's ring:

  • ... whereas the art historian David Wilson ...: a fairly trivial point, but would "whereas" not be better as "and", since the points made by Nelson and Wilson seem to be complementary rather than conflicting?
  • I do not see them as complementary. Webster and Nelson describe them as typical 9C, Wilson as a throwback to the pagan period. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's still a fairly trivial matter, and again it's up to you; but as I see it Webster confirms that the ring is of the 9th century; Nelson agrees and emphasises that successful kingship in the 9th century encompassed Æthelwulf's gift of a ring "to a brawny follower"; and Wilson reminds us that it was ever thus among the Anglo-Saxons in England. A successful Anglo-Saxon king had to be a "good lord", pagan or otherwise, and the giving of rings and other treasure was an essential practice. In his preface to Gregory's Dialogues Bishop Wulfsige of Sherborne, Asser's predecessor, described Alfred the Great as a "ring-giver", and "the greatest treasure-giver of all the kings he has ever heard tell of".[8] I honestly don't see the conflict. Nortonius (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well she did say ninth, but I agree it would still as true if she had said sixth, so I have taken out "whereas". I have made the Wilson comment a separate sentence as I am not sure it is right to use a comma when there is a colon in the middle of the Nelson quote, Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography:

  • Early medieval writers, especially Asser, emphasise his religiosity, and his preference for consensus seen in the concessions made to avert a civil war on his return from Rome: I would move the third comma to follow "consensus".

Nortonius (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again for your very full and helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! More to come today I expect... Nortonius (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have now dealt with all your points Nortonius? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have indeed! With this edit I'm adding one last thought to the point about the "Liber Vitae" that you might consider (but need not!); but mainly I've changed the padding to my support at the top of this section – well done, and I very much appreciate your engagement with the points I raised. Nortonius (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Nortonius. I have changed Liber Vitae to lower case. I see Nelson had it as Liber vitae - I do not see the logic of that. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • Pages for Nelson 2004c?
  • This came up at A Class. I was asked to add page numbers to the bibliography but I forgot. Now done, with help of London Library staff who kindly checked sources I do not have now. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest italicizing Electronic Sawyer as a work title
  • Yorke 1995: all other Leicester University Press refs give Leicester as the location - is London correct here?
  • Yes. in 1995 Leicester University Press was an imprint of Cassell Publishers of London. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Have watched this from the ditch for a few months, and made (very) minor ce's along the way. A fine achievement, drawn from broad sources of knowledge. Happy to see this here. Ceoil (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ceoil. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query for reviewers edit

GermanJoe has suggested that the discussion of the Decimation Charters should be a separate article. This seems to me a good idea. I could create King Æthelwulf's Decimation Charters with a summary in this article. Do other reviewers agree and, if so, would it be better to make the change now or wait until the review has finished? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to wait; its probably better that the review is of the article post spin out. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can do it PDQ then I would agree, otherwise I think this article is in fine shape and it would be a shame to risk disrupting the review unnecessarily. Might I suggest "Decimation charters of King Æthelwulf", since the charters would be the subject of the article rather than the king? Just another thought. Nortonius (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about timing; create the new article first, and once that's done adjust this article to suit. If this article has passed FAC by that time I'm sure you won't be hurting it by trimming just that section, and there's always FAR in the unlikely event that anyone thinks the article has really suffered from the change. I agree with Nortonius on the article name, by the way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a few days in the nomination, so a quick limited re-organization of 1 section would work. Present reviewers will just have to add a small note, that the revised version is still OK afterwards. The less stressful approach for you as editor would probably be to wait until FA-closure - but that's completely up to you. Both approaches should be fine. GermanJoe (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all. I will start working on it. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the concern? There doesn't seem to be a size issue. It seems GJ suggested a split only once more detail is added about the charters? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well an editor commented at A Class that he did not think that a prolonged discussion of different editors' views on the decimation charters was suitable for a biography article, and I assumed that Joe was tactfully saying the same thing. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment it's a judgement call, but if you try writing the separate article and discover there's not enough material for a standalone article, then it's clear the material you have should stay here. If you find you can expand it significantly (which I am sure will be the case) there's a better argument for making the current section more concise. I don't think the article is unbalanced as things stand, but I think a sub-article, and some summarization at this article's level, would be a further improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that I could expand it, but I think the subject is already covered adequately and I would much rather carry on with my current projects than re-visit the decimation charters. If reviewers think the article is OK as it is, I will abandon the separate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, don't think a split is necessary at this point. If someone wants to make a more detailed sub-article, they should of course be free to do so, but I don't think that should have any consequence for this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: The suggestion was a suggestion for further development "in the long run" (literally, no tact intended ;) ). So the current acticle version is certainly FA-worthy as is. Sorry, if that side note caused any confusion. GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again to all. I am glad to have clarified that reviewers are not unhappy with the section. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:34, 31 October 2015 [9].

Ice (The X-Files) edit

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the more well-known episodes of The X-Files, and one of my personal favourites. It's been to FAC before, where it was failed based on prose issues; since that time it's had another thorough copy-edit by User:Miniapolis, whose efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm also aware that I wasn't particularly active during the last FAC, which I assure you won't be an issue this time around. Thanks in advance to anyone taking the time to look at this one, and if you haven't seen the series at all before, I would say this is a good place to start. GRAPPLE X 09:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see this has been through FAC once before and the writing quality has been improved upon, so good job to Grapple X and to copy editor Miniapolis for working on that. The article is of high quality from an important point in time within the series formative period. The writing quality is high level yet also succinct and concise throughout. I especially like the Conception and writing sect and how the subject is placed within a wider context of influence upon it from popular culture prior to its inception. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • "an outpost in Icy Cape" Isn't this usually termed the Icy Cape? FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps worth looking into? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The USGS list it without the definite article (here), even though they do have a list of variant names for it. GRAPPLE X 12:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we should follow that, also sounds better. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you've now added the "the" in, in light of this. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misraed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and another is recovered from one of the bodies." Which bodies?
    Those of the scientists already dead at the location, would "one of the scientists' bodies" work better? GRAPPLE X 12:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. GRAPPLE X 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "250,000-year-old item encased in ice" What item?
  • Hawks is only mentioned in an image caption, not the article text.
    Oversight on my part. He's debated as being the real director but without wanting to get into that I've just noted his role as producer. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately the sources in question don't specify this, or I'd have added it. I'm not even sure I could track down the original article as my assumption would be that presuming it to be the correct one would be OR. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would remain intact " What would remain intact?
    Yeah I think the copy-edit lost something here. This is a common enough practice with film/TV censors--you film a questionable scene with more footage than you intend, so that when a censor asks for X amount of material to be cut, you still end up with a scene using as much footage as you had actually wanted: you want a minute to survive so you film two minutes and cut one out. I'll try to reword it shortly. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this look? GRAPPLE X 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wong is not introduced in the article body.
    Fixed. GRAPPLE X 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scaring the hell of out of the audience" Is this what the actual article says?
    Fixed. GRAPPLE X 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, anymore on the "item" comment? FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I dug out the sources in question again last night and neither confirm the nature of the object (I get the feeling it would have been something mundane and that the age of it was the key factor). GRAPPLE X 09:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all my comments have been addressed, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Barbara (WVS) edit

  • Support FA status - I am considering nominating an article for FA status and this discussion has been a great example of congeniality, responsiveness and collaboration. It appears to me to meet WP:FA?. The tone is encyclopedic and yet engaging at the same time. I am not a fan of articles that describe television plot lines, but this article has changed my mind. Good fortune on the rest of the review. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was there, way back when, when this was first submitted. It has come a long way, and I see no reason to not promote it. The copy-edit looks good, all the sources check out (I know this from personal experience), and the page is organized nicely (with excellent photos).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian edit

  • Support Grapple X, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this phenomenal article for FAC. I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I assess it to meet all the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I have also completed an image review and found no issues. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by West Virginian (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede and overall
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the "Ice" episode, establishes the episode's necessary context, and explains why the episode is otherwise notable.
  • The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • It would suggest wiki-linking "parasitic" with Parasitism.
  • For the external links, I would suggest adding archive links, for those without, with Internet Archive or WebCite.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Pilot

  • I would suggest wiki-linking geophysicists to Geophysics and toxicologist to Toxicology.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Production

  • The image of Howard Hawks is released into the Public Domain and has both alt and standard image citations.
  • The image of John Carpenter is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and has both alt and standard image citations.
  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Analysis

  • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Reception

  • The image of Gillian Anderson is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is therefore suitable for inclusion. It also has standard and alt citations.
  • In the "Ratings" subsection, Fox can be de-linked as it is already linked above in the prose.
  • In the "Reviews" subsection, UGO Networks can also be de-linked as it is mentioned and linked earlier in the text.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.
I'll not be able to archive the URLs used until later this evening, in the office at the minute and unable to access them; but I have made the suggested links and unlinkings. GRAPPLE X 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your timely response Grapple X! The archiving was merely a suggestion, but it will give you peace of mind in the future should those links change or vanish. Again, you've done an extraordinary job with this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl edit

Generally really good, but there are just a few prose points that I would like to see addressed.

  • In the second paragraph of the lede we start with "FBI special agents..." but I htink that a bit of context would be necessary, i.e. we should start this sentence with something like "The plot of the episode follows FBI special agents...". That way we make it explicitly clear that these sentences are describing the plot of the episode. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found a 250,000-year-old item encased in ice" - do we have any idea what this "item" was? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately not, it's not mentioned in the sources used. I have the feeling (OR, of course) that by the time this was mentioned in an interview, Morgan had probably forgotten the nature of the object and recalled only the fact that it was ancient and buried under ice. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morgan and writing partner James Wong" would perhaps work better as "Morgan and his writing partner..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Filming" section, we have the following two sentences, "Although extra footage of the worm scenes was shot so they would last as long as intended if Fox's standards-and-practices officials asked for cuts, no edits were requested. "Ice" was the first significant role in the series for makeup effects artist Toby Lindala, who become its chief makeup artist", which are then followed by a citation. I take it that this citation covers the material in both sentences, but given that the second sentence does not directly follow on from the first, this is not completely clear. I would suggest replicating the citation at the end of the first sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my personal preference but I've doubled it up there. GRAPPLE X 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

No spotchecks carried out.

  • Ref 23 requires a date
  • Ref 35: the publisher is given as "TV Squad". I think this should be Huffpost TV

Subject to these points, citations are properly formatted, and sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 23 now has publication dates updated; 35 carries "TV Squad" in the |work= field and Huffpost TV, piped to The Huffington Post, in the |publisher= field now. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 09:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2015 [10].

Schmerber v. California edit

Nominator(s): Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most important United States Supreme Court cases of the twentieth century. In Schmerber, the Court established that police cannot forcibly intrude into the human body (i.e. by taking blood samples, taking tissue samples, or forcing people to undergo surgery) without a warrant. The Court also established that physical evidence taken from the body is not "testimonial" and the prosecution's use of such evidence does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protections against forced self-incrimination. I have used the Bluebook citation style for this article, which is the prefered citation style for legal scholarship. Although many editors dislike Bluebook, it is a perfectly acceptible citation style, per MOS:LAW and WP:CITEVAR (it has also been used by other Featured Articles, such as United States v. Kagama and United States v. Washington). Thank you in advance for everyone who reviews this! Notecardforfree (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Atsme edit

Nicely written. Will comment further after I do a little copyediting. Atsme📞📧 21:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per FA criteria:

  • prose is of a professional standard;
  • comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
  • neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
  • stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  • It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    • appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;
    • Bluebook ref acceptable
    • Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
  • Support Atsme📞📧 23:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments from Cirt edit

    Comments by — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    #NOTE: Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
    1. 3rd paragraph in lede = "many legal scholars" ... "some even" ... "some scholars" = could we have some examples of direct attribution of the most prominent of these scholars in the lede, instead of the vague wording, please?
    2. Arrest and prosecution of Armando Schmerber = suggest just title sect as Arrest and prosecution
    3. History of warrantless searches of the human body = we know this is Background, as it's in the background sect, and comes in order before the case, itself. Suggest just title it as Warrantless searches of the human body, without "history of".
    4. History of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule = same here, just title sect as "Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.
    5. Arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States - just title sect as Arguments before the Court. We know from the lede sect it is the Supreme Court of the United States.
    6. Justice Harlan's concurrance = should be spelled "concurrence".
    7. Re-evaluating the privilege against self-incrimination in South Dakota v. Neville = suggest sect title of simpler: South Dakota v. Neville and privilege against self-incrimination
    8. Re-evaluating warrantless blood tests in Missouri v. McNeely = suggest sect title simpler of: Missouri v. McNeely and warantless blood test = we know already from the parent sect called Subsequent developments that the "re-evaluating" is implied by the name of the parent sect title.
    9. Analysis and commentary = suggest just call sect "Analysis" or "Commentary". Pick one.
    10. Implications for other bodily intrusions = suggest just sect title of Impact.
    11. Analysis and commentary = sect starts off with "Scholars have" and ... "Others have described". Again, vague wording seems a bit of a place for prose improvement with increased specificity, instead, please.
    12. Immediate reaction = again with "Some analysts" and "Other commentators".
    13. "Other commentator's also observed " = wrong use of possessive apostrophe on the word commentator here.
    14. "However, some commentators" = again, vague wording.
    15. "Some legal scholars " = which ones?
    16. "One scholar even wrote" = which one? Why was this one important? What publication?
    17. "Others have expressed concern " = who expressed concern? Why does their opinion in particular hold weight? Was it a particular journal of note?
    18. Notes sect = please have an in-line cite at the end to back up Note 2.
    19. References sect = "The citations in this Article are written in Bluebook style." = is it common in Wikipedia Featured Articles to have this sort of statement in the References sect?
    20. NOTE: Please respond, below these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

    Overall, it's generally quite good. Thank you for the Quality improvement effort on this article which relates to topics of both the law and human rights. — Cirt (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cirt, thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough review of the article! Your comments and suggestions were incredibly helpful. Here's what I have done to improve the article based on your suggestions (the numbers below refer to the numbered suggestions you listed above):
    2. Third paragraph in lead: When I first wrote that paragraph, I strongly considered adding direct attributions, but I feared it would disrupt the flow of text too much. After re-reading this section, I now see that the wording was a bit vague. I added direct attributions for the authors who think the court’s decision may be used to justify mind reading, but let me know if you think I should include other direct attributions in that paragraph.
    3. Arrest and prosecution of Armando Schmerber: I changed the title of the section per your recommendation.
    4. History of warrantless searches of the human body: I changed the title of the section per your recommendation.
    5. History of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule: I changed the title of the section per your recommendation.
    6. Arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States: I’m inclined to keep this title as-is. There were also arguments in the CA superior court and the appellate department of the superior court, so the specificity may help readers understand that the section is not about arguments in a lower court. If you feel strongly about this, I will go ahead and change the title.
    7. Justice Harlan's concurrance: I fixed the typo. Good catch!
    8. Re-evaluating the privilege against self-incrimination in South Dakota v. Neville: I changed the title per your suggestion.
    9. Re-evaluating warrantless blood tests in Missouri v. McNeely: I changed the title to "Missouri v. McNeely and the exigent circumstances exception for warrantless blood tests" to be a little more specific about the issue in McNeely. Let me know if you think this still needs to be changed.
    10. Analysis and commentary: I changed the title to “Analysis” per your suggestion.
    11. Implications for other bodily intrusions: I changed the title per your suggestion.
    12, 14-18. References to “scholars” in Analysis section: I added direct attributions throughout the analysis section per your suggestions, and I also included additional details about who the scholars/commentators were as well as information about where they published their commentary. Let me know if you think anything still needs to be modified.
    13. Other commentator's also observed: I fixed the typo. Good catch!
    19. Notes section: I added a citation to ‘’Duroncelay’’ at the end of the footnote 2.
    20. References section: At one point, another editor added the {{BBREF}} template in the references section of the article to stop bots from modifying the Bluebook style references. However, the template changed the formatting to the column width in the references section, so a second editor removed the template and left the explanatory note at the top of the references section. I'm inclined to leave the explanatory note because I have had several bad experiences with editors who disrupt Bluebook citations. If you feel strongly about removing the language at the top of the references section, I will take it out.
    Please let me know if you think there is anything else that needs to be fixed. Thanks again for taking the time to look at this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the responsiveness and polite and professional demeanor during FAC, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States = change to just US Supreme Court oral argument
    2. South Dakota v. Neville and the privilege against self incrimination = change to just South Dakota v. Neville and self-incrimination
    3. Missouri v. McNeely and the exigent circumstances exception for warrantless blood tests = change to just Missouri v. McNeely and blood tests

    Never in my time at Wikipedia on any articles, GA or FA, have I seen such long subsection title headers, before !!! — Cirt (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately, it is a bad habit of many in the law to write unnecessarily long section titles. I often err on the side of writing more rather than less, but I understand that wordy titles may not be the most helpful for readers. Consequently, I made the following changes, per your recommendations:
    1. I changed the title to "Arguments before the Court," per your original suggestion. The the section also discusses the parties' briefs, so the section is about more than just oral arguments.
    2. I changed the title to "South Dakota v. Neville and self-incrimination".
    3. I changed the title to "Missouri v. McNeely and the exigent circumstances exception".
    Let me know if there is anything else you would like me to change. Thanks again for your help with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. My thanks to the FA Nominator for being so polite and responsive to my comments, above. Thank you for your efforts to improve this article about a fascinating intersection between topics of the law and WP:Human rights. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Minor4th edit

    A couple of minor points/suggestions:

    1. I would like to see a picture of Justice Brennan, who delivered the majority opinion. As far as I know, all FA legal articles contain a picture of the justice delivering the majority opinion.

    2. In the lede, where you say "warrantless blood sample taken in this case was justified under the Fourth Amendment's exigent circumstances exception" - the paragraph would be more cohesive if you briefly describe what the circumstances were that were considered exigent.

    3. Your See also section contains links to cases that you have also wikilinked and linked in the body and references. I think you should remove those from the See also section.

    4. I love your excellent use of Bluebook citation style and explanatory footnotes.

    Good job.

    Support. Minor4th 21:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much for your support Minor4th! Per your suggestions, I made the following modifications to the article:
    1. I added a picture of Justice Brennan next to the discussion of the majority's opinion
    2. In the lead, I explained what the exigent circumstance was in this case
    3. I cleaned up the redundant links in the see also section
    I truly appreciate your willingness to offer your feedback for this FA review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2015 [11].

    Yugoslav submarine Nebojša edit

    Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article covers one of the first Yugoslav submarines, which was built in the late 20's using parts from cancelled British WWI L-class subs. She evaded capture by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. She survived as a training boat during the war, and served on in the communist Yugoslav Navy until 1954 when she was struck. She recently successfully went through Milhist A-Class review, and I will be keen to see where further improvements might be found. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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) 00:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, any time. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • No DABs, external links OK.
    • Link launched, scrapped, diesel engine.
      • Done.
    • L-class submarine that was never built Probably better to say that she was never completed since she was actually laid down in December 1917, much like her sister. Both were cancelled on 1 April 1919. Source is {{colledge}}, p. 192
      • Good point, done.
    • [12] is the preeminent source on British subs of this era and should have more details on the late L-class submarines.
      • Nothing that is new specifically about this sub.
    • Specify that the 4-inch guns are deck guns.
      • Done.
    • where she performed a training role Awkward; howzabout "became or served as a training boat"?
      • This has been fixed as a result of adding some more info.
    • Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard, River Tyne, United Kingdom This reads like an address for a houseboat. Rephrase to say that the yard was in High Walker on the River Tyne and I wouldn't bother giving the country.
      • have made it more like a sentence than an address.
    • Why is the construction paragraph covering her propulsion and armament?
      • Have renamed the sections as Design and construction, Service career and Legacy
    • they were designed to reach a top speed of 15.7 knots (29.1 km/h; 18.1 mph) under diesel power and 10 knots (19 km/h) on her electric motors Specify that the speed using diesels is on the surface and on the electric motors is submerged both in the infobox and in the main body. Also disagreement with pronouns (their vs her).
      • Fixed.
    • Do not force the knot and nautical mile conversions to only output in km. Don't specify any output unit and the template will automatically triple convert to miles and km. Both in the infobox and main body.
      • Done.
    • What caliber machinegun?
    • Was she fitted with hydrophones or sonar (ASDIC)?
      • Haven't found any thing specifying that. I assume just directional hydrophones, as only a few of the Group III L-Class subs in RN service got ASDIC.
    • The Italians had claimed they had sunk all the Yugoslav vessels. This should probably be spliced to the preceding sentence with a "despite" or somesuch.
      • Done.
    • Any idea if she was used as a training boat by the Yugoslavs post-war?
      • Yes, have added a bit sourced from a Serbian news site.
    • Put Thomas in title case.
      • Done.
    • This is awfully sketchy to meet the completeness criteria, especially on the post-war career.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Yugoslav_submarine_Hrabri.jpg: the current licensing is correct, but for completeness it would be good to indicate why it's PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    • Support Peacemaker67, first and foremost, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. I've engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I have condensed my comments below. There are some minor details that should be addressed, but they are outside the confines of FA criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by West Virginian (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lede and overall
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Yugoslav submarine Nebojša, establishes the submarine's necessary context, and explains why the submarine is otherwise notable.
    • The info box for the submarine is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein. There is one minor issue here, though:
    • Fearless is mentioned as the English translation of the submarine's name, but this is not discussed in the prose. I would include the ship's name translation in the "Description and construction" section.
    • As Nikkimaria already engaged in an image review, I'll refrain from further commentary on the images as they all look good to go and are appropriately licensed with proper captions.
    • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Description and construction

    • As stated above, I would suggest including mention of Fearless as being the submarine's translated name.
    • It should probably also mention in this section that it was in 1927 that the ship was built at the shipyard on the River Tyne.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Service career and Legacy

    • I would suggest using [13] or [14] to archive your online sources, in case they disappear or the web links are modified.
    • These sections are otherwise well-written, consist of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Thanks for the review, WV! Will get right onto those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments

    • I usually prefer to expand abbreviated units on first use (or at least uncommon ones like brake/shaft horsepower)
    • ..."made a very good impression..." - on whom? The Maltese? Whatever RN ships were there?
    • I wonder if it's worth mentioning that Osvetnik was French-designed? I think it might cause some confusion over the nationality of the boat.
    • Same with describing Split as Dalmatian - I doubt many readers will know that that's a region, not a country, or that Dalmatia was then part of Yugoslavia (the point being that Nebojša finally returned to her own country might be lost)
    • Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea might have some more details on her flight from Yugoslavia in April 1941, which was apparently made in concert with a pair of torpedo boats. The edition in Google Books only offers snippets, and I don't have my copy handy at the moment. I can check it later if you need me to. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments by Dudley

    • I am venturing way out of my comfort zone commenting on this article, so excuse my ignorance.
    • "She was eventually stricken in 1954" I assume this means stricken as in an admiral struck his flag, but could it be linked to an article clarifying what "stricken" means in naval terminology? Does it just mean taken out of service and laid up?
      • In layman's terms, decommissioned. I've linked it now.
    • "her crew might be retrained and used to operate the recently captured German Type VIIC U-boat U-570, but this idea was soon abandoned." Is it known what happened to her crew? Presumably they did not stay on the ship?
      • I haven't found that information, although as she was used as a training boat, the assumption would be that at least part of her crew remained with her.
    • Are the names of her commanders and what rank they were not known?
      • I haven't found that information, unfortunately.
    • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • No spotchecks carried out
    • All reference information properly and consistently formatted. The sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 [15].

    Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia) edit

    Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is a comprehensive illustration of the history and architecture of a 19th-century church building, which houses a congregation founded in the 18th-century. The property is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I am eager to solicit and incorporate the input and guidance of other FAC editors and administrators. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support – very good piece of work; however, I have got a few things. Could you define "Simple" for me in the alt text of the main image? "Hebron Church was founded in 1786 as Great Capon Church" – do you think that Great Capon Church should be in bold as from the sentence I assume it is its original "name". Also, could you archive two links in beige (not quite sure if beige or..) here? Additionally there are quite a few MOS:DASH violations in titles of references. -- Frankie talk 19:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FrB.TG, thank you for taking the time to engage in this FAC review. I've actually removed "simple" in favor of rendering the alt caption as: "The main façade of the church with two white doors and upper windows." I've also added "Great Capon Church" to the first sentence of the lede as an alternative name of the church. I had trouble archiving the two links before with Internet Archive, but I had success archiving both links with Webcite. I've also added the en dash to titles with year dates in them. Please let me know if you see anything else in the meantime, and thank you for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I have a particular interest in historical churches, particularly those established by German immigrants to the United States. I seldom see one so well written me. I am seriously impressed by this article. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maile66, thank you for your appreciation and kind words, and for taking the time to review this article! If you like this one, you may want to check out Old Pine Church, a German Brethren church also in Hampshire County. I hope to bring this to FAC one day, too. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Review details from Maile — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Review from Maile
    • Really well-done, professional level quality
    • Stable, no edit wars, article created by West Virginian with only minor edits by others
    • Lead and layout are good, with a nice flow from one section to the next
    • Prose and historical details are most impressive throughout the article
    • Architecture and function (past and present) of the church are finely detailed and well-sourced
    • Spot check of sourcing shows no copyvio or other issues of concern
    • All images were photographed and uploaded by the same editor in 2009; appropriately licensed on Commons
    • Images of the church are additionally covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama, United States


    Comments from Tim riley edit

    • Lead
      • "The original log church was … used as a sexton" – the linked article, and the three US English dictionaries I have just checked online, use the word "sexton" to mean a person and not a building. (The word is again used as though it meant a building in "Construction" in the main text.)
        • I've changed sexton to sexton's house, as that was the building's function according to the Brannon source on p. 477. Thank you for the catch! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "attended by West Virginia governor Herman G. Kump" – really by the governor, or just the future governor?
    • Geography and setting
      • "predominantly-rural agricultural" – not sure we want a hyphen here
    • Church interior
      • "Two inoperable stained-glass windows" – does the adjective mean that they can't be opened? Not altogether clear.
        • It does indeed. I've rephrased the sentence as this: "Two stained-glass windows, which cannot be opened, are along the northwest wall." Let me know this works better. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • References
      • On my screen there is a message at the foot of the refs: "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "Munske4" defined multiple times with different content"
        • I just noticed this myself, and I've corrected it. At some point two separate references became one. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all from me. A remarkably thorough article, with the principal writer's enthusiasm for the subject very clear (and very enjoyable). – Tim riley talk 20:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tim riley, thank you tremendously for taking the time to perform this review. Your catches, suggestions, and comments are greatly appreciated and I've incorporated all of them into the text. Please let me know if you gave any other comments or questions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tim riley, please let me know if you have any outstanding issues with this article and I'll address them immediately. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no further comments, and am happy to support the promotion of this article. Tim riley talk 23:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Neutralhomer edit

    I am still working on my review, but wanted to make you aware of a couple changes I made. I repaired one external link, and I changed a couple WikiLinks. On the WikiLinks, Brickwork#Flemish bond and Flemish bond each go to the same location. Same with Brickwork#American, or common bond and American bond. Same with the others. There is a hidden direct link within the text that allows this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Neutralhomer, thank you for engaging in this review, and for identifying and fixing the aforementioned linking issues! I look forward to your finished review! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, the rest of the review is below. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Review details from Neutralhomer
    *Infobox checkY
      • The only problem I could see is the address. Some editors are sticklers for a source on the address. Personally, I don't see it as an issue, but others might.
        • I've added an inline citation to satisfy this requirement. Thanks for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead checkY
      • Looks good, no problems I can see.
    • Geography and setting checkY
      • Last paragraph of this section has only one source. I am guessing everything is sourced to "Scaffidi 2014, p. 5 of the PDF file." Some editors might want that on each sentence, if not, it feels like there is some unsourced portions.
        • Neutralhomer, thank you for this suggestion. This is actually the way I had formatted the article originally, as I prefer to have an inline citation at the end of each sentence. Previous copyeditors and my GA reviewer averred that I should move the inline citation to the end of the paragraph if all the content of that paragraph is from the same source. Per WP:CITEDENSE, Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. So, either method is acceptable per this guidance. Let me know if this is a deal breaker. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • West Virginian If others said the source at the very end of the paragraph is better, than that's fine with me. Same for below. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Otherwise, very well-sourced, and well-written.
    • History checkY
    • Background checkY
      • No problems I can see, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Establishment checkY
      • The second to last sentence in the second paragraph needs a source.
        • Per the discussion of WP:CITEDENSE above, Citation 19 covers both sentences. My GA reviewer recommended I take out repeating inline citations per the CITEDENSE guidance, so this inline citation was removed accordingly. Before addressing subsequent comments about the inline citations, I'll let you weigh in. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same with the first sentence of the last paragraph.
      • Kudos on the Christian Streit and Winchester references.
        • Thank you! I knew you would enjoy the references to Rev. Streit and Winchester, hence why I thought you'd be interested in reviewing this article! I've made modifications up to this point, and will finish the remainder when I have an opportunity to do so. In the meantime, refer to WP:CITEDENSE, as this may answer your question about the sentences without inline citations. Thanks again Neutralhomer! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well-sourced, well-written.
    • Construction checkY

    **First and second sentences of the second paragraph need a source.

      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Later history checkY
      • First paragraph, last sentence, need a comma after "By 1867".
      • Second paragraph, second sentence, need a comma after "In December 1884".
      • Third paragraph, second sentence, need a comma after, "In 1905".
      • Fourth paragraph, first sentece, need a comma after "On June 11, 1915".
      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
        • Thank you for the kind words and suggestions! I've added all the suggested commas. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Preservation checkY
      • First paragraph, first sentence, is a bit of a run-on. Is it possible to break this into two?
        • Does this work? "In 2008, a survey of historic properties in the county was undertaken by the State Historic Preservation Office of the West Virginia Division of Culture and History. Following this survey, the Hampshire County Historic Landmarks Commission and the Hampshire County Commission began an initiative to place these identified structures and districts on the National Register of Historic Places." -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Pastors checkY
      • If you haven't already, do check the various names to make sure there isn't an article about them here on Wikipedia.
        • Already done; unfortunately there are not, but I will be writing articles in the future about at least two of the more notable pastors. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • No worries; definitely look forward to seeing those articles. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice, well-sourced table of past and current Pastors.
    • Architecture checkY
    • Lede section checkY

    **Like with "Geography and setting", some editors might want sources on each sentence.

      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Church exterior checkY
      • This is just me, but saying "Each wooden door has a small brass doorknob with a dead bolt." isn't really necessary. If there was something significant about the doorknobs or dead bolts, it might.

    **Need some extra sources in the second paragraph.

      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Church interior checkY

    **First, second and third paragraphs need those extra sources.

      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Community building checkY

    **Same thing here.

      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • Cemetery checkY

    **Same here.

      • Is there anyone of notable significance buried at the Hebron Church Cemetery? That might be worth mentioning.
        • I was only able to find one significant burial at Hebron Church for a government official who had retired near Intermont from D.C. Once I write that Wikipedia article, I will include a mention here. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can find a source for it, you could put "[person's name], [what they did], is interred in the cemetery" (or something along those lines). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Otherwise, well-sourced, well-written.
    • See also and below checkY
      • One part that might be a problem is under "Bibliography", bottom source "William and Mary Quarterly (April 1898)", which has a "registration required" alert. I would ask Wehwalt regarding this as I am not sure. Since it is just the source, not a link, I don't think it would be a problem, but I can't be for certain.
      • Otherwise, no other issues.
    • Photos checkY
      • In the "Architecture" section, the first image does squish the text just a little in the "Church exterior" section. That might be a little tricky, so I will leave that up to you on how you wish to deal with that. You could move one up to the "Preservation" section or even "Establishment".
        • Per Wikipedia:THUMBSIZE, I've sized all the images as "upright" to conform to all browsers and screen sizes. I also moved the image in question down. Let me know if this works and remedies this issue. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • They are much smaller now and I think a very small image is worse than squished headers any day. I brought them up to 175px. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the "Cemetery" section, that image squishes the header in the "See also" section.
      • Otherwise, great use of photos, both inside and out.
    • Talk page checkY
      • Since the church was founded in the 1700s, when West Virginia was still part of Virginia, it might be worth adding the article to WP:VIRGINIA as well.
    • Summary checkY
      • Very little you need to fix. This is a very well-written and well-sourced article. Nice use of photos throughout the article. Great work! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutralhomer, thank you for your very thorough and comprehensive review of this article! I am going to be busy over the next few days, but I promise to address your comments and concerns as soon as I can! Regarding the architectural descriptions of the church, there is only one available source, and that is the NRHP nomination form. I was unable to find other sources to corroborate the building's physical descriptions. Thanks again, as I always value your guidance and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • West Virginian Like I said, even if it is the same source for each sentence, some editors are sticklers for that. Me, I'm more of a stickler for spelling, sources and commas. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Neutralhomer, once again you have provided a fantastic and thorough review, and I am very grateful for your time! I've addressed all your aforementioned concerns, so please take a look at my incorporation of your suggestions and let me know if you have any further comments, questions, or concerns. Once again, thank you truly! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • West Virginian Two follow-ups for ya in the X'd sections. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Neutralhomer, I've added a sentence to the Cemetery section stating: "Dr. William Blum, Sr., an electrochemist at the National Bureau of Standards who invented a chrome plating technique used in banknote printing, is interred at the cemetery." I also checked out the images, and concur with your resizing of them. Please let me know if there are any other outstanding issues and thank you for your suggestions throughout this process! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: All the issues I had have been fixed or worked out. :) Very happy with your work on this article, it is going to make an excellent FA. Well done and keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutralhomer, thank you for engaging in this review and for taking the time to respond to my comments. I appreciate all your suggestions and continued guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from the Dr. edit

    • Perhaps put the dates in brackets after American Revolutionary War?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The brick church was constructed east of the original log church, which was west of the present community building. The 1849 church was " -perhaps change the second instance of church to building to avoid repetition?
    • " "four hanging lamps and calcimine" " -why quote this?
    • Also quoting "original design, workmanship and materials" looks a bit odd.
    • Do we not know the names of the pastors between 1976 and 2015?
    • " "the local interpretation of the Greek Revival style"; when it was built the Greek Revival architectural style, " -I don't think you need to repeat it here, paraphrase it to mentioning Greek Revival once.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sunday-school -is the slash really common?

    Did you address these West Virginian. I support anyway, don't want to forget about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Blofeld, I apologize for my belated response as I was on a brief weekend vacation from the wiki! I added the bracketed dates after the American Revolutionary War and I changed the second instance of "church" to "structure." I also removed the quotes and reworded the above phrases, as the direct quotes were not necessary in either case. I have not been able to locate the names of the pastors between 1976 and 2015, but it is on my growing list of information to acquire. I also removed the hyphen from Sunday school which had been erroneously added at some point throughout the article's multiple review processes. Oh, and I've rewritten and removed content from the discussion on the church's Greek Revival architectural style. Thank you for taking the time to engage in this review and leave suggestions, Dr. B! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    A few minor issues:

    • Ref 1: inappropriate use of italics
    • I'm not sure if italicizing the title of an official NRHP paper is "inappropriate" per se, but I have removed the italics anyway. Thank you for the suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 3: Ditto
    • Template:Cite map italicizes the title of maps automatically. The map title's italicization here is suitable, as it is a formal published product of the U.S. Geological Survey. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 32: Hard to find the article on the barely-legible source page. A column ditrection would help. On the other hand, the ref fulfils very little purpose and could easily be dropped.
    • This newspaper article provides additional context for the purpose behind the construction of the Winchester and Western Railroad to the church's east. Since the rail line encroached upon the church's environment, I felt a mention of it should be included to provide a comprehensive picture of the church's surroundings throughout its history. The article is necessary to illustrate a brief "why" for the railroad's existence. Is this a deal breaker? -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 33: Same again as above except more so. What is the relevance of a 1921 article on air-cooled engines to this article?
    • The article discusses the short line railroad's opening in 1921, which supports the 1921 completion date mentioned in the article. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 37 needs to be identified as a subscription service
    • Ref 39: The source page does not appear to contain the information that the church's congregation is part of the Potomac Conference in the West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
    • This too has been completed by Neutralhomer. Thank you for your diligence in assisting me with this endeavor, Neutralhomer! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs 47 and 48 both require the [[Subscription}} template.
    • Bibliography: For consistency, the Boyce book should have a publisher location.
    • I've added Bloomington, Indiana as the publishing location for Xlibris. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise, all looks well on the sources front. Brianboulton (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Brianboulton, I would like to extend tremendous thanks and appreciation to you for taking the time to engage in this thorough and comprehensive source review. While the Template:Cite map is a bit out of my control, I can add or remove further content as necessary. Please review my responses and let me know if these satisfy your questions. Once again, thank you. -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took the liberty of updating Ref 39 with a current elca.org link and a link to the 2014 Synod Guide, which featured all the churches/pastors in the synod. That mentions it is part of the "Potomac Conference" of the Synod.
    • I also took the liberty of adding the subscription fields to Refs, 37, 47, and 48. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutralhomer, thank you for adding the subscription information to the reference templates, and thank you for adding the source information for the 2014 Synod Guide! Truly outstanding addition! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 [16].

    Arnold Bax edit

    Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Following in the footsteps of the featured articles on the English British composers Britten, Delius, Elgar, Holst, Stanford, Tippett, Walton and Warlock, this article on their colleague and contemporary, Bax, is now a candidate for the FA pantheon. It has had the benefit of a thorough peer review, and I hope will be judged to meet the FA criteria. I found Bax an interesting figure to write about, and, with any luck, readers may find him interesting to read about. – Tim riley talk 12:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support—had my say at PR. A solid FA in my view and a great read. Well done Tim on yet another excellent piece of work on a subject I had no idea about. (Though I must protest—I think Stanford was Irish.) —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaargh! Quite true. And me with a name like Riley! Now remedied. Thank you for your support, sir! Tim riley talk 12:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Another happy traveller from the PR. A interesting and informative read that covers the criteria for FA as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support As above, a quality, concise article, well-deserving of FA status. I wish I could keep the Sinatra article to this length!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you to SchroCat and Dr B for valuable input at PR and for support here. I am most grateful. Tim riley talk 14:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Comments from Midnightblueowl:

    • Why do we have quote boxes that are different colours in this article? Surely, these should be standardised? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Practice varies on this. I could point you to FAs with different coloured boxes and others with a single colour. I chose the green as appropriate for the two Irish quotes. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should not a link to classical music be somehow incorporated into the lede? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think as we mention symphonies etc the context is clear. "Classical music" is a misleading term in any case: properly used it means music between the baroque and romantic eras, long before Bax's time. As some people use it in the technical sense and others use it as a catch-all term it is safer to avoid it. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the lede we state that Streatham was a London suburb; in the "Early Years" section we say its in Surrey. This needs to be sorted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both are correct. London in those days was, administratively, only the City of London (this was before the creation of the county of London in 1889). None of London's suburbs, and indeed not even the West End, were technically in London.The suburb Streatham was in Surrey. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that we could still be clearer here. Of course, the borders of London have changed much over time but I think that we should state Surrey in both cases, or London in both cases, or provide greater explanation in the article text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than saying "Parry, Stanford, Vaughan Williams and Holst;[7] Sullivan and Elgar stood aloof," should we not provide their full names and make it clear that these were composers of classical music? Always assume that the reader knows next to nothing about the subject and won't be familiar with the identity of such individuals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We usually just give surnames for notable composers, rather as we don't normally find it necessary to give Shakespeare his William or (contrariwise) Rembrandt his van Rijn or Michelangelo his Buonarroti. It reduces the clutter, and it is clear from the context here that these are composers, as clicking on the links will confirm for anyone moved to do so. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are terms like "Irish dialect" and "Victorian" used in the initial section that should probably have links. After all, the term "Victorian" has various different meanings depending on context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We mention that in 1910 he entered Russia. Can we check to see if he did actually enter Russia itself, or whether the term Russian Empire would be more appropriate here; it seems that he was pursuing a Ukrainian woman and wrote music about Ukraine, so it could perhaps be that he spent all his time within Ukraine rather than Russia. Clarification on this point would be most welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Russia certainly - he went to St Petersburg, where he fell in love with ballet - but he also went to Ukraine, and Russian Empire would be perfectly acceptable. I've linked to it. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • For what it's worth, my paternal forebears came to England from a small town in what is now Ukraine just a few years before this—but so far as I know, based on family papers and the like, they always referred to having come from Russia. My point is that there wasn't such a great distinction in those days between what would today be called Russia and what would today be called Ukraine. (At least according to the Russians, the word "Ukraina" comes from an old Slavic word, okraina, meaning "outskirts" or "borderland"—the implication being fairly obvious. That's the main reason the favoured wording in English used to be "the Ukraine", but isn't anymore now it's become independent from Russia.) Sorry, tangent over. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's true that the division between Ukraine and Russia was certainly a lot blurrier in the past then it is today. It was made all the more so by the fact that throughout the era of the Russian Empire, there were large numbers of ethnically/linguistically Russian folk living within the area of modern Ukraine (and of course, that continues to some extent today). However, Cliftonian, might it be the case that your ancestors were not actually Ukrainians but Russians who had lived in Ukraine during the era of the Empire? That might explain why they were more willing to describe "Russia" as their homeland? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry, Midnightblueowl, I didn't mean to raise an argument—I just thought people might find the brief tangent interesting. Regarding my forebears, one strand of them do seem to have had some reasonably well-off relatives in the Russian metropole including an architect and, at least according to family legend, a tailor to the Tsar. However my direct patrilineal predecessors are shrouded in mystery. The main fact about them that endures in the family memory is that my great-grandfather was one of 22 children—every single one a boy. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I worry that terms like "well-to-do" are too colloquially British and thus might not be particularly accessible to an international readership; would something like "wealthy" be preferable? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done a swift check, courtesy of the Oxford Dictionaries, and the phrase is in use in American, Australian, Canadian, Indian and Irish English, so I think we're all right. The phrase is, I think, preferable to "wealthy", which is a rather genteel synonym for the plain "rich". "Affluent" would work here, but I think "well-to-do" is better. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "mixed with George William Russell and his associates"; who is Russell? A fellow composer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is nicely written, and while I am not personally keen on the form of referencing used, it seems apparent that a nice variety of appropriate citations have been included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you so much for your contributions. All actioned or explained as above. Tim riley talk 16:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Tim. I'm happy to express my Support for this article now. Well done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you, too, for your input at PR and above and your support here. Tim riley talk 07:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    Support Tim riley, I've just finished engaging in a review of your article and I assess it to exceed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria as it is indeed well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I find that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in the article is properly licensed, except for perhaps the main image and the image of Harriet Cohen, which are both in the Public Domain in the US, but may need additional documentation of their license status in the UK and elsewhere. I'll let Nikkimaria weigh in on that one. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, and Cliftonian. I can find no other aspects of this article that would preclude it from achieving Featured Article status. Congratulations on a another job well done, Mr. Riley! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you kindly. Your support is most welcome. Tim riley talk 16:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite welcome Tim riley; it was a privilege. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    I don't know if it suffices for present purposes, but a reviewer at PR kindly added an image review there. The images remain as they were then. Tim riley talk 11:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support had my say at the PR. Very worthy article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Wehwalt, for your v. helpful input at PR and for your support here. Tim riley talk 16:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: Late on parade, but at least I'm giving you a sources review (see below). And I have just a couple of points outstanding from my peer review

    • There still seems to be overemphasis on the year 1919, in relation to Mr Evans. Thus we have: "In a study of Bax in 1919 his friend and confidante, the critic Edwin Evans...", followed later by "Writing in 1919, Evans suggested..." and later still, "In his 1919 overview of Bax's earlier chamber works, Evans identifies..." (In the last of these, Evans is suddenly in the present tense, which you may want to fix). Is it really necessary to state the year each time Evans's writings are mentioned? No other years are associated with Evans.
      • Quite so. Now pruned from three to one datings. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Foreman, having been just a surname in the many mentions since his introduction, suddenly becomes "Lewis Foreman" again in the last paragraph of the "Neglect and Revival" section.

    These minor niggles don't at all detract from the high quality of this biography which provides an excellent rounded picture of this neglected figure. Until now, I've only known two things about Bax: Tintagel, and his position as joint holder (with Cesar Cui) of the shortest surname of any recognised "classical" composer – now you'll probably tell me there's an Albanian miniaturist called Enver Ug. Ah, well.... Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • Ref 24: needs a "subscription" template
    • Ref 88: "Who was Who" should have the same subscription tag as ODNB
      • Done, though with some misgivings: a link in what appears on the page when one uses that template takes the reader to this page: confusing for anyone following up a Who Was Who rather than an ODNB reference, I think. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Sources list, is it "Scholar Press" or "Scolar Press"? See Bax 1992 and Foreman 1983.
      • The latter, now I check. Now amended.

    Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate reliability, and formatting is consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am most grateful for your suggestions at PR and above, for your source review, and for your support. I'm sure the biliteral Bo would join me in offering thanks, though for overall brevity Tan Dun beats her. – Tim riley talk 07:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why are there no music samples in the Bax article or most of the other 20th century composers listed in the FAC blurb? - hahnchen 19:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can come up with any admissible free-use examples I'll be thrilled to add them. Copyright makes such things very rare, and I have found none for Bax. Tim riley talk 19:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The English language Wikipedia allows for non-free content in these cases. Other music biographies such as Jimi Hendrix contain non-free samples. Some of the composer biographies linked above include non-free content such as File:Tippett old age.jpg, which basically says that a picture of Michael Tippett's face is more important than his work. - hahnchen 19:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting. It would be excellent if you can find suitable additions and add them. Tim riley talk 20:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – I found the article on Bax to interest me greatly and the article looks well-written, structured and comprehensive. It is worthy of an FA in my eyes. Z105space (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much, Z105space; your kind comments and your support are gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2015 [17].

    Frank Jenner edit

    Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about an English Australian street evangelist who was little-known while he was alive but whose story became widely repeated and distorted after his death. The article received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and was later promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Hi Neelix, welcome back to FAC. It's fine by me that this article was initially tagged with the WP:Milhist cat ... because you never know, sources might have been found that added details to his military career. But it hasn't happened yet ... apparently, the sources don't say much more about his military career than that he deserted from two navies and bought his way out of a third ... so I don't believe this meets the bar for Milhist-tagged articles, and I've removed the tag. I'm open to hearing other ideas, though. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your interest in this article, Dan! I don't mind that you've removed the Military History WikiProject tag from the article's talk page. If you have any further thoughts about the article, please let me know! Neelix (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Jaguar edit

    • "When he was 24, he deserted again, this time in Australia." - did he desert from the United States Navy to the Australian Navy?
    • "but after he died, tales of his evangelistic activities circulated widely" - I'm not sure if 'tales' sounds informal or not, but feel free to ignore if I'm wrong
    • " in Southampton, Hampshire, England, United Kingdom" - this is too much. I'd remove either 'England' or 'United Kingdom' (also in the infobox)
    • "but deserted in New York City, New York, United States" - too much here again! I would remove either 'New York' or 'United States'
    • "Jenner's daughter said in an interview" - stated
    • "the United States Navy took him to Melbourne, Australia, and he deserted again" - this gives me the wrong impression that the United States Navy specifically took him to Melbourne. Were they on a training exercise etc?
    • "in 1937 when he was legally discharged from the navy" - the lead doesn't mention that he joined the Australian Navy nor that he bought his way out
    • "they returned to Sydney on SS Oronsay" - I think the SS Oronsay is linked incorrectly
    • "Stanton went on to found the Jesus Army" - when? In what year did he found it? It also would be interesting to know if Jenner had an influence with the Jesus Army
    • You might want to consider the option of using either British or Australian spelling for this article, given that they have an equal amount of ties to this subject. Personally I'm neutral with it, but it's just something to give you a heads-up over just in case other reviewers mention it

    That's what I could find with the prose, other than that though this is another excellent and interesting article. Well done on writing this! A couple of the points I mentioned were minor, so you can ignore them if you want. JAGUAR  18:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I believe that I have addressed most of your concerns. You asked whether Jenner deserted from the United States Navy to the Australian Navy. He did not; he left the United States Navy circa 1927 (when he was 24) and joined the Australian Navy circa 1936 (soon before accompanying HMAS Canberra to Sydney in August of that year). Is there a way that you would like this to be made clearer in the article? You also mentioned the possibility that Jenner influenced the Jesus Army. Apart from Jenner's role in the founder's conversion to Christianity, it is unlikely that Jenner had any influence on the Jesus Army; Stanton founded the organization after Jenner had become debilitated by Parkinson's disease. Please let me know if I can do more to address any of the concerns you have raised or if you have any others. Neelix (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for addressing them, Neelix! I think I might have over-scrutinised the lead, so the mention of him deserting in Australia should be fine for the reader. Everything else of my prose review has been addressed, so I'll be happy to support this article. Well done on all the work put into this one, this really was interesting for me. JAGUAR  16:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Relentlessly

    Generally good stuff. Some particular concerns, however:

    • First sentence Too long, I think. Could you split it up? I suggest Frank Arthur "Bones" Jenner (surname often misspelled Genor) (2 November 1903 – 8 May 1977) was an English Australian evangelist. He was famous for his signature approach to evangelism, which was to ask people on George Street, Sydney, "If you died within 24 hours, where would you be in eternity? Heaven or hell?"
    • He eventually joined the Royal Navy, but In the context of the lead, you haven't explained why this is eventually. I think you can omit the word.
    • When he was 24, he deserted again, this time in Australia, where he worked for the Royal Australian Navy until buying his way out in 1937. Overly complex. I suggest When he was 24, he deserted again while in Australia. He subsequently worked for the Royal Australian Navy until he bought his way out in 1937.
    • In 1952, The Reverend Francis Dixon Lowercase the needed.
    • Thenceforward I agree that this is a word, but it seems slightly affected. Why not From this point on?
    • Jenner eventually joined the Royal Navy I still don't understand why this was "eventually". It would be more useful to tell us his age at the time.
    • There, he met Charlie Peters Unnecessary comma.
    • The Navigators Lowercase "the".
    • For 28 years, from his initial conversion until his debility from Parkinson's disease, Jenner engaged in this form of evangelism, probably speaking with more than 100,000 people in total,[10] hundreds of whom made initial professions of conversion to Christianity. Too many subclauses! For 28 years, from his initial conversion until his debility from Parkinson's disease, Jenner engaged in this form of evangelism. He probably spoke with more than 100,000 people,[10] hundreds of whom made initial professions of conversion to Christianity.
    • Repetition of "normally" in the Evangelism section.
    • who was serving in the Royal Australian Air Force at the time "at the time" is unnecessary.
    • The first sentence of Discovery by Francis Dixon seems a classic case of WP:OVERCITE. Why does The Reverend need citing, for instance?
    • There, Dixon hoped to find Jenner,[31] whose name he did not yet know. Odd start to a sentence. Dixon hoped to find Jenner there, although he did not yet know his name.
    • connected Dixon with him Vague. What does it mean? "Introduced"?
    • The picture of Ray Comfort seems out of place in the article, as does the picture of the tsetse fly. Neither to my mind matches WP:PERTINENCE, which requires that images be "significantly and directly related to the article's topic".

    Relentlessly (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for reviewing this article, Relentlessly! I have implemented most of your recommendations, with a few exceptions. I retained the capital "T" in "The Reverend" and "The Navigators" because I believe this to be correct; see the content of both The Reverend and The Navigators (organization) for examples of such capitalization. I also retained the second instance of "eventually"; we don't know the age at which Jenner joined the Royal Navy, and I want to be sure to avoid implying to the reader that this joining of the Royal Navy was the same event as his joining of the training ship for misbehaving boys. I retained the comma in the phrase "There, he met Charlie Peters" because I believe this to be correct; this is my understanding of appropriate punctuation in the case of adverbial clauses. Finally, I removed the image of the tsetse fly but retained the image of Ray Comfort; it is common for writers about the subject of the article to be pictured in the article, and I think this image to be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Of course, if consensus develops against my position on this point, I will be glad remove the image. I hope I have adequately addressed your concerns. Please let me know if I have not or if you have any more to add. Neelix (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi again Neelix.
    From The Reverend: "When the style is used within a sentence, the is correctly in lower-case"! The same goes for the Navigators, I think. Our article is mixed in its use, but here's a Washington Post article that uses the lowercase "the".
    Can I suggest "after some time" instead of "eventually"? The latter word carries implications that the former does not.
    You are correct about adverbial phrases, but this isn't an adverbial phrase. It's one word, so it's an adverb and the comma is not necessary.
    Fair enough re the photo. Relentlessly (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding so promptly to my comments, Relentlessly! I have fixed the capitalization of "the" in "the Reverend" and have switched out "eventually" for "after some time". I still think a capital "T" is appropriate in the case of The Navigators; they use a capital "T" on their official website. My understanding is that the comma applies to adverbials in general rather than adverbial phrases specifically; see, for example, the sentence with "surprisingly" on the Adverbial article. I appreciate your willingness to discuss these small details with me! I would certainly be glad to learn that there is a rule of capitalization or punctuation that I have been employing incorrectly in my writing. Neelix (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Neelix. I disagree about both, I have to say, but I'm willing to agree they are adiaphora. So I'm very happy to support this now. Relentlessly (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Z105space – Good article so far. Here is one comment

    • The fifth picture lacks alt text.

    Once my issues and the issues raised by Relentlessly are rectified, I will gladly give my support. Z105space (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the encouragement, Z105space! I appreciate you picking up on the alt text omission; it has been corrected. Neelix (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the remaining issues have been rectified, I can give my Support to this article. Z105space (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:SS_ORONSAY_underway_near_Circular_Quay_(13860178344).jpg: per the tag, is more specific licensing information available?
    • File:Frank_Jenner_the_evangelist.jpg: what was the creation date of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have added a PD-Australia tag to the image of SS Oronsay. I have been unable to discover the specific date of creation for File:Frank_Jenner_the_evangelist.jpg, but it was sometime between 1937 and 1953, and I have added these dates to the image. I hope these additions to the images' Commons pages address your concerns. Neelix (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. The issue is that, while both images are undoubtedly PD in Australia, depending on the specific date they may or may not be PD in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Our guidelines on country-specific public domain rules state that "Australian photographs taken before January 1, 1946, not published in the U.S., and where no copyright was registered in the U.S., are in the public domain in Australia and the U.S." That clears the photograph of SS Oronsay; the photograph was taken during the ship's pre-war career, so it was taken sometime between 1925 and 1939. I will have to contact Ann Carruthers to see if she can give me a more specific creation date for File:Frank Jenner the evangelist.jpg. Neelix (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed File:Frank Jenner the evangelist.jpg from the article while I wait for a response from Ann Carruthers, Jenner's daughter. If she is able to inform me that it was taken in 1946 or earlier, I will readd the image to the article. Neelix (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review edit

    Per a nudge on my talk page, I will carry out a source review for this article.

    A few quick points first of all:

    • Why not just call him Australian at the start? He's notable for what he did on George Street in Sydney. WP:OPENPARA says previous nationalities and/or place of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability. (You could instead add "Born and raised in England" before "At the age of 12", or somewhere else in the lead.)
    • In the infobox we give his allegiance as Australia and service branch as the Royal Australian Navy, but per the article's body Jenner served in the Royal Navy and the US Navy too.
    • There is also a Bexley in southern England. I would clarify that the place Jenner attended church was in New South Wales.
    • Bedfordshire, next door to my home county of Hertfordshire, is not in the east of England (I know it is for statistical purposes, but to any English person the "east" is East Anglia). Bedfordshire would be better described as being in south-eastern England.
    • Perhaps clarify where Hebron School is. I presumed it was in the city of Hebron to the south of Jerusalem.
    • We say Stanton "converted to Christianity" after his experience with Jenner. I'm really not sure about the accuracy of this wording. "Conversion" is usually used when a person actually leaves another religion, whereas Stanton would almost certainly have been at least nominally Christian already. Per the wording at this source, I think it is more accurate to say Stanton became a committed Christian, or something along those lines, than to say he "converted".
    • The above is a wording actually repeated several times throughout the article. I think it would better to say these people "became Christians", "became believers" or something along those lines, as, to reiterate, they probably would have been at least nominally affiliated to a Christian denomination already.

    OK, source review. I'll check formatting first.

    • Some of the sources have locations given (Ahn, Wilkinson, Wilson) while others do not. Be consistent on this.
    • What's the ASSIST News Service? Where's it based and who publishes it?
    • Where's the Jesus Army based? Northampton or thereabouts, no?
    • How about Counsel Magazine? Where's this based? Who wrote the article? Who published the magazine?

    I'll carry out some spotchecks later. Hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the suggestions and source review, John! I have implemented all of your proposed changes, although the last one only partially; I retained the words "converted" and "conversion" where they refer to Jenner, but have replaced them wherever they refer to someone else's experience. I hope this compromise is satisfactory. I agree that conversion connotes switching from one organized religion to another, although the broader denotation of the word includes switching from a state of not believing the central tenants of one's affiliate religion to a state of believing in them. The article would become very wordy if we were to alter all references to Jenner's conversion to avoid the word "conversion". I have added the locations for all the books as well as the Jesus Army website. I have removed the ASSIST News Service and Council Magazine sources; I added them several years ago and I haven't been able to find evidence of their reliability. Considering that they were only there as examples of erroneous stories about Jenner, it's not a big loss to remove them. Thanks for offering to do spot checks! Neelix (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for taking a while to get back to this, David, things have been a bit hectic here. I think in the interests of avoiding a lot of repetition your compromise regarding the word "conversion" is all right. Regarding the locations: almost no-one will know where Nether Heyford is, and even Northampton is a bit obscure for non-Brits—you've even got other Northamptons in the world—so it might be worth putting "Northampton, England" or "Northampton, UK" in there, and the same for Nether Heyford. It might be worth giving the state for Philadelphia too just for consistency.
    For spot-checks: I am afraid I am having to run out of the house just now but I will try to do some over the rest of the weekend. I'm sorry for keeping you waiting. Cheers and I hope this helps. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries about the wait, John! I really appreciate your taking the time to perform this source review. I have added the additional location specifiers you requested and I look forward to your spot-checks. Feel free to take your time! I know life can be busy. Neelix (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, spotchecks now.
    1. Ahn (notes 44 and 45): This version on Google books seems to have "Mr Genor" on pp. 229–230, rather than pp. 226–228 as our article presently has. I presume you worked from a different pressing? In any case the information is there.
    2. Goodwin (47): checks out.
    3. I don't have access to the Wilkinson film, which is cited in a few places, but I've found a trailer for it here and it seems to check out: the trailer seems to me to confirm at least notes 19 and 25. On this basis I think I'm willing to AGF on the rest sourced to the film.
    4. I can't find an online preview of the Wilson book. Now on this one I'm going to have to be a bit more stringent as it is the main source supporting the article. Do you think you could quote me the source material for the passage on Jenner's experience with the Glanton Exclusive Brethen on Collins Street in 1937—from "One of the men was engaging" to "which angered them"—so I can check for accurate representation and copyvio/paraphrasing? Thanks. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the spot checks, John! Page 226 of the Ahn book isn't showing for me online, but the corresponding page in the physical book states that Ahn received the story from Comfort. I have switched the other page number and added more information about how Ahn's and Wilson's accounts differ. Here is the passage you requested from the Wilson book:
    One day in Collins Street, Melbourne, he saw a circle of serious-faced men standing outside the National Bank. Curious as to what they were doing, Frank came closer. They were brethren of the Glanton fellowship, an English offshoot of the original Exclusive Brethren. Among them was Cyril Flowers, the inventor of the iridoscope. It was an open-air gospel meeting and one of the men was preaching to the passers-by. Never one to shirk the human contact, Frank stood by to hear what he was 'spouting on about'. When the gospel preacher had finished, Frank, with the gambler’s reckless abandon, stepped into the circle and announced to the dark-suited gentlemen,
    "I’ve got some good news for you, too. I'll listen to your story if you listen to mine". With a flourish, he produced his dice and launched into an explanation of the game of 'crap'. Soon he had the austere brethren down with him on the pavement trying to roll the dice in the heart of Melbourne's business district. When the intricacies of the game had been explained, Mr Gibson who with his wife lived in a flat above the National Bank spoke to Frank and said, "There are people here who would like to give you a cup of tea and tell you more about the Lord Jesus Christ and how you can be saved".
    Frank responded to the invitation and went upstairs where he heard the gospel for the first time. He must have accepted Christ immediately, for when he came home that day, he told Jessie "You are a sinner and going to hell and need to be saved".
    Jessie thought he had gone mad and was suffering from some sort of religious mania. As money was scarce and Frank, because of his gambling habit was not a good provider, she left him to work on a farm at Corowa 200 kms from Melbourne on the N.S.W. border. She took their little daughter Ann with her, vowing to return only when he came to his senses.
    Frank was still gambling and had no money. He stayed in Melbourne, witnessing aggressively to Jessie's brothers. They resented this and ridiculed him, pointing to his gambling habit and the fact that he was not able to support his wife and child. The more he spoke, the more they hated it and on one occasion they came to blows. They (apart from Frances) were never reconciled to him. Frank also wrote back to his own family in England telling of his conversion and urging them also to become Christians. None responded.
    I hope that helps with the spot checks! Let me know if you would like me to quote any other passages. Neelix (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK.
    • Firstly, while I'm sure the preacher may well have referred to the gospel as the "Good News"—that is what the word "gospel" means—the source material as quoted does not say he did so. A way around this might be to link Jenner's riposte about good news of his own to the article gospel, and put a footnote in explaining what "Good News" means in this context.
    • The bits about playing craps on the pavement, hearing about Christ in the flat, calling his wife a sinner, being thought insane by Jessie and not being a good provider seem to me to check out with no glaring issues regarding paraphrasing.
    • The last sentence—"He also wrote to his family back in England, telling them about his religious conversion and asking them to become Christians as well, but they did not respond."—seems to me too close to the original source material. I'd suggest rewording to "Jenner received no reply when he wrote to his family back in England informing them of his conversion, and asking them to become Christians too." Or something like that.
    Thanks for typing in all that source material, David; great effort. I'll call this spot-checked now. Just have a look at sentence I highlighted in my last point above, and the point about the Good News. Thanks and I hope this source review helps. Cheers! —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made all of the changes you suggested. Thank you for your advice, John! I think the addition of the footnote you recommended is particularly helpful in improving the article. Neelix (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2015 [18].

    Tyrone Garland edit

    Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a professional basketball player who last played with the Mississauga Power in Canada. He made history at John Bartram High School in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, coming close to Wilt Chamberlain on the Philadelphia Public League all-time scoring list. He also made one of the biggest plays of the 2013 NCAA Tournament in college after initial struggles. This article is detailed in its coverage of this player and cites nearly every reliable source that I could find on the Internet about the subject. It was promoted to GA-class on June 21 of this year. This is the second time this article is being nominated for FA...the first time it didn't receive enough support. TempleM (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Jaguar edit

    After reading it for a third time, I'm going to go ahead and support this nomination. It is well written, very comprehensive and well referenced, all in all meeting the FA criteria. I haven't had time to spotcheck the article's sources (I don't feel qualified to give a full source check, but I'm sure it will come along later in the review), but after I reviewed the GAN, I've realised that this article has kept its level of professionalism. Well done. I did find a few things I thought I should mention though, so I'll note them below. JAGUAR  19:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Be careful about the tight squeeze of text in the Junior sub-section. Usually it's discouraged on FA-levels
    I have resized the image. If you feel like it is unnecessary, I am fine with removing it, though. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The move ended Garland's stint with Mississauga" - I didn't know what this means, is "stint" informal?
    "Stint" means the time a person spent doing something, in this case playing for the Power. I do not believe it is informal. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a freshman at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" - link freshman?
    Done. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In late December, it was released that he was heading back to Philadelphia" - December of 2011?
    Fixed. TempleM (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I see no glaring problems with the article. It is well-written, comprehensive, blah blah blah. I did do some minor copyedititing, so I think the prose is a bit better (though it was already pretty solid to begin with). My onlly minor quibble is that I don't know if AAU should be an individual section since it isn't with any other basketball articles, but this might not even be a problem. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editorofthewiki: Since you mentioned it, do you have any ideas on where to put the AAU section information if it is removed? TempleM (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting you remove it, I was suggesting you incorporate it in the high school section. But like I said, it's no big deal. The article is splendid. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Cirt edit

    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). There's a cite in the lede that doesn't need to be there, as long as same material is cited later on in body text of article. There's a bit too much use of quotes in places in the article where they could be trimmed and/or paraphrased, instead. Those are the only major issues I could see. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: The cited information in the lead is not included anywhere else (as it doesn't belong), so I think the citation could remain there. I paraphrased one quote in the "early life" section, but I am not sure about the others. TempleM (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never really seen that before where cited info in the lede doesn't appear later on. Per WP:LEAD, it should. Suggest finding a way to work that cited info into the body text. After that, I'd probably be ready to switch. — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: I removed the citation from the lead, because his "shooting guard qualities" are mentioned elsewhere in the article (first section of "Collegiate career"). This info is cited. TempleM (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thanks for being responsive to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Coemgenus edit

    Lede
    • "... he decided to transfer to La Salle..." would be better as "...he transferred to La Salle...", since the transferring, rather than the decision to transfer, is what's important here.
    Early life and high school
    • "He grew up on South Yewdall Street, which was situated near 54th Street and Greenway Avenue." would be more informative as "He grew up on South Yewdall Street, near 54th Street and Greenway Avenue in Southwest Philadelphia's Kingsessing neighborhood."
    • "Donnel Feaster, an alum" "alum" is kind of informal. I'd say "alumnus".
    • "Amauro Austin, a statistician for the Philadelphia Daily News, directed the program while he was there." The final "he" refers to Garland, right? If so, you should change it to Garland, because right now the antecedent is Austin.
    Collegiate career
    • " He made the decision to attend the school at a press conference..." More likely he announced the decision at a press conference, right?
    • "Garland had also considered joining programs like..." Using "like" suggests that there was a larger list of schools that are typified by the ones you list. I think what you mean to say is "Garland had also considered joining programs, including..."
    • "Garland weighed approximately 170 lbs (77 kg) entering college, and was not as highly-rated as some of the team's 2010 recruits, like Jarell Eddie, because of his shooting guard qualities." This is a little confusing. Whose shooting guard qualities are we talking about here. And what, exactly, were those qualities?
    • Also, in the sentence above, "highly rated" does not require a hyphen.
    • "...seeing one minute of playing time on the court throughout the game ..." could lose "throughout the game" without changing the meaning of the sentence.
    • "He was allowed to play 24 minutes throughout the game..." could be "He played 24 minutes in the game..."
    • "In late December of 2011, it was announced that he was heading back to Philadelphia to compete for La Salle." Again, this makes the announcement the focus of the sentence, not the transfer. Perhaps "In late December 2011, Garland returned to Philadelphia to compete for La Salle."
    • "...because he was ineligible due to NCAA regulations." Maybe add "regarding player transfers" to the end of that sentence, for people who might be unfamiliar with NCAA regs on such things (and to make it clear that he wasn't academically ineligible.)
    Professional career
    • "In late June 2015, it was announced that the Mississauga Power had folded due to the creation of..." works better as "In late June 2015, the Mississauga Power folded after the creation of..."
    • "The move ended Garland's stint with Mississauga." Is he a free agent now?
    • That's all I have. I look forward to your responses. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coemgenus: I have addressed the points that you brought up. I am not sure whether Garland is officially considered a "free agent," as I cannot find any sources that directly state that, so it is best to leave that alone. TempleM (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. The article looks great, and I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Mike Christie edit

    • "for whom he started competed"?
    • James Brown is named as head coach twice within a couple of sentences.
    • "Letter winner" won't mean anything to a non-U.S. reader; I'd link it at least, or explain it inline if not.
    • "which is sometimes regarded as one of his best performances" -- I don't see this in the source.
    • "Strongly due to" is ugly; maybe "Largely due to".
    • I'm a little doubtful that we need so much detail on his uneventful first couple of games in college; do other sports FAs go into this level of detail?
    • "Greenberg was inquired about" needs to be rephrased.
    • 'he that "you can't play 13 guys".'?
    • "in the past year" -- rephrase to make the year definite; I assume this is the academic, not calendar year?
    • You have two sentences at different places in the "Sophomore" section that say essentially the same thing: "Following his exams, he returned to his hometown of Philadelphia" and "In late December 2011, he returned to Philadelphia to compete for La Salle."

    I'll try to finish this review tomorrow. I think the article needs a careful read through; it's not so much that it needs a copyedit, but some of the clumsinesses I point out above really should have been caught. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Christie: I have addressed the issues you pointed out. Please look over the article again and let me know if there are still any errors. TempleM (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, regarding the "Freshman" section, I included information about his first few games (even though he hardly played in them) to make it clear to the reader that he had a very small role in that season. Nevertheless, I removed one unnecessary sentence concerning an insignificant game/performance. TempleM (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I struck most of the points; I'll reread for the other point. I'll try to review the rest of the article today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing the review:

    • "recommended that Garland attend his alma mater due to his basketball skill set": I'd cut "due to his basketball skill set". The only thing in the source that supports this is the quote from Brown, which you give in the next sentence.
    • "According to coach Giannini, he told the guard post-game": unneccessarily complicated. I'd just make this "After the game, Giannini told Garland"; I know this is as reported by Giannini, but it's not controversial and the details can be left in the source.
    • I think footnote [a] could be moved into the main text; it's useful information. I'd also suggest a final statement to the effect of "As of late 2015, Garland is not signed to any team" or "is actively looking for a new opportunity" or something to that effect, assuming you can source it.

    -- Overall I think the article is FA quality, and I plan to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Christie: I have addressed the three issues you brought up. Let me know if I still need to make fixes. TempleM (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. All my concerns are addressed. Note to the coords: I found a couple of minor variations from what the source said -- nothing serious but a source spot check is probably a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - Yes, I agree that a spot check of the sources for accuracy and the absence of any close paraphrasing is needed on this occasion. Graham Beards (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Christie and Graham Beards: Is anyone willing to spot check the sources? TempleM (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Cas Liber edit

    I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Southwest Philly Floater" is the term used in the source (FN1). Kingsessing not mentioned in source.
    • Earwig's looks ok - some quotes inflating the percentage...

    More later - need to sleep (midnight here in Oz) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Casliber: I've added a citation that mentions that Garland grew up in the Kingsessing neighborhood. TempleM (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 3 used 6 times - all good/faithful
    • FN 27 - source used 4 times , mostly good but I can't see this (In a seven minute stretch in the second half, Garland scored 14 straight points. He said after the game, "I used to do it in high school. It kind of felt like high school when I was out there; it just felt good") in the source...?
    • FN 30 used 2 times - all good/faithful
    • FN 43 used 6 times - all good/faithful

    Overall, spot checking looknig alright with one query outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Casliber: I have added a source that includes the quote. TempleM (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2015 [19].

    Mantis edit

    Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth

    This article is about the praying mantis, an interesting insect with predatory habits. The article has been through GAN and has been further improved and polished up since. There are three co-nominees, so we should be able to action your comments rapidly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC) NB: This is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    • File:MantisLegGBMNH.jpg: do you have a link to verify that copyright statement? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to find such a link. The author is given as "British Museum of Natural History" and the date 1909, so I believe the copyright will have expired even if the British Museum has not died? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The image appears to be extracted from page 19 of "Guide to the exhibited series of insects in the Department of Zoology" by Charles Owen Waterhouse (d. 1917) and the Department of Zoology of the British Museum, published in 1909, doi:10.5962/bhl.title.27147. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. I've documented the Commons page accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Could use an inline cite at end of sect Martial arts. Overall the sect In human culture is good. Could rename that sect to just "Popular culture". Then there are several smaller sects in that sect that could be expanded. As the reader I'm left wanting to know a bit more about the impact on culture without having to click off to other articles just yet. Perhaps a couple or a few sentences with cites in sects Martial arts, As pets, and For pest control. Otherwise, overall pretty good. — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Links added. Glad you like the section; we're a bit leery about "Popular culture" as a title, as it's a bit of a cruft-magnet. Have expanded the sections on pets and pest control. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Wow, much better, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and support - I believe I reviewed this article for GA status and even at that time I thought it met the standards of an FA-though I did not check the consistency of the referencing style because that is not required for GA status.
    Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Barbara. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review edit

    • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers
    We don't. One removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally, 13-digit ISBNs, when available, are favored over 10-digit ISBNS for book sources, but consistency is needed either way (I checked, all sources used provide both formats)
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional, but including volume/edition numbers where available would be helpful (e.g. FNs 3, 4, 8)
    Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 7: check title capitalization (doesn't match that of the book)
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be consistent in how initials are spaced (e.g. FNs 4, 10, 38 vs FN 23)
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer inspection needed; initials before FN 38 are spaced; initials in FN 38 and beyond are mostly unspaced. Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Spaced throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 10: volume/issue? Also check journal name (google has more hits for "Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig")
    Replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Something's still off here; I can't find the article in the journal mentioned. I think the publish date is wrong too; should that be 1997? Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced ref with Klass 1997.
    • FN 18: title capitalization again. Generally, book titles are capitalized (check throughout)
    Fixed throughout. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 21: check publisher
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 22: publisher?
    Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 23 is a chapter from the same book as that of FNs 18, 20 & 32, but has a different ISBN format and publisher notation (as well as title capitalization)
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    FN 23 still has a different publisher notation from the others. Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They all say "Johns Hopkins University Press." in title case, no italics; if you can still see something wrong could you fix it for me? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They were indeed fixed in one of the earlier revisions and are fine now :) The only remaining issue is with FN 10, and initial spacing in author names is still inconsistent (see comments above) Auree ★★ 09:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both now done as above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 30: "Frontline Magazine" is work (magazine), not publisher (notice how in the current format the volume and issue numbers show up behind the title)
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 31: ISBN? Always include ISBN if one has been assigned (check throughout)
    Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 34: most sources have "Observations on" rather than "Notes on" in the title. Also, a volume number is available here (69)
    Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 36: missing periods after initials
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • DOIs are available for FNs 42, 43
    Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 47: page numbers?
    Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Stopping here for now. Generally, it is better to be as consistent and complete as possible in providing information for your sources (volume/issue/edition numbers, digital identifiers, etc.) Sometimes this requires some researching beyond the source link provided in the article. Auree ★★ 23:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. We think we have dealt with all the points you raised, and I have looked through the rest of the sources and made some improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, changes look better. Further improvements can be made in particular to the web sources in the latter part of the references (see below). Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing from FN 48... edit

    • Minor, but titles for web page articles are generally capitalized, especially if the source has them as such (check throughout).
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 53: check url
    Yes, it's the right book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now FN 54. Auree ★★ 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 55: publisher?
    Seems to be right: "State Symbols USA is an organization dedicated to promoting appreciation and conservation of our natural, historic, and cultural treasures". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now FN 56. Auree ★★ 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Publisher added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 58: check publisher
    Stated to be "Off The Mark". Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sundance Channel" or "The Sundance Channel"?
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite; both formats currently appear in the article (choose one). Auree ★★ 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Found it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FNs 64, 65, 66 need publishers
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 67 needs better formatting. The url actually links to a digitized chapter of a larger work (see http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/)
    • What makes sanparks.org a high-quality reliable source?
    The South African National Parks are certain to be correct about animal names in Afrikaans. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is that it's a forum and as such the source content cannot be considered reliable. I found a more reliable source that backs up the same claims here (I can read Afrikaans), which, for the record, is a chapter in an online book "Insek-kaleidoskoop"). P.s.: the Afrikaans word is hottentotsgot rather than hottentotsgod and should be changed as such in the article. Auree ★★ 22:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 69: Encyclopedia Britannica needs to be italicized per consistency
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 71: publishing website is italicized, but this is not the case for most other references. Consistency needed
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FNs 73, 74, 75: newspaper names should be italicized, and remove shouting in FN 74
    Italics done. FN 74: the single word in upper case is from the original; inserted "(sic)". Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Auree ★★ 11:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your diligence, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth, these look much better. I know reference formatting is tedious work, but once it is done the article will have a much more professional look. There are two points in the initial part of my review that I would still like to see addressed (see comments on FN 10 and initial spacing consistency), but other than that you guys are good to go on sources. Auree ★★ 07:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks, Auree. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    • Support Chiswick Chap, LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth, it was an enormous privilege engaging in a review of this article. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and is assuredly neutral and stable; and its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media is also acceptable, as an image review has already been completed by Nikkimaria. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, all the images are recommended to have alternative captions. All issues raised above have been addressed, and I can find no aspects of the article that would preclude it from Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Alt texts added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by West Virginian (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lede and overall
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Mantis order of insects, establishes the order's necessary context, and explains why the Mantis order is otherwise notable.
    • The info box is beautifully formatted and its contents are sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
    • As stated above, per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, all the images are recommended to have alternative captions.
    • For the external links, I would suggest adding archive links, for those without, with Internet Archive or WebCite.
    • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Etymology

    • I would suggest wiki-linking Ancient Greek to Ancient Greek; however, Europe probably doesn't need a wiki-linked per WP:OVERLINK.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

    Taxonomy and evolution

    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions regarding this section.

    Biology

    • In the "Anatomy" subsection, "posterior" and "arolium" can be de-linked as they are linked above in the prose.
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "Sexual cannibalism" subsection, "Chinese mantises" and "deimatic" should be de-linked as they too are linked above in the prose.
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

    In human culture

    • It wouldn't hurt to wiki-link Sicily in the "In literature and art" section.
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "10th century" should be rendered as "10th century A.D." as the 5th century in the previous sentence is listed as "5th century B.C."
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "In mythology and religion" subsection, "9th century BC" should be rendered as "9th century B.C." to be consistent with the B.C. listing above.
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "As pets" subsection, USA should be rendered as "United States," "US," or "U.S." per MOS:ACRO.
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

    Thank you so much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your timely response and incorporation of my comments and suggestions, Chiswick Chap. It was a pleasure to review this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from FunkMonk edit

    • "Mantodea is an order of insects that contains over 2,400 species and about 430 genera of mantises" It is very uncommon that the title of an article is not the first name used in the intro. I'd suggest switching it around, similar to most other insect articles. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The etymology section looks like it would make more sense as a subsection or paragraph of taxonomy, as it deals with the scientific names.
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Words outside the intro should not be bolded.
    Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because of the similar raptorial forelegs, mantidflies may be confused with mantises." Perhaps mention those are closer to lacewings?
    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As in the horse-fly article, I'm not sure why half of the article is in a "biology" section, only to the exclusion of human relations. This is a biology article after all, so seems rather redundant. Would make more sense to make a split between anatomy/description and behaviour/ecology.
    It's both a biology and a culture article, rightly covering both aspects. The biology section can be subdivided, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and biting and chewing mouthparts" Not sure what is meant by this. To differentiate it from insects without mandibles) Why not just say it has mandibles then?
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several terms are not explained, for example arolium, cerci, tergites, etc. Doesn't have to be in depth, just where they are on the body, and what they are if possible.
    • Not sure, but is "I Fucking Love Science"[20] a reliable source in itself? Couldn't the articles it refers to be cited instead?
    Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be correct though, just needs better sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cited Grimaldi & Engel saying that larger mantises sometimes eat lizards and frogs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, it only says "This means that once again we don’t know whether the hummingbirds could have ultimately escaped, leaving the peeved praying mantises hungry", whereas you write they are known to eat hummingbirds.
    Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You note that "mantid" has incorrectly been used to refer to the group as a whole, yet use the term in the article several times for animals outside Mantidae, for examnple "bark mantids in the family Tarachodidae"
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A later text, the Jingshi Zhenglei Daguan Bencao 經史證類大觀本草" Do we need the Chinese characters here and not for other texts mentioned?
    Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Extraordinary thin-legged mantis" Is this a common name or just an overly hyperbolic caption?
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A pet mantis in someone's hand" Too informal, "in a hand" or "being held" would be enough.
    Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They therefore have "negligible value" in biological control." Quoted statements should always been attributed.
    Repeated ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several cases of terms that are linked at their second, instead of first, occurrence.
    I have done some additional wikilinking. Can you point out anything you specifically noticed? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mantid" was once almost a synonym for Mantodea, given that few species outside the Mantidae were known; that has changed with recent discoveries." Needs citation.
    Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the intro mentions anything about their distribution and habitat.
    Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The eggs overwinter, protected by their hard capsule, and hatch in the spring." Again, there should never be unique information in the intro.
    Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is little to no physical description in the intro other than of their forelimbs.
    Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - looks good. The hummingbird stuff could maybe be re-added with better sources. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support (from Hylian Auree) tentatively on prose, style and sources. I read through the article twice and thoroughly checked its sources and found no major issues. The writing is clean and concise, reliably cited and supplemented by beautiful illustrations. I only found three (minor) foibles:

    • "In the 10th century A.D. Byzantine era Adages, Suidas describes an insect resembling a slow-moving green locust with long front legs;[49] translating Zenobius 2.94 with the words seriphos (maybe a mantis) and graus, an old woman, implying a thin, dried-up stick of a body." This reads rather awkwardly; the clause after the semicolon is a sentence fragment.
    Split into two sentences. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It ends Isabella Rossellini's short film about the life of a praying mantis, one of her 2008 Green Porno season for the Sundance Channel." Confusing (especially the latter part)
    Reworded to say "... short film about the life of a praying mantis in her 2008 season". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Because the lifespan of a mantis is only about a year, mantis enthusiasts often breed the insects." - this may be my layman ignorance, but what does their lifespan have to do with breeder enthusiasm?
    Said "people who want to keep mantises often breed them" - the point is that if you don't, you would constantly be going out to buy replacements. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Once these and FunkMonk's comments above have been resolved, the tentative portion of my support no longer applies. Great work, guys! Auree ★★ 08:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A little late on my part, but reading through again I have one more question: The article states that mantises are distributed in both tropical and temperate climates, yet in the reproduction section only mating in specifically temperate climates is discussed. What about in tropical climates; do the mechanisms there differ considerably? Auree ★★ 07:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the mechanisms vary at all, its just that tropical species can breed at any time of year while in cooler places, they have to synchronise their life cycle with the availability of prey. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this be clarified in the article, then (with proper sourcing, of course)? Auree ★★ 17:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Prete, of which LittleJerry has a copy, may clarify this, but insect breeding habits vary enormously around the world, depending I guess on temperature, climate, time of year, availability of prey, presence of predators etc. Most studies are on individual species and tend not to make generalisations. Maybe one of the others can help because I can't find a suitable source to say this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a thorough look for details of when and where mantises mate in the wild in the tropics. I tried Indonesian/Malaysian language sites (the area with most mantises); articles from India; searched JSTOR; looked through scientific papers; found nothing usable. It's a bit awkward proving a negative, but I think all we can say is that little seems to have been written on the matter. Experimental observations have generally been made in the laboratory, in Europe or America. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a mention of the mating season in tropical areas. LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Wonderful article, you guys have done an excellent job with this one. I found no major issues at all, so this article is definitely worthy of FA status. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2015 [21].

    Boys Don't Cry (film) edit

    Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boys Don't Cry is a 1999 romantic drama film directed by Kimberly Peirce and starring Hilary Swank and Chloë Sevigny. Swank plays the part of real-life trans man and hate crime victim Brandon Teena, who was beaten, raped, and murdered by his male acquaintances in Falls City, Nebraska, in 1993. Being transgender myself, this film holds special significance for me, not to mention that it's beautifully done.

    Back in April, I naively nominated this for FAC without a peer review and without even being a significant contributor. It was more than a little bit disastrous, as I somehow failed to catch that several sections were unsourced completely. After some amazing help, I added 45 independent references and nearly 30,000 bytes. I believe that it is ready again. It's been through a successful peer review, and User:J Milburn has been so kind as to give me several rounds of independent comments himself. Ultra special thanks to Josh as well as thanks to User:Ugog Nizdast for peer review comments, User:Baffle gab1978 for a helpful copyedit, and User:Ashton 29 for making the article a GA in the first place a few years ago. I look forward to reading and responding to comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Comments by WereSpielChequers Nice work, great prose, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them if not its a wiki...

    "on that reduces and, ultimately, nullifies Brandon's gender and sexual excess", was that typo in the source? if so I'd suggest on [sic] ϢereSpielChequers 11:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for fixing that, Support on grounds of well written prose, sorry but things have come up in real life and I'm not going to have time to properly check any other criteria, sorry. BTW I agree that ""Themes and analysis" is unusually long, but consider it merited for this film. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI think section "Themes and analysis" is much, much to long. Feels like some culture research paper from college, especially when there's another long section: "Critical reception".--Jarodalien (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jarodalien: I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree. Critical reception and themes and analysis are not the same thing. Critical reception is reviews from film critics, while themes are academic analyses of the film. I believe this length adequately represents the range of interpretations of the film. Another FA with a similarly long themes section is American Beauty (1999 film). Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 13:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jarodalien: I also vehemently disagree with you. In fact, I'm slightly angered you would suggest something so nonsensical. Boys Don't Cry is a thematically rich film–its extensively detailed and superbly written Theme section (well done, Johanna!) is completely worthy. In fact, you could talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtext. So to say that the Theme section is "too long" is ridiculous. It's well sourced too, so to say it resembles a college paper is, again, ridiculous. Ashton 29 (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So there's absolutely no chance to even consider make an article like Themes of Boys Don't Cry (film), right? "In fact, you could talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtext." Yeah sure, just like another 15 thousand movies, and "talk at length about the themes in this film without even scratching the surface of its subtex" is not a good thing. So, consider the big words against to me like "vehemently", "ridiculous", "angered", "nonsensical", let's just agree to disagree, after all, who cares.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Burklemore1 edit

    Really interesting article that is very well written, it's astounding and a pleasure to read. I believe it is as comprehensive as it can be, going in depth with all aspects of the film or anything involving the film, especially "Themes and analysis". Very detailed for all the good reasons! I'm not a specialised editor in films or in subjects related to the LGBT, but I have one very minor and quick comment, it's more of a suggestion actually. Btw, I know how you feel when it comes to nominating your first FA (saw your comment somewhere here), it can be daunting.

    • In the third paragraph of "Self-identity, transgenderism and the gender binary", the second "heteronormativity" used is linked while the first one is not. I think it should be the other way around. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • done.
    • Support. I see the article's been through a good deal other prior stages of review, including a peer review, GA review, FAC, and then another peer review. It's quite meticulously well sourced, throughout, with good overall structure and wording. I did an image review and all the images check out just fine, both the fair use rationales and those from Wikimedia Commons. Great expansive Themes and analysis sect, nice job. — Cirt (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: Hi, Johanna. As a first attempt at FAC this looks very impressive. I hope to find time for a more thorough review; for the moment, here are a few comments relating to the lead:

    • A "romantic drama"? I have seen this film, and would hesitate to classify it as romantic, since its central theme is a hate crime. Tragic, heart-rending, deeply saddening – but surely not "romantic"? I recommend you drop this word from the description in the first line.
    • At this point, I'm classifying it as a romantic drama because Peirce's interpretation of the sequence of events and due to the fact that it matches the criteria in the page romance film.
    • You don't need citations in the lead for the statement: "It was widely lauded as one of the best films of the year" – this has multiple citations in the body of the text.
    • done
    • Likewise the citation of "controversial issues" in the lead looks superfluous, as the rating issue is fully discussed in the text.
    • If it's okay, I would prefer to keep it--the cite was added in another round of comments and I think it makes sense, considering there's nothing explicitly stating this in the body. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why have you wikilinked the second use of the term "rating" rather than the first?
    • Good catch. Done

    I'll be back when I can – meantime, good luck with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brianboulton: Thank you! I believe that I have fixed everything. I look forward to hearing more comments! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    • Johanna, thank you tremendously for submitting this article for FAC. I've completed my thorough and comprehensive (and yes, much delayed) review of this article and I assess that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are some minor issues that must first be addressed before I lend my support. I have also completed an image review and found that while the images are properly licensed, they will require alt citations. The details of the image review are included in my comments. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lede and overall
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Boys Don't Cry, establishes the film's necessary context, and explains why the film is otherwise notable.
    • The info box for Boys Don't Cry is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
    • The film poster is copyrighted, but the "Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free poster – for Boys Don't Cry (film)" has been added, in addition to the poster licensing template; therefore, it is acceptable for inclusion in this article.
    • Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, there should be an alt citation for the film's movie poster.
    • Done All alt texts are done now.
    • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Plot

    • Even though trans man is wiki-linked, I would suggest wiki-linking transgender as well.
    • Done
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Cast

    • The cast listing is standard for film articles on Wikipedia, although I've always been a proponent of adding an inline citation for the listing.

    Production

    • Does "Diane Keaton's production company" have a name?
    • Done
    • In the Casting subsection, the wiki-link to Hilary Swank can be de-linked as it has already been linked above in the prose.
    • Done
    • Done
    • In the Principal photography subsection, the wiki-link to Falls City, Nebraska can be de-linked as it has already been linked above in the prose.
    • The image of Greenville, Texas is licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. The image needs an alt caption per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
    • Done
    • The image "Boys Don't Cry passage to manhood" has necessary "Media data and Non-free use rationale" and "copyright" template. The image needs an alt caption per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
    • Done
    • In the Music subsection, the wiki-link to Nathan Larson can be de-linked as it has already been linked above in the prose.
    • Done
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Themes and analysis

    • In the Self-identity, transgenderism and the gender binary subsection, "[sic]," "female masculinity," "passing," and "breast binding" are already wiki-linked above in the prose and can be de-linked here.
    • Done
    • In the Culture of the Midwestern United States subsection, Falls City, Nebraska and Midwestern United States can be de-linked as they are de-linked above in the prose.
    • Done
    • Done
    • Done
    • Done
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Release

    • "Fox Searchlight Pictures" can be de-linked as it is linked above the prose.
    • Done
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    @West Virginian: Hi there! Thank you for the thorough and helpful review, especially on the images. You had exposed a bit of a hole in my wiki experience--I wasn't previously really sure what alt text was or why it existed, but now I do! :) Take a look and let me know if there's anything I can do! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 03:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Johanna, thank you for addressing my comments in such a timely manner! Again, I appreciate all your extraordinary work on this article and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – I am feeling a little bit lazy to check the article. However, I did review the article a few days ago and had some comments which seem to be already resolved. I further found it to be of great quality. The article is well-researched and is a comprehensive illustration of the film. All of the sources are from reliable publishers and formatted properly (please fix some links here). Overall, the article stands out as a great one and thank you for working on it. Good job! -- Frankie talk 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with the proviso that I have made a small number of prose edits to this article in the recent past. It's a well written article and deserves FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from Bentvfan54321 edit

    I'll gladly support pending response to one minor quibble: according the external links tool, there still seem to be a few dead links listed, for me at least (perhaps a few more have died since User:FrB.TG's review?). If the nominator could look at those and archive them, I see no reason not to support. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Bentvfan54321: Everything should be fixed now, even though for whatever reason checklinks is clearly only displaying a portion of the article's external links. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm ready to support. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2015 [22].

    Life's Shop Window edit

    Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about... the first film actually produced by the company eventually known as Fox. And, depending which sources you believe, the debut of once-famed silent-era director J. Gordon Edwards, part of my grindingly slow effort to bring his works to featured status. With all that in mind, Life's Shop Window is still a very obscure, and very lost, piece of cinema. I've scoured a variety of contemporary and modern sources to put together what is almost certainly the most comprehensive treatment of the film available anywhere.

    Some things expected in a modern film's article are necessarily absent. As far as I can tell, the actors who played John and Bella Anderson were never publicly credited. Public box office statistics were still years in the future; except to acknowledge that it was "successful", it's impossible to say how much money the film made. I don't even believe there's a surviving film poster (if there was ever one in the first place). But thanks to a surviving piece of advertising ephemera and a publicity still reproduced in a film magazine, readers can at least get a feel for the film's character. And although it is grainy and poorly-contrasted, a newspaper advertisement allows readers to see what a 1914 film thought a Native American woman looked like.

    Eventually, J. Gordon Edwards's films get a lot more exciting, and a lot more fun to talk about at FAC. But we're not there yet, and this is still an important piece of forgotten film history. One that, I hope, I've been able to present to the FA standard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Brianboulton comments edit

    Concise, interesting and evidently well researched. I have a few quibbles:

    • "Wilton is accused of adultery after giving birth, although her private marriage was legitimate." I was confused by this sentence in the lead, although the meanong became clearer when I read the plot summary. I think it's the word "adultery" that causes the problem. Lydia was accused of having a child out of wedlock, which is not the same as adultery. Also, it seems that the marriage was secret rather than private. I'd advise some reconsideration of this lead sentence.
    • Rewrote the lead summary of the plot entirely, because it was terrible and I know better. "Private" changed to "secret" as the descriptor of the marriage throughout the text, which is supported by the sourcing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... the corporate predecessor to Fox Film." I'd extend this to say something like "which later merged to become 20th Century Fox" or some such wording, since the latter name is known worldwide.
    • I can do this if its really deemed important, but I'd rather not, personally. I know everyone has heard of 20th Century Fox, but the post-merger company really didn't have anything to do with this film. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should provide a source for your present-day values.
    • The comment about the poor musical accompaniment should not be included as a criticism of the film, as in 1915 the music would have been provided independently (some poor bloke playing the piano in the dark, probably)
    • Strongly disagree, actually. Silent film music is a complicated topic well beyond the scope of this one article. While music was often indeed performed live, it was rarely "independent", at least in prestigious venues. In any case, contemporary reviewers did at times consider the accompaniment for or against the overall quality of films. That's especially true with a case like this, where one of the major studios evidently botched the music at its gala premiere showing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's about it. Well done – I see no problem in supporting when these points are attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: The lead summary is a lot better. I accept what you say about the musical accompaniment, and the point about 20th Century Fox is trivial. Subject only to a successful sources review I'll be happy to see this article promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't know you were interested in film Squeamish, a pleasant surprise. For such an obscure film (not even I've seen it ;-)) this generally looks in good shape. I would prefer it if User:ChrisGualtieri, an excellent writer of silent film articles, could assess how comprehensive it is. Often a lot can be gleaned from Newspapers.com for such films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pinged him when I first listed this, in fact! And, yeah, I try to keep diverse interests around here. Keeps the article research interesting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Quite high quality, only minor quibbles really: File:Life's shop window still.jpg says it's uncategorized. Notes sect, no need for more than one column here when there are so few entries in that sect. Missing: Review analysis from Rotten Tomatoes (just kidding). :P — Cirt (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fiddled with the Commons categorization templating, so that image no longer shows as uncategorized (it already was in a category, but claimed it wasn't). Columns removed from notes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. These were only minor quibbles and now I feel I can agree with Brianboulton, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    • Support Squeamish Ossifrage, thank you for submitting this article to FAC, as it is certainly fitting. I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review, and I assess this article to be well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and to be neutral and stable; and its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media is also suitable, as an image review has been completed by Nikkimaria. Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, the images of the herald should have alternative captions. All issues raised above have been addressed as Cirt and Brianboulton stated, and I can find no aspects of the article that would keep it from being passed to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done, and thank you for all your hard work on this one. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by West Virginian (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lede and overall
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines Life's Shop Window, establishes the silent film's necessary context, and explains why the silent film is otherwise notable.
    • The info box is beautifully formatted and its contents are sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
    • For the external websites cited, I would suggest adding archive links, for those without, with Internet Archive or WebCite.
    • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Plot

    • "frontier territory" may not work well here, considering Arizona had been a U.S. state for two years when the movie was was completed. Perhaps render it "frontier lands," or "the frontier." If the film is set in 1912 or before, please disregard this suggestion.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no additional comments or questions for this section.

    Cast

    • As stated above, the two images of the herald should have alt citations per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is sourced and verifiable elsewhere in the article, and I have no further comments or questions regarding this section.

    Production

    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is sourced and verifiable elsewhere in the article, and I have no comments or questions regarding this section.

    Reception and legacy

    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is sourced and verifiable elsewhere in the article, and I have no comments or questions regarding this section.

    Comments by Grapple X edit

    • "Fox selected J. Gordon Edwards to direct,[14] in what may have been his directorial debut. Credit for St. Elmo, a film produced earlier in 1914, is disputed; sources disagree whether Edwards or Bertram Bracken directed". I'm not sure this second sentence stands up particularly well—it seems like it wants to be a continuation of the first, either bracketted or following a dash, or it may serve as a note appended to the first. But this is a very minor nitpick.
    • You mention several times that the original novel was censored for "controversial sexual elements". Not to be salacious but the mentioning of content while avoiding that content does prompt curiosity in a reader—my assumption is that the idea of an extramarital affair, even in the hypothetical, is the crux of the problem, but if this is the case it might bear specifying ("Like many of Cross's novels, it attracted controversy for XYZ"). Obviously there's no need to go into details but omission can make things seem more scandalous than they are.
    • I tried to do that with my general statement amount Cross's works: "Adultery and female sexuality are common themes in her works, which often reversed the expected gender roles of the time, permitting female desire to motivate the plot." The problem with being more specific here is that my sources aren't more specific here. And since the film isn't extant, its difficult to determine what was cut. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Understandable. GRAPPLE X 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The film's budget was small, with the cost of production reported as $4,500[b][21] or $6,000[c][14][15]". Given that we're dealing with a film in great retrospect, is it possible to judge whether these figures different due to uncertain estimates or due to writers giving them years later and assuming inflation? I ask only because there's a +33% difference between them, which seems significant.
    • Impossible to determine. Ramsaye, with the lower value, is more-or-less a contemporary source (originally published in 1926). Solomon is a modern source, and is pretty much the definitive study on Fox Film's early work. Both authors likely had some access to internal figures (this is way before publicly-announced film budgets), but got different values; it would be entirely original research for me to speculate as to why. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly wouldn't want speculation, just checking in case the information was known. No problem. GRAPPLE X 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as did Fox's greatly inflated claims of the cost of production—over thirty times what was actually spent". I feel this might be worth introducing when the budget is first discussed, then referenced again here—something along the lines of "The film's budget was small, with the cost of production reported as $4,500 or $6,000 at a time when films of comparable lengths generally required between $20,000 and $30,000 to produce; however, Fox exaggerated the cost of production by up to thirty times its true amount in advertising the picture", followed by removing the text after the dash later. It just seems strange to introduce budgetary information here and not earlier, although its relevance to the film's release is clear.
    • The infobox mentions a running time of "5 reels", but there's no mention of this elsewhere. I'm aware the film is lost so an accurate time can't be given but whichever source was used for this reel length could be repeated somewhere in the body, probably in the last paragraph of "Production". This might also open up the possibility of a note giving the average length of a reel at the time for a reasonable margin of what the running time may have been, should you wish to include that, but at the very least the number of reels used should be mentioned in the body.
    • Run-time in reels included in text, citing Solomon, shortly before comparing Life's Shop Window to "films of comparable length". I'm inclined to think that a discussion of why film lengths in this era are given in reels is out of context for this specific film. The short version is, basically, that there was not a standardized projection speed. Depending on the theater, equipment, and the preferences and competence of whoever was running projection, film speed could vary widely. Accordingly, consensus in most sources discussing these films (including here) has been merely to indicate the length of the film stock (often in reels, sometimes more precisely in feet). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I had misunderstood this, then; I assumed the reel figure was simply the most that was known (and that it was therefore longer than what four reels held, shorter than six, so we had a ballpark). If it's the standard measurement, don't go into the why, but so long as the number of reels is in the article as well as the infobox, we're good. GRAPPLE X 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The multiple image template for the herald could do with some alt text. Just something broadly useful, perhaps quoting the key phrases in each.
    • Overall it's looking good to me. GRAPPLE X 13:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Happy to support this given the changes that have been made. GRAPPLE X 14:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2015 [23].

    Perijá tapaculo edit

    Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Perijá tapaculo is a tiny, shy, rare little bird that lives in tiny burrows in remote South American mountain ranges (some of which are difficult to access due to guerrilla warfare), and this means almost nothing can be written about it. Regardless, some enterprising ornithologists have written about it anyway, and their writings, accompanied by some appealing imagery, are summarised in this new FAC submission. The article has reached GA status, and then had valuable suggestions and additions at peer review by Cwmhiraeth and J Milburn. Amongst a large number of other improvements, these additions also mean that, despite its elusiveness, readers can now listen to the tiny bird's song if they wish. This very small and insignificant bird, which may or may not soon be no longer with us, deserves an outstanding article about it as well as deserving to be saved from extinction, and all suggestions for improvements will be very gratefully received. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Jim edit

    Hi, I'll add comments as I read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Any known predators or parasites?
    No, although its size and cuteness makes it unlikely that it is the apex predator in its range. It could be assumed that its predators are similar to those of the rest of its genus and particularly its most closely related and nearby species, but I am nervous about straying too far into original research, and therefore am unsure whether and what to add. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adults have neutral grey heads... It is a secretive—singular or plural?
    Thank you for spotting this. I've replaced the pronoun at the start of the second sentence. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Males have breasts mixed with pale buff — perhaps males have some buff markings on their breasts?
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a secretive bird that is difficult to observe—tautology?
    Yes, I have re-worded this slightly. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Perijá tapaculo is secretive and difficult to observe— tautology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The female call and song differ from most other species in the genus— "from those of"
    • The male call is short and quick— what's the difference between "short" and "quick"
    • Thanks. I've cut this sentence entirely and made a fix to the previous one (the call outlined should have referred to both genders, not just females). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • builds its nests in underground cavities about 12 cm (4.7 in) in...— these look like the dimensions of the nest, not the cavity which is the subject of this sentence
    • The nests are accessed by a short tunnel— you haven't said the nests are closed yet, or does this refer to the cavity?
    • I'm not sure this needs changing; the article mentions the nests being in "underground cavities". Maybe I've missed something. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still confused. Is the cavity self-excavated? You write as if you are describing a cup nest, but you don't say that. If the nest is enclosed, then the tunnel could be part of the nest, rather than the cavity, like Red-rumped Swallow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, a major problem. You have just two references, primary sources by the same authors. We normally need secondary sources to meet the reliability criteria. I don't think that this article can pass without a wider range of references. I don't think, for example, that a primary source is adequate for discussing the taxonomy of the family, when there are good sources like Handbook of Birds of the World. You also don't indicate a subspecies name(s) before it reached species status, and, crucially you don't provide a good secondary source that recognises this as a species. At the moment it amounts to "It's a species because we wrote the paper and we say it is". I'm not opposing yet, because it may be fixable with help, and otherwise it's a good read Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2,450 m needs conversion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may be conflating two senses in which a source can be "primary". The sources cited in this article peer-reviewed journal articles; surely the holy grail of reliability per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I would have thought that they would only really be "primary sources" (in the problematic sense) if we were writing about the journal or the author. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps, but where other sources exist, they should be used rather than depending on the work of just one research team. I've sent Thine Antique Pen some other stuff to pick over, and I think this should allay my concerns, I'll continue commenting soon. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Looks pretty good now, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments and support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Minor quibble only: I'd recommend archiving all the hyperlinks in sources with archivedate= and archiveurl= fields, with links from Internet Archive. This should hopefully increase posterity, over time. And it sure would be nice if you could create even a short sourced stub about Serranía de Los Motilones. — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Cirt. I have archived all possible links with Internet Archive links; I was unable to archive the Mongabay news article due to a restriction on robots crawling the site in its robots.txt page. I created a short stub about the Serranía de Los Motilones range. Many thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportComments from Cwmhiraeth edit

    The article looks good; here are a few minor points I noticed.

    • "The Perijá tapaculo is a secretive bird and therefore difficult to observe, and thus its ecology is poorly known." - I think this sentence could be better expressed.
    Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is partially protected by ..." - You can't be protected by a bird reserve, only by living in one!
    Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "morphology" is used in both the second and third sentence. Can you avoid this?
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of the word "identical" in the next sentence is confusing. Perhaps you could use the word "separated" later in the sentence.
    Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its difficult to know how museum specimens could be separated by voice analysis!
    Fixed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The call and song differ from those of most other species in the genus, composed of two short churrs repeating up to 65 times at 0.5 to 3 second intervals." - This sentence needs a verb in its second half.
    Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does this description apply to the call or to the song?
    The call, sorry. Fixed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the description of the nest should come earlier in the paragraph about reproduction.
    I've moved it up. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cwmhiraeth: Thanks for your comments. I've responded to them all. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am satisfied with the improvements made and am now supporting the promotion of this article, which seems to be as comprehensive as is possible for such a poorly known species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Auree edit

    • Support - my comments below have been addressed. A neat and very readable little article on a cute, newly described bird. While I'm no expert, this seems to be as comprehensive as can be. That being said, I do a few minor queries and suggestions. Auree ★★ 00:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should its conservation status be included in the infobox? I see some articles on animals that have this, others that don't, so I'm not sure.
    I do not believe so, as the conservation status given in the taxobox is normally the official IUCN categorisation, which this species has not received. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Endangered species is for officially IUCN-categorised species, and the species has not yet been categorised. I think that linking it would imply it to be categorised by the IUCN. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure, but should neutral-grey be hyphenated?
    I believe "neutral grey" is correct. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your suggestion. Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's hard to otherwise describe, but the repetition of "average" in the description section reads a bit tediously.
    Reworded section. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Juveniles of this subspecies have dull ventral plumage, while the Perijá tapaculo has more yellow plumage." - should plumage be treated as an indefinite noun like that? I'm tempted to say "a dull ventral plumage" and "a more yellow plumage".
    I don't think it should be treated as an indefinite noun, and have modified it accordingly. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The diet of the species is little known, but studies of the stomach contents of seven specimens suggested that they fed exclusively on insects." - should this be "suggest that they feed"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but from a non-expert standpoint, I'd assume that studying the stomach contents of specifically these specimens would undoubtedly reveal (rather than suggest) that insects were indeed consumed, and based on this an inference (or suggestion) be made about the diet of the species in general.
    This is indeed a difficult one, and the current wording is the result of previous comments earlier in the peer review. My understanding - based on the comments there from people with more expertise than me - is that seven specimens is a very small number; the contents of the stomachs of only those specimens does not prove anything about the diet over the whole life of even those few specimens, and therefore moving to an inference about the species as a whole is just slightly too far. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lives on the edge of and under the canopy of" - a little clunky
    Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They estimate that" - after one-and-a-half sentences or so, it wasn't immediately clear who "they" are, but that may just be me :P
    Clarified, thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The authors believe that to protect the Perijá tapaculo, Colombia should consider rapid implementation of conservation measures" - Can this be worded a bit more neutrally?
    Reworded. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikilink "guerilla group"
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work. I am satisfied with the changes and the above responses -- switching to support :) Auree ★★ 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review edit

    • FN 1: editors are available for this work (del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. & de Juana, E)
    Added, thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 8: check publisher
    I consider the publisher to be correct and have linked Christopher Helm. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 19: need Spanish titles for Spanish sources (providing translation using the |trans-title= field is optional).
    Done. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Auree ★★ 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hylian Auree: Thank you for your review! I have responded to all of your comments. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment: The bulk of the article is from the French-wiki article (via modified Google Translation), where it is and has been a GA. This is not credited on the article's Talk page, and should be, via the proper template at the top of the Talk page. Softlavender (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now in place. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from FunkMonk edit

    • Missed this one, I didn't realise this was a bird by the title alone. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One concern is that, being named so recently, there has not been time for other researchers to react in press to the conclusions of the first description, and we therefore have to rely on that alone. This may therefore be a problem with FA criterion d (neutrality), as well as "coverage". Has any of the other commentators considered this issue? J Milburn? If somehow acceptable, it wouldn't be a problem for me, but it would set a precedent.
      • I don't think it would set a precedent; compare it to some of my mushroom articles (specifically, Gymnopilus maritimus, Xeromphalina setulipes and Inocybe saliceticola) or perhaps some of our small mammal FAs from Ucucha (Miniopterus aelleni and Macrotarsomys petteri, for example). Of course, you may think that these were promoted in error, that expectations have changed or that the odd reference to these species outside of their authors work (or the ones which now exist) make all the difference. On that note, time to see if I can update my fungal articles... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, seems this has not been seen as a problem before, will continue the review before long. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a paragraph about specimens collected in the 1940s, but the text doesn't make it clear whether these are now considered part of the new species.
    Thanks, I've slightly adjusted the wording. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any info on when the species diverged?
    It seems not so, with the only mention being that its level of divergence is significant. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph under Distribution and habitat states the bird is not sympatric with congeners, then you mention two examples of the opposite. Or would they be considered parapatric?
    I've reworded this slightly. It has not been conclusively identified as sympatric or parapatric, although there is a possibility of sympatry. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears several specimens were killed by the discoverers? Seems to be slightly controversial these days when describing threatened birds.
    The wording is, perhaps, deliberately, vague. The sources, like the article, use the word "collected". From some of the images of the specimens, though, yes it would appear they were killed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Everything looks good then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review and support. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2015 [24].

    Maniac Mansion edit

    Nominator(s): User:JimmyBlackwing, GamerPro64 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    With JimmyBlackwing doing what he does best with Copyediting and source checking and having me keep an eye on the nomination (discussion), here we have an article that covers one of the most iconic adventure games in gaming. While LucasArts may have stopped making games, their legacy can still be seen with this title. So come check it out, put a hamster in a microwave, and don't be a tunahead. GamerPro64 14:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A little bit of history for those who don't know: this article began as a collaboration between myself, User:Guyinblack25 and User:MuZemike in early 2011. (Sadly, neither of them uses Wikipedia much these days.) After awhile, I dropped out and they kept working on it, until it was unsuccessfully FAC'd in 2012. Prose issues sank it, and I wasn't available for copyediting. Last month, I decided to bring the project back to life with the help of GamerPro. A massive revision ensued. I put quite a bit of work into counteracting any "continental drift" that's happened with the sources over time, but spotchecks might still pick up some things that I missed. With that, I'll leave this nom in Gamer's capable hands. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The lead should probably say "Maniac Mansion is a 1987 video game" rather than "Maniac Mansion is a 1987 graphic adventure game", as very few people have any idea what a "graphic adventure game" is and the article needs to be written for a general audience. Stating that it is a graphic adventure game in the overview section is fine, however, as the body should have more detailed information than the lead. Kaldari (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there's a link to graphic adventure game so that might help people know what that is. I changed the part to "Maniac Mansion is a 1987 graphic adventure video game". I think that works best. GamerPro64 13:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkwarriorblake comments
    • In the production section I would maybe look at moving the opening sentence of "Production and SCUMM" to after the second to last sentence of the first paragraph? It seems to open stating a limitation but not giving context for why that limitation matters. I know 64KB isn't much especially in modern times, but where the sentence falls in the paragraph, it seems like it wouldn't be obvious to the non-tech person.
      • Moved it before the mention of the Commodore 64's limitations. GamerPro64 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this isn't available for every game but is there any information on a budget?
      • I myself wasn't able to find any information on its budget. Not sure if that was kept track of back then. GamerPro64 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    David [Fox] says, "I don’t remember a lot about, ‘Here's your budget.' Do you remember any of that? When I had to start doing budget stuff for other things, I was like, I have to budget this? Because basically you say, here's the game. It'll probably take me about this long. I'll need this number of people. And they'd say, okay. I'm sure Steve [Arnold, Lucasfilm Games General Manager,] did a budget then."

    "Yeah, Steve was very good at hiding all of that nasty stuff from us," says Chip [Morningstar].
        • Unless Arnold talks about it in the future, I doubt there'll be any way to know the budget for sure. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead seems a bit light, maybe mention that those two friends Dave can take offer unique gameplay additions?
      • Expanded the lead to mention the unique abilities the side characters have. GamerPro64 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than that I can't see much to complain about at all, looking solid. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, didn't have this favourited so it didn't show up on my watch list. The budget information can't be helped but the changes improve an already fine article. Support Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments From Indrian

    Generally speaking, this article is decent, but there are a number of problems, which I will address below.

    • The "Overview" section lacks important information on game play. What kind of "puzzles" are in the game. Are these brain teasers? Word games? Item manipulation? Environment-based? How does the player rescue Sandy? Does he have to neutralize all the members of the family? Gain entrance to a restricted area? How are cutscenes triggered, and how are they important to completing the game? This section really needs to be expanded for comprehensiveness.
    • "Maniac Mansion was conceived in 1985, when Lucasfilm Games employees Ron Gilbert and Gary Winnick were assigned to create an original game" Only GamesTM makes this claim, and its not a direct quote. In both Retro Gamer and the GDC Postmortem Gilbert and Winnick emphasize that the game was born out of voluntary brainstorming sessions and shared interests. They were not assigned to work together by management.
    • There is no reason to trust Retro Gamer or the GDC video over GamesTM here. The sources are compatible: RG and the video most likely just skipped over this detail, as is common. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Retro Gamer article in Issue 94 sort of contradicts this (though not explicitly) through direct quotes from Gilbert and Winnick about how they started hanging out due to mutual interests and started toying around with doing a game together. The idea of management assigning them to work together also seems antithetical to company procedure at the time as pieced together from various interviews about how the company operated in those days, when management was pretty hands off and low key and provided lots of individual freedom to put projects together. I really think GamesTM is wrong on this one and the Retro Gamer version should take precedence. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's arguable, but you might be right, particularly given Lucasfilm's management style. The problem is that the RG article was the main source that I wasn't able to access when I revamped the article. All of the RG material was added back in 2011-2012 by the other editors I mentioned above, and I couldn't find an active Wikipedian with access to the issue. (I did double-check whether the RG source had drifted over the years, by looking at the first revisions of the article that included it. Adjustments were made accordingly.) As a result, I can't edit new information from the RG source into the article. Since you seem to have access to RG 94, would you mind quoting or scanning the relevant sections so that I can rewrite the opening of the dev section? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will be sure to do this in the next day or so. Indrian (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gilbert had been hired the previous year as a programmer for the game Koronis Rift." Gilbert was hired as a contractor to port the Atari 800 game Koronis Rift to the C64. This sentence implies he was a full-fledged employee and that he was a programmer on the original game.
    • The source used for the sentence does not say this. Do you have an alternative source? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the Making of in Issue 94 of Retro Gamer goes into all of this. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per above, could you offer quotes or scans of the relevant section(s)? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He befriended Winnick, an artist for Labyrinth: The Computer Game" Winnick was one of the Games Groups' earliest employees and its only artist and animator. He worked on many games. Why is Labyrinth being singled out in a way that makes it appear it was the only game he had worked on to that point?
    • Removed mention of Labyrinth in the sentence. GamerPro64 00:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a trend to which Gilbert accredited the success of several of his games for Lucasfilm" Accredited means "to certify as meeting prescribed standards," "to supply with credentials or authority," or "attribute something to a person." I think the word you are looking for is "credited."
    • Actually the word means "to ascribe or attribute to (usually followed by with)". Credited, which refers to economic exchanges or one's appearance in a work's credits, is often confused with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough on credited, but I am pretty certain that accredited only applies to someone, not something. Therefore, I am still not convinced it is the correct word in this context. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dictionary.com doesn't qualify it in this way, and the OED specifically includes an example phrase that does not reference a person: "Staff described the results as outstanding and accredited the success to single sex education." Merriam-Webster's simple definition does seem to limit the word to being a reference to people ("to give (someone) credit for something"), but the full version is much broader: the third definition offers it as a synonym for "attribute". I don't see an issue with its use in the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine then, consider this objection withdrawn. Indrian (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They drew inspiration from what Winnick called "a ridiculous teen horror movie"" Anyone reading this is going to wonder why you don't just name the movie. The answer, of course, is that Winnick could not recall the title in the interview.
    • So mention that he couldn't recall the film or just remove it outright? GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would mention that he cannot recall the name of the film. Indrian (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed it into "They drew inspiration from a film whose name Winnick couldn't recall. He described it as 'a ridiculous teen horror movie', in which teenagers inside a building were killed one by one without any thought of leaving." GamerPro64 21:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In both Retro Gamer and the GDC post mortem, Reanimator is noted as an influence, yet it is not mentioned in the article at all.
    • "an adventure game by Sierra Entertainment" There was no Sierra Entertainment in the 1980s, the name of the company was Sierra On-Line.
    • "Although he was a fan of the genre, this was Gilbert's first experience" How could Gilbert be a fan if he had never experienced the genre? The answer is he had played many text adventures, but had never played a graphical adventure like King's Quest. This needs to be clarified.
    • "this was Gilbert's first experience with a graphical text adventure" King's Quest is not a text adventure by any definition of the term. It is a fully animated graphical adventure that happens to have a text parser.
    • Well the source goes against the standard definition of a "text adventure," so that's a problem. Indrian (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Maniac Mansion‍ '​s story and structure were designed before coding commenced" "Maniac Mansion‍ '​s first six-to-nine months of production were dedicated largely to engine development" So which was it? Did they start with story and structure, or with the coding of the engine? I believe the article is trying to convey that the story and structure were set before any scripting and game programming, but engine programming is coding too, so the wording needs to be tweaked.
    • No, it really does not. Again, I think its fair to say that the game was plotted out before coding and scripting of gameplay began, but it sounds like engine coding started very early. This just needs a simple tweak to avoid reading like a contradiction. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly don't know what change could be made to make it clearer than it already is, unless we want to go beyond the sources. It seems perfectly coherent to me just with the "largely" caveat, since that makes room for the story and structure's being at the beginning of development, without outright saying it. No idea what else to do with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Forty input commands were planned at first, but the number was gradually reduced to 12" Why?
    • "Maniac Mansion was the first NES release by Lucasfilm Games" Ballblazer received an NES port from Pony Canyon in 1988.
    • That's nice, but it's still wrong. It was released by JVC, not Lucasfilm Games, and it was not the first Lucasfilm Games IP that hit the NES. I don't believe that Ballblazer on NES was actually programmed by Lucasfilm Games, so it's probably okay to say it was the first game the company programmed for the NES. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source says: "This was going to be LucasArt's first Nintendo cartridge." The meaning is vague enough that I think I can get away with calling it the first NES game developed by LucasArts, so I went with that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think that works well. Indrian (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "During Maniac Mansion‍ '​s development for the Commodore 64, Lucasfilm had censored profanity in the script" This is simply not true. Steve Arnold told Gilbert that he could keep the term "shithead" if he had a good artistic reason to use profanity. When Gilbert could not think of one, he voluntarily removed the word from the game. That's not censorship.
    • It was censored, and then Gilbert complained bitterly, and only afterwards did Arnold offer to compromise. This whole episode can aptly by summarized as "censorship", a word that Gilbert himself uses in the video IIRC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but the article should probably add these details. In hindsight, Gilbert was very pleased with this compromise and he was given an opportunity to keep the word, so I think just leaving it at censorship lacks a little nuance. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure the episode is notable enough to deserve that much coverage, to be honest. If it wasn't relevant to the Nintendo problems, I wouldn't have left any mention of it at all. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Honestly, I think I misremembered this incident as being a little more benign, which is why I initially thought "censorship" was a little strong. Consider this suggestion withdrawn. Indrian (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • " In retrospect, Crockford commented that such policies made for "bland" products, and he called Nintendo a "jealous god"" Crockford's opinion is personal, partisan, and not conveyed in a scholarly or critical forum and therefore has no place in the article.
    • The "jealous god" line was quoted by GamesTM and most likely other reliable sources. It's notable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the context of Nintendo and it's perception among developers it is certainly notable. In the context of Maniac Mansion it is not. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well—removed. That "jealous god" line has annoyed me for years, anyway. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Maniac Mansion was one of four games in the NES library—alongside Shadowgate, F-15 Strike Eagle and Déjà Vu—to be translated into Swedish" No other translations are mentioned, so why is this one singled out?
    • Removed it. Wasn't really that important to mention in the article anyhow. GamerPro64 20:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does the reception section for an American game consist entirely of British Magazines? Computer Gaming World and Commodore Magazine are both readily available online, and I bet both of them reviewed the game.
    • They did, and their reviews are in the Reception section. Neither magazine used scores at the time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops, I did indeed overlook this. Please disregard; the reception section is fine. Indrian (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2010, the staff of GamesTM dubbed Maniac Mansion a "seminal" title, which overhauled the gameplay of the graphic adventure genre. Removing the need to guess syntax allowed players to concentrate on the story and puzzles, which created a smoother and more enjoyable experience, according to the magazine" I guess GamesTM has never heard of ICOM Simulations. Maniac Mansion was an early point-and-click adventure, but it certainly was not the first.
    • It isn't our job to second-guess a reliable source's praise. The quoted text already qualifies GamesTM's statement as that magazine's opinion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably should have been clearer on this one. The sentiment is mostly fine, but the implication that Maniac Mansion did this first or alone is troubling. I am looking for clarification rather than removal. Indrian (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, okay. Well, I could probably work something in if this source is considered reliable. I'd have to go back to the drawing board, otherwise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Included material about Uninvited to make the historical context clear. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfect. I think this just puts the game in slightly better context. Indrian (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Christopher Buecheler of GameSpy credited the game with its genre's subsequent critical adoration and commercial viability." This is just plain silly. King's Quest games sold hundreds of thousands of units before Maniac Mansion and continued to dwarf Lucasfilm adventure games in sales even though they did not go to an icon-based interface until King's Quest V in 1990. Leisure Suit Larry trounced Maniac Mansion in sales with a parser too. Maniac Mansion is a great game and a cult classic, but it had nothing to do with making graphical adventure games "commercially viable."
    • You'll have to take that up with Buecheler and GameSpy. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. In light of the facts, you need to demonstrate that this exceptional claim is true through providing multiple reliable sources. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to the additional source, which is fine. I am still bothered by the word "viable," which I realize is the exact word used by GameSpy. Clearly King's Quest, Space Quest, and Leisure Suit Larry were popular despite having a parser, so the graphical adventure genre was already viable. Also clearly sales of point-and-click adventures like King's Quest V, Phantasmagoria, and Lucasarts' own Fate of Atlantis and Full Throttle were even better than most of those games, so the point-and-click interface proved popular and influential. It's okay to talk about how the SCUMM interface helped broaden the appeal of the genre, but that word viable just does not sit well with me. Indrian (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that is much better. Indrian (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, authors Connie Veugen and Felipe Quérette argued that, while Maniac Mansion‍ '​s point-and-click interface was influential, it removed the enjoyment of discovering a game's vocabulary" Are these the only critics making this claim? If so, its a fringe view and mentioning it gives undue weight. The comparative sales of graphical adventures versus text adventures post 1984 would imply most game players could care less about "discovering a game's vocabulary."
    • It appears in an article by the most notable game studies journal, so I'd have to say that that the remark's worthwhile for inclusion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not matter if it's published in a reputable journal; if no one else is making this argument, it is a fringe theory and including it is undue weight. If you have more examples of this view, I have no problem with this staying as a representative of this viewpoint. My understanding is that most students of game design do not find "guess the parser" particularly charming. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The game was one of the first to contain product placement—in its case, Pepsi branding" Not even close. Pole Position in 1982 had billboards for companies ranging from Pepsi to Dentyne to Marlboro. Chase the Chuck Wagon in 1983 was essentially a Purina commercial. Tapper in 1984 featured a prominent Budweiser logo.
    • It should be pointed out that the article says "one of the first", which makes this a non-issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's at least five years too late to be one of the first. This is dishonest. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other games, such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game, Zool and Tapper, followed suit" As stated above, Tapper came out in 1984.
    • "Maniac Mansion enthusiasts have drawn fan art of its characters, participated in tentacle-themed cosplay and produced a trailer for a fictitious film adaptation of the game." You can say this about just about any popular video game. This is not relevant absent significant coverage of its impact in reliable sources, which is lacking here.
    • You could say it about any popular video game, but you don't on Wikipedia, because the sources rarely discuss it. It was discussed here, so it's a perfect opportunity to include it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gilbert has said that he would like to see an official remake, similar in its graphics and gameplay to The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition and Monkey Island 2 Special Edition: LeChuck's Revenge. However, he expressed doubts about its potential quality, in light of George Lucas' enhanced remakes of the original Star Wars trilogy." No point in mentioning a potential remake that is not going to happen, and I am guessing that jab about the Star Wars special editions was just Gilbert being funny.
    • From watching the GDC presentation, I'd have to say that I don't think he was joking. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "TV adaptation and game sequel" This section should come before "Impact and Legacy," as the article should really end with the game's place in history.

    Well, that is a lot of material, but the FAC can certainly still be successful with a little hard work. The foundation of the article is strong; it just needs some tweaking and reworking here and there. Indrian (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Still want to leave the nom for GamerPro, but there are a few points above that he might not know about (not having seen the sources), so I included some responses above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I still like a lot of what is going on in this article, which is informative and excellently sourced. Your apparent insistence on including questionable material without regards the exceptional nature of certain claims worries me, however. The Verifiability policy is not an excuse to eschew fact checking or promote fringe opinions. Indrian (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let GamerPro handle the rest. If he needs help with the Overview expansion, I'll handle that as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate all your hard work. I made the tactical error of conducting the review pretty late at night and was probably not as articulate on some issues as I could have been. My apologies if that got us off on the wrong foot a little bit. The article is really coming along! Indrian (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indrian: A few points above still await your replies. Also, I can't fix the dev section issues without access to the RG article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, real life has the annoying habit of laying waste to our plans. Looks like we are nearly there, and I will get you that RG info in the near future. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indrian: The nom is moving into the danger zone time-wise, after well over a month up. If you don't have the time to finish your review, should we just consider the remaining points void? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Mike Christie edit

    • "which went on to be used in": a little wordy; how about just "which was used in"?
    • "Aside from the green tentacle, the mansion's inhabitants pose a threat": does this mean that the green tentacle does not pose a threat? If so, how about "With the exception of the green tentacle, the mansion's inhabitants are hostile, and will throw the player characters into the dungeon"? I like "hostile" better than "pose a threat" partly because the inhabitants are plural but it would sound odd to say "pose threats".
    • Done. Hostile does sound better. GamerPro64 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead says "Maniac Mansion was Lucasfilm's first foray into video game publishing", but later you mention Koronis Rift as an earlier LucasFilm game. I see further on that it was publishing a game that was new, not creating a game, but that's not clear in the lead.
      • So self-publishing would make the most sense in the lead? GamerPro64 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The way you have it in the body is good: "While previous Lucasfilm Games products had been published by outside companies, Maniac Mansion was self-published." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved the sentence in to the lead. GamerPro64 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw the earlier discussion about "accredited" vs. "credited"; I think technically you may be right but as a matter of common usage "credited" sounds much better to me. I really think you should change this.
    • "co-wrote and -designed": a bit ugly; can we have "co-wrote and co-designed" instead?
    • "Lucasfilm employee Chip Morningstar contributed base code for the engine, upon which Gilbert built": a bit clumsy. How about "Lucasfilm employee Chip Morningstar contributed the base code for the engine, which Gilbert then built on"?
    • "Each cartridge was fitted with a battery back-up to save data": I don't follow this. What does the battery have to do with saving data?
      If I recall correctly, batteries were the things powering the cartridges save files. I believe The Legend of Zelda (video game) was well known for being innovative at the time. GamerPro64 03:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK -- can something (perhaps a footnote) be added to clarify this? For a reader like me it's quite unclear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't find a source to back this up, unfortunately. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Struck; it's apparent from some quick googling that that's the case, so it's not a controversial point. I changed it to "battery-powered" to make it clearer to those of us who never played these games. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, Nintendo later noticed it and demanded its removal. After the first batch of cartridges was sold, Jaleco was forced to remove the content from future shipments": might be more concise as "However, Nintendo later noticed it, and after the first batch of cartridges was sold, Jaleco was forced to remove the content from future shipments".
    • "Ports for the Amiga, Atari ST and Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) followed": I assumed when I read this that the ports followed in fairly short order, but per a comment later in the article the Amiga port was published six years later. Perhaps the dates of the ports could be included at this first mention.
      • Done. GamerPro64 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        So the review was six years later; the port was only two years after the original release. I didn't get that first time through. In that case how about changing "Reviewing Maniac Mansion‍ '​s Amiga version, Simon Byron of The One Amiga praised the game for retaining "charm and humour" six years after its first appearance. However, he believed that its art direction had become "tacky" compared to more recent titles" to "Reviewing Maniac Mansion‍ '​s Amiga version four years after its release, Simon Byron of The One Amiga praised the game for retaining "charm and humour", but suggested that its art direction had become "tacky" compared to more recent titles."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "she believed the game to be highly enjoyable": "believed" is an odd word to use here; it's her opinion, not her belief. Perhaps "felt" would be better.
    • Richard Cobbett is referred to only as "Cobbett" at first mention, and his relevance is not explained; I'd move this from second mention to first.
    • Must have been when I moved the TV section over the Legacy section that it doesn't make sense. Fixed it. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Conversely, Maniac Mansion‍ '​s implementation of the concept was widely imitated in other adventure titles": why "conversely"?
      • I don't think I know what conversely means so I wouldn't know a different word to use here. GamerPro64 03:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It gets used in constructions like "A, but conversely B" to indicate that B in some sense works in the opposite direction to A. The article has "Although 1985's Uninvited had featured a point-and-click interface, it was not influential. Conversely, Maniac Mansion‍ '​s implementation of the concept was widely imitated in other adventure titles." If Maniac Mansion had been influential, but not had a point-and-click interface, then you could have said "Although 1985's Uninvited had featured a point-and-click interface, it was not influential. Conversely, Maniac Mansion‍ was influential, but did not include a point-and-click interface"; the two games would have the influence and interface compared, and it would be clear that one was the converse of the other. In the article text as it stands I don't know what two things are supposed to be converses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed "Conversely". Think that helps the sentence better. GamerPro64 00:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "unlike anything else out there – a point-and-click adventure": this is a spaced en dash; you use unspaced em dashes elsewhere. I know this is in a quote, but that doesn't matter; it's OK to clean up minor typographical variations in order to get a consistent style.

    -- That's everything I can see on a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Everything I noted has been fixed; I think this is FA quality now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Pretty good, very nice Impact and legacy sect, but overall throughout the article a bit too much overreliance on quotes. I'd recommend trimming those down in size and/or also paraphrasing some, still citing to those sources with attribution if given already, but just writing the overall gist of what they're saying and not quoting as much. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images There are two non-frees, the cover and the screenshot, but both have proper NFCC criteria and readily meet requirements, easily meeting minimal use. The remaining images are all free images pulled from Commons and appear to have proper sourcing/licensing/origins to be treated as free images. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments from PresN

    Whoops, promised a review and then never delivered. Not too much here; it's been combed through pretty heavily above.

    • 'according to Gilbert, "Very little was written down. Gary and I just talked and laughed a lot, and out it came."' -> lowercase v
    • I'm not sure that I follow. Why would the V be lowercase? "According to Gilbert" is identical to "Gilbert said", in this case—which requires a capital letter. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'For example, Winnick's girlfriend Ray inspired Razor' - while technically correct, this just reads oddly to me, probably because of the dual-definition of 'inspire', e.g. Ray causing Razor to be inspired as a person, rather than being the inspiration for the character
    • Changed it to "Winnick's girlfriend Ray was the inspiration for Razor". GamerPro64 00:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'An innovative, tile-based graphics system was implemented to solve the problem, at a small cost in detail. Winnick gave each character a large head to make them recognizable.' - well, that last sentence came out of nowhere. I think you need a transition of some sort.
    • 'Fox was between projects and planned to work on the game only for a month, but he remained with the team for six months' -> 'but remained with the team'
    • In general, it's best to restate the sentence's subject in a clause, especially when a lot of objects have been mentioned in the meantime. I learned that one from a grammar hound at FAC years ago, and I've stuck with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The development section is certainly long enough as it is, but I noticed that Labyrinth: The Computer Game claims that its "word wheels" influenced the SCUMM system and Maniac Mansion, at least in that it was Fox's attempt to avoid the text parser, a claim that this article makes no mention of.
    • I had a source for this, so I went ahead and added a bit of material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Lucasfilm's push "to make computer games a valid storytelling art."' - period outside the quote
    • 'but he encountered "loads of visual humour" in it; and he added,' - semicolon and?
    • 'The series lasted for three seasons; 66 episodes were filmed.' - mixed number formats
    • 'and another group in Germany is producing one with art direction similar to that of Day of the Tentacle' - given that the source is from 2011, can we get an "as of" or something here to show that it's still in development?
    • redirects: if you care, point-and-click and cutscenes are redirecting in the lead; further on, redirects that don't look intentional include David Fox, gameplay genre, King's Quest 1, Space Quest 1, Humongous Entertainment, and The Deseret News
    • Reference 1 has the author name flipped (or unflipped, rather)
    • Thanks a bunch for the review! Even though this is GamerPro's show, I had to quibble over a few of the grammar/punctuation issues above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC),[reply]
    • Flipping to Support; any remaining issues seem to be a clash of "style", rather than actual incorrect grammar, and so not worthy of an oppose or holding out on you. --PresN 02:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! Also, I went through and fixed the redirects you mentioned. Regarding the transition about character heads, I'm not really sure what to do. I noticed that the connection was tenuous while I was copyediting that section (the cruft that stitched all this together was cut), but I thought I could get away with it based on the mention of lost detail in the previous sentence. If that's not good enough (and it definitely might not be), I'm a bit stumped. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2015 [25].

    Horse-fly edit

    Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about horse-flies, biting and blood-sucking insects that bother both people and animals. The article achieved good article status in August after a thorough review by Shyamal during which it was improved considerably. The review mainly concentrated on content rather than layout, so I have done some further polishing. I look forward to your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NB: This is a wikicup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Burklemore1 edit

    Another insect article I cannot resist commenting on. My points are very minor, just suggestions really that is involved with the references. I may post more comments in the future though, depending if I am busy or not.

    • Page numbers for references 2 and 3? I know the statement is very obvious, but it would help if page numbers are included.
    The title of the books both include (Diptera: Tabanidae) so I could cite the cover! I could instead cite ITIS if you prefer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That works, the cover should be fine. If you want to include ITIS, feel free to.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add doi:10.1071/ZO9550583 for ref no. 2
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add doi:10.1071/IS07005 for ref no. 27
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add PMID 18685822 and Bibcode 2008NW.....95.1093H for ref no. 35
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it should be noted that only females bite.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page says that fungi other things attack the larvae, though most listed organisms are already mentioned. See here, page 12.
    Added to article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it odd that there is no external links section for the wikispecies link and dictionary link. It's just within the reference section, and it looks visually strange in my opinion.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any reason why the common names in the body of the article are bolded? While they are common names for these flies, I thought it was only necessary to bold the names in the lead. I may be in the wrong, but I have never seen this occur in FA articles related to animals. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I think I have dealt with all the issues you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues have been addressed, I've made two minor edits to the article. I cannot see anything that appears to be problematic, so I am now supporting this article. Well done on another excellent insect article. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Theater_of_Insects.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thank you Nikkimaria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from FunkMonk edit

    • Hi, I'll give this a review soon, a few points for now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there no photos of the eggs and larvae? If not on Commons, perhaps on Flickr or in old books.
    I did a photo search on this matter and I had no luck. However, I did find this one of a female laying eggs. See here. It could be useful for the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, it is also on Commons:[26] If pressed for room, I certainly think such an image is more relevant than for example the one of the wasp. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to add it in due to its relevance, though it may make the article look a little bit crammed. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Burklemore1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! Burklemore1 (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The images under In literature are on the same level, which is discouraged (due to "sandwiching" of text). If no other arrangement can be found, I think the book cover is almost irrelevant to the subject, it doesn't even seem to depict the fly.
    Sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why an "overview" section title is needed to encompass both description, evolution and taxonomy. Isn't consistent with other articles about similar subjects. Also, it doesn't really mean anything; an overview of some issues to the arbitrary exclusion of others? FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Tabanidae are true flies and members of the insect order Diptera." Why is this under description?
    Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most unfamiliar terms are explained, but some are not, for example setae, flagellum, and ocelli, and others as well.
    Done the ones I found. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mention sizes two different places under description, might be good to have them in succession.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last paragraph under Description seems to overlap with the diet section.
    Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "These early bloodsuckers existed before warm-blooded mammals had evolved and likely fed on reptiles." Does the source really say this? I'm pretty sure warm blooded mammals are thought to have evolved before the Jurassic, and before the first dinosaurs.
    Rewritten to better reflect the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems a bit unclear from the article, but does the term "horsefly" refer to Tabanidae overall or just Tabaninae?
    Both really. The article should be called "Tabanidae" but Wikipedia policy seems to give articles common rather than scientific names. Tabaninae could be called "true horseflies" I suppose. I have bolded Tabanidae in the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Johann Wilhelm Meigen was a pioneering naturalist and author of Die Fliegen (Flies); he gave the name Haematopota, blood-drinker,[29] to another genus of horse-flies in 1803.[30]" Seems a bit random to single this one out with so much information, from thousands of species?
    Rewritten to emphasize his importance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "while Chrysops larvae have been reported to feed on organic matter, their mouth parts indicate a predatory habit." I'm not sure what is meant by this sentence, as it has already been stated they are carnivorous?
    Removed sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - That's all I had to say, nice work! FunkMonk (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). There's a bit about prevention but I was expecting to see a tad bit more on symptoms impacting humans from the bites and just a teeny bit about how to treat Horse-fly bites or at least attempt to ameliorate them. — Cirt (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a short section on the symptoms and treatment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Looks quite good, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from TAP edit

    • "In some areas of Canada, biting tabanids are known as bull dog flies" – the source or its link to the etymology of "bulldog" do not mention the suggestion of "some areas of Canada" or specify "biting tabanids", only referring to the family
    Corrected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source 9 – perhaps change the link to this fact page instead of the background page?
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oxford commas – I would advise being consistent throughout. For example, "antennae, frons and maxillae", "Greenland, Iceland and Hawaii", and "Tabanus, Chrysops and Haematopota" are without commas
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "specimens from the Cretaceous have been found in England and South Africa" – source mentions specimens from the Cretaceous in England, Spain, and a single possible South African specimen
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "morphological" – link?
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "tibiae" – link?
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "genus Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758 and the deer flies, genus Chrysops Meigen, 1802" – the details of the genera describers make this appear slightly messy. Otherwise, I would advise delinking genus and instead linking it in its first usage ("genus Chrysops")
    Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "exudates" – possibly link?
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "its movement, its warmth, its surface texture" – "its" seems repetitive
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Blue tail fly" – capitalise song title
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all from me. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. I think I have dealt with all the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments and source review from Cas Liber edit

    • Any reason why you're using cm unabbreviated after using mm abbreviated in description section? All should align one way or t'other....
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some treatments include the subfamily Adersiinae, with the single genus Adersia, and the subfamily Scepcidinae, with the two genera Braunsiomyia and Scepsis - it isn't explained what the alternative is...are they considered by others in separate families or in one of the other subfamilies?
    Explained further. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, (just using this version for ref numbering, FN 3 just says that species is called the Notch-horned Cleg-fly. It doesn't say that other species are called cleg-flies (or clags/klegs).
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *Similarly FN 4 links Tabanus nigrovittatus but not genus to greenhead. So not sure how generalised term is.

    • FN 8 is ok (i.e. sentence faithful to source).
    • FN 9 needs publisher.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 10...not a great source...would prefer secondary source but not dealbreaker...
    • In fact, FN 11 looks a much better source, list some more names and has some more details about some names...which is a good way to make the common names section less listy.
    I have rearranged the paragraph on common names, eliminated FN3 and FN4, and used FN11 as you suggested. That means some of the other FN numbers have changed, so I won't do anything more till you have finished. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They are the same. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 13 used 5 times - all ok apart from I can't find where in source it says that the female needs to have blood before laying eggs....
    Added a reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 14 and 16 (used twice), and FN 42 all check out ok
    • I initially paused on the use of FN21 but am satisfied it is a RS when I see who wrote it...speaking of which, that ref needs an author and publisher. (look at this page maybe)
    Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have vanished..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it because the source had changed since it was first cited and it no longer provided any useful information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 28 needs publisher.
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other refs formatted ok.

    Otherwise article looks in ok shape. Will look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I have dealt with all these issues. The alteration of the the FN numbers made things difficult, and they will be different again because I am removing the source that you mention above under FN21, because the source has changed since it was first cited and it no longer provides any useful information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • this book provides some good material on origin and use of common names and would do really well to flesh out and delistify common names section.
    This section completely rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The taxonomy has been updated in a 2015 paper by Morita - its findings really need to be incorporated into this article, plus it has some good background stuff (i.e. >3000 spp of Tabaninae etc.).
    I have added this taxonomic information and will look for other useful titbits. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! I would have left in breeze-fly (cool name!) and added in alternate spellings of clegs....
    I have given the alternate spellings, and added breeze-fly, which I find is used in North America. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FN 43 and 44 (based on this revision) are faithful to source, don't copyvio and hence ok.

    FN 32 - (based on same revision) used twice - faithful to source, don't copyvio and hence ok.Only iss was info started on 310 not 311 but I tweaked that.

    Overall sources checked check out ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Cas Liber. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2015 [27].

    Boletus aereus edit

    Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a yummy mushroom. We've scraped the peer-review cupboard bare and hereby present it for review. We'll address issues pronto so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NB: Is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Remarkable how the article is so well sourced and well written yet also accessible to the layman and everyday reader with its writing quality. Another high quality contribution to science on Wikipedia. Most educational, and tasty! — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

    • I will shortly review this fully, but for the time being I notice that "Fagus" and "Castanea" need disambiguating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    good catch - both links fixed now 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikilink or gloss porcini, pileipellis, trichodermium, hyphal clamps, plectenchymatous mantle, rhizomorphs, mycorrhizal
    all linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the date of Fries's work." - Incorrect use of apostrophe after "s" I believe.
    fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Molecular analysis suggests the split between the B. aereus/mamorensis and B. reticulatus/Chinese B. "edulis" lineages to have diverged around 6 to 7 million years ago." - This sentence is ungrammatical.
    fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "15–30 cm (6–11+3⁄4 in)" - Since 30cm is double 15cm, the imperial equivalent should be in the same ratio.
    fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The tube openings—known as pores" - If you are going to gloss "tube openings", you should do the same for "stipe" and any other unfamiliar terms.
    I glossed as they are intimately related to each other, and gives enough context to visualise them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The thick flesh is white, has a robust and pleasant smell reminiscent of hazelnuts, and a mild sweet taste." - The last part of this sentence could do with an additional "has".
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... showing a preference to acid soils." - "for"?
    switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A 2007 field study" - Is this study actually about this species?
    its about 4 spp. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It can be locally abundant," - The start of a new paragraph and we want to know what we are talking about.
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the fungus contain any bioactive compounds?
    I can't see anything published..appears to be all on B. edulis.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am satisfied with the alterations made and now support this candidate on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support on prose alone. Very clear, and surprisingly hooky. Will look at sources later today. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Source review - Random sample; claims backed up with no evidence of close paraphrasing etc[reply]

    ref 13
    ref 19
    ref 25
    ref 46 Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Stamp_of_Moldova_014.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: might be a dumb question, but with the copyright status as it is, does it matter? If so I can live without this image in the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an archive link (and changed the original link to something that was more specific). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    • Support Casliber and Sasata, I've just completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and assess that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and the lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow the style guidelines. With the addition of the archival link, the media is also acceptable. I've left a few comments and suggestions below, but all fall outside the confines of FA criteria. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank-you for your review and support. I agree with your suggestions and have made the requested changes in this edit. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sasata, thank you for your timely response. Upon my re-review, I find that everything looks in order. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lede and overall
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the Boletus aereus, establishes the mushroom's necessary context, and explains why the mushroom is otherwise notable.
    • The info box for the Boletus aereus is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
    • As Nikkimaria already engaged in an image review, I'll refrain from further commentary on the article's media now that the archival link for the photo in question has been added.
    • For consistency's sake, I would suggest re-rendering the regions of consumption as: Spain (Basque Country and Navarre), France, Italy, Greece, and generally throughout the Mediterranean. Or any other way that highlights that Basque Country and Navarre are in Spain, since the rest of the regions mentioned are countries.
    • Mycologist should be wiki-linked to Mycology on its first use, as its a field of study some readers inexperienced with fungi may be unaccustomed with.
    • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Taxonomy and phylogeny

    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions regarding this section.

    Description

    • "stipe" should be de-linked here as it is wiki-linked above in the prose in the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions regarding this section.

    Distribution and habitat

    • In the lede, the cork oak is rendered as "cork oak (Quercus suber)" with the species name wiki-linked. This is done again in the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section. But in this section, "sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa)" is rendered with "sweet chestnut" wiki-linked and the species name un-linked. Since the various broadleaved trees and sclerophyllous shrubs mentioned all have their genus names wiki-linked, it would be best for consistency's sake to link the species and/or genus names in the parentheses throughout the article.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions regarding this section.

    Edibility and culinary uses

    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions regarding this section.

    Comments Support on prose and comprehensiveness - generally well written and very comprehensive. A few quibbles:

    • "The fungus predominantly grows in habitats with broad-leaved trees and shrubs, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations enveloping the plant's underground roots with sheaths of fungal tissue (hyphae)." - a bit confusing; no plant that I can identify
    • I attempted to fix this myself - please check if the current revision works. Auree ★★ 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oops, missed that one - works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Boletus aereus is classified in Boletus section Boletus," - not a big deal here (I understand the meaning), but this read a bit oddly at first
    yeah - big genera often have classifications like this for those near the type species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "More extensive testing of worldwide taxa found that B. aereus and the genetically-close B. mamorensis were sister to a lineage that had split into B. reticulatus and two lineages that had been classified as B. edulis from southern China and Korea/northern China respectively." - a bit long winded
    yeah I know - trying to write up clades in words sometimes ends like this. If you can understand it, all good - I can't think of a more succinct way to put it without sounding a bit stilted... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The cap is hemispherical to convex, slightly velvety and lobed or dented, dark brown, greyish-brown, violet brown, or purple brown, often with copper, golden, or olivaceous patches." - reads a bit run-on esque
    • I know this technically isn't very practical (considering how small the unit is), but I wonder if "10.5–19 by 4–7 μm" should be somehow converted for the sake of consistency.
    I don't think anyone uses imperial units for sizes that small. I think the brits and americans would use micrometres... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, in the nutritional value section, do we need conversions for grams?
    Need to check whether nutrition is still written with imperial units at all.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    changes look ok - can live with either broadleaved or broad-leaved - umm, not sure about the colon in the third para of the Distribution and habitat section though...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! Was meant to be a semi-colon -- fixed. Apart from one point I tried to fix myself (see above), the rest of the unstruck comments are minor enough for me to support this candidate. Great work! Auree ★★ 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support from JM
    • "septate" is jargon
    linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information on the microscopic characteristics seems a little light. If there's nothing else out there, then so be it, but perhaps double-check the guidebooks? (There was nothing in the one I checked...)
    • I think you could merge the first and third paragraphs of the distribution section.
    good catch - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "show that Asian porcini mostly belong to different species" This implies that the species is found in Asia, but that most IDs are of other species. I assume this isn't what you want to say? (I see you have a China category- you could be clearer that this appears in Asia!)
    agree - changed to "appears" - literature isn't totally clear but I suspect all Asian taxa will be distinct once the research has been done.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of your Phillips sources lacks a location, as does Courtecuisse and Duhem. As far as I can tell, Athanasiou does, too. So does Loizides et. al (you have a location for another self-published source)
    added locations now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a number of foreign language sources without translated titles; perhaps worth considering?
    added titles now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm struggling a little with your Alessio source. What kind of publication is this?
    it's a 705-page monograph book in a series of books on European fungi. Finding the ISBN is proving challenging however....... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we have the chapter authors rather than the editors for Kusters and Belcher?
    added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've no doubt that these will be easy to fix, so I am happy to support at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2015 [28].

    In Our Time (short story collection) edit

    Nominator(s): Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernest Hemingway's first collection of short stories is In Our Time, which has a tortured publication history. Hemingway was in his early to mid-twenties when he wrote the pieces that make up the collection, some of which are considered among his best. This article is a concise account of the themes and style in the collection, to be developed and expanded in each separate article about the stories, i.e. "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River", whereas the events surrounding its publication are described in greater detail. I'm hoping to have this run as TFA in October or November as a reminder of WWI literature. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

    Comments from Belle
    • " ... he slowly wrote six new paragraphs ... It was a work that grew, with sections published in 1923, 1924 and 1925 ... The prose pieces ranged from 75 to 187 words and were about war and bullfighting ... In June of 1923, Hemingway took Hadley, with Robert McAlmon and Bill Bird, to Spain where he found a new passion at the bullfights, during the summer he wrote five more vignettes" This leaves me totally bamboozled as to what is in the "Little Review".
    • There were six vignettes/prose paragraphs in the Little Review and he wrote another twelve for the 1924 edition of in our time. I've tried to clarify, but it might take another pass. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most confusing thing there now is the prose pieces "were about war and bullfighting" and then "he found a new passion at the bullfights"; he was reinvigorated by the spectacle of the bullfights I guess, but the current phrasing makes it appear that he was discovering bullfighting for the first time when he'd already been writing about it. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's correct. He'd been writing about it but had never been to a bullfight. I've reinstated a bit I previously trimmed explaining where the material came from for those first six vignettes. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The style section covers the iceberg theory twice with his description of it in A Moveable Feast but only mentions it by name the second time; perhaps you could combine these two.
    • The first is about imagism and prose style, the second about leaving out information on a more meta level - have tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The sense of discordance is intensified because the action is about anonymous men and soldiers, only referred to with pronouns, and unspecified woundings; and reticences are rife" I edited it to that as I couldn't understand it, but I have no clue if that's the right sense. Reword it?
    • Trimmed some, will take another pass. This goes the idea of writing silences and empty spaces, as in the empty space in the Goya print, but if reticences doesn't make sense then it's best to leave it out. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem was that "unspecified woundings" was floating around; I didn't know if they were part of the "action" or were "rife". Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine to do without "rife reticences" - we get that he omitted stuff and I tried to pack in too much there. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nick features in eight of the stories, as an alter ego, a conduit for Hemingway to express his own experiences, from the first story" I can't understand that.
    • Sorry. I've tweaked and tried to clarify. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "wrote some of his best short stories, telling Scott Fitzgerald of the new material that "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River" were superior" (originally) v "wrote some of his best short stories, telling Scott Fitzgerald that, of the new material, "Indian Camp" and "Big Two-Hearted River" were superior" (what I changed it to); if the sense of my change isn't right then I'd leave out "of the new material" from the original as it just muddies the waters.
    • Yes, thanks. It's fine as written. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hemingway scholar Jim Berloon disagrees with Tetlow" He seems to not really disagree with her; there is a problem in the later sections knowing which collection each critic is looking at.
    • I don't understand Berloon's point; he says that the collection is intricately structured; the vignettes were "probably" thematically linked (hedge hedge) and then that the 1925 edition has lost the structure; that means that the 1924 edition should be exactly what he is after and he should be able to tell if the vignettes are thematically linked by looking at that or the "Little Review"; no idea what he's trying to say. Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's incomprehensible because I didn't paraphrase well. I've tried again, but, yeah, it's literary criticism. I'll give it another pass if it's still hard to follow. Victoria (tk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Never really got into Hemingway; I can't get excited about this; it seems a solid job apart from those niggles; I'll support it if you fix them up. Thanks Belle for your effusive praise of my hard work says Victoria. Belle (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Belle, thanks for these points. This is a difficult article because it's mostly about modernist literary theory, and there's a reason so few of us are still writing about lit., let alone at the FA level. I've managed to address a few and hope to get to the others tomorrow. Off the top of my head I want to say that the structure section addresses all iterations of the collection, i.e. 1924 in our time and 1925 In Our Time but I'll have to pull all those sources and re-read to be certain. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Re this edit; it leaves you with "14...two", "18...six" etc. which is a nasty experience for the reader; not really nasty; not beaten up behind the bike sheds or anything; more like a small fly going in your mouth while you are cycling. WP:MOSNUM doesn't mandate numbers above nine being in numerals unless they are of the twenty-eight--million-three-hundred-and-two-thousand-six-hundred-and-thirty-eight-and-a-half variety (more than two words in the compound actually; I'm just making the point with my dainty lil sledge hammer). Belle (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting. It's standard for the American style manuals I'm familiar with, so could be an issue of doing it differently in different parts of the world. I'm not really fussed - was trying to avoid "chapters seven to eleven" and "chapters eleven to seventeen" (difficult to chunk), and make the numbering consistent. It's really a preference issue, so feel free to change the numbers or I will if you'd like me to. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did change it back; my way or the highway, MOS people :P Everything seems fine now, so I support (I'd like to say that, unlike Ceoil, I'm NOT a friend or collaborator because I'm trying my best to cultivate a poisonous, unfriendly and unwelcoming atmosphere on Wikipedia, so when they hand out the money I get a bigger share; joke; love you really.)Belle (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Thanks for the insightful comments, the copyedits, and for the support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "unfriendly and unwelcoming" - Belle, you may might not be Vic's friend (you say), but would make a seemingly fine admin, haha. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocking you the moment I get the power ;) Belle (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re the "friend" comment: as it happens Ceoil seems to have been reading my mind, because recently I've been thinking about (the old days) at FAC when the norm was to disclose collaborations, etc., and that we should go back to that again. Your review, Belle, was really helpful; not being familiar with the topic, you poked holes where they were needed, so again, thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review - spotchecks not done

    • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author in Sources?
    • Hlinak is out of order in Sources
    • Missing full bibliographic details from Baker 1972, Benson 1975
    • No citations to Baker 1980, Baker 1981, Benson 1989
    • Be consistent in how you format editors
    • Hlinak: italicization is reversed
    • Why abbreviate Oxford UP but not Cambridge University Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Nikkimaria - I think I got all of these. As always, I live in envy of your eagle eyes. Thanks for taking the time. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Hemingway admitted that the book's publication history was complex; his biographer Michael Reynolds describes it as the most confusing of Hemingway's canon, to the point that "any analysis will be flawed - confusing in terms of publication history or content? Otherwise leaning support; although I am a collebrator and friend of Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Both. I've clarified by porting in Reynold's full quote, which conveys it better than I can. Thanks for the help on the lead, the copyedits, and the leaning support. Victoria (tk) 00:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Have spent another two hours reading, on top of watching this dev. Support - Comprehensive, highest standards of sourcing,and given the particular writer - economically written. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Sorry if there were edit conflicts - I was dead tired last night and made the mistake of leaving the edit window open as I was trying to fix everything, top-to-bottom, and hadn't realized others were working there. Thanks for the copyedits - very helpful! I think I got the last of the inlines, but poke me if I haven't. Yeah, trying to make it economically written was a goal that only took about four years! Victoria (tk) 16:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to coordinators - This hasn't attracted any comments in three weeks, so it's fine with me if it's archived. Thanks Belle and Ceoil for reading and posting comments, and thanks Nikkimaria for the SR. I appreciate the time you all put into it, and to the delegates as well for the paperwork, so to speak. Victoria (tk) 01:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Victoriaearle: I'm going to put it on the Urgents list and leave it a bit, if you don't mind, since so much has been done on it. If there no more action next time one of us goes through the list, we can archive it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Laser brain, okay, I'll keep at it. The reason I posted that is that I've gone fairly inactive, and this is the only thing keeping me around. So I thought if it doesn't get attention, or supports, then that's fine. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Don't generally need cites in the lede unless for controversial contested info, just have cites back up same info later in body of article. Great job on overall structure and layout of the article. I fear there is too much use of quotes, and those should be trimmed down and/or paraphrased. Structure, Themes, Style, Reception and legacy -- these sects are all quite good and high quality, just rely a bit too much on direct quotes when paraphrasing or trimming would help. — Cirt (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Cirt, thanks for taking the time to read through and to comment. I removed one of the cites from the lead, (the second is a direct quote and is required). I've trimmed a a few quotes but generally I don't think this piece can stand unless written as it is (I've been working on it for about four years). It is an unconventional WP article, about an unconventional piece of literature. The article is about 14 short stories and 18 or so vignettes (depending on the edition), it details the historic collaboration between Ezra Pound and Ernest Hemingway, which is documented in their extant letter. And it includes literary analyses of the stories/vignettes, as well as the earliest reviews that Hemingway received. I think it would lose flavor to take out Hemingway's and Pound's voices in the background section. The quotes about "form" in the structure section are included in all the critical analyses I've read, and it makes more sense to use the author's own voice there. The quotes in the themes section about the war are written better than anything I can produce in a paraphrase, and again I think the flavor of the horror that was WWI would be lost if those were taken out. Hemingway is famous for his style, and the iceberg theory quote (which is quite famous), as well as others, are commonly used when writing about him, even here on WP. Finally, the review section includes historic material (took some researching to find), that is educational and nice to include, as well as the words from his modern biographers. If you choose not to support, I understand why not. Thanks again. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've re-read it through, again, and your specific argumentation makes sense. Thank you for being so polite and responsive to my comments, most appreciated. Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're most welcome! Hope the rest of the FAC goes well, — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments from Lingzhi
      • Sorry, just noticed this nom. My bad. I just wanna chime in here because I saw some mention above of archiving it. Well, if that's the best thing, then do what you hafta do. But I think I'll have time tomorrow or the next day (probably not today) to start looking at it. Later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Lingzhi, I think I have to stick with it - quite a bit of work has gone into it, and I suppose I shouldn't bail out at the last moment. I'd be pleased to have you take a look whenever you have time. Thanks for posting. Victoria (tk) 01:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Benson, Jackson (1989) in ref section but uncited. And the chronological order of the refs seems inconsistent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good catch; removed Benson 1989. I do them alphabetically instead of chronologically, but Nikki queried this earlier, so will take a closer look to see where I've gone off Victoria (tk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The convention is alphabetical by author then chronological for cites to same author. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bill Bird, unless I missed something, seems to kinda magically appear with no explanation of who he is or why he's involved.
        • You're right he did; I've fixed that now and introduced him earlier. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Victoriaearle: Hey, I'm kinda copy editing and rewording a bit as I go. Please do not be intimidated by the fact that this is a FAC review and I am a FAC reviewer. Sometimes my edits may not be optimal.
        • Not to worry - I've seen your reviews in the past. You're quite good at what you do. The ping didn't work for some reason. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also skimming very quickly, though I will read in depth as time goes on. Did I miss the mention of initial sales figures? I actually didn't see sales for The Sun Also Rises in its FA article either (congrats on that FA BTW), but as I said, skim, skim, skim.
        • Looked through what I have at hand, but not finding it. Might be in one of the essays compiled in the Reynolds book, but that book is long gone back to inter-library loan. I can order it again and check. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adding: I spent quite a long time today trying to find this information in the sources I have at hand on the bookshelves or where I'd expect it to be on g-books, and am coming up empty. It might be in Tetlow, but I can't see all the pages on g-books. It could be in Reynolds, but that's snippet only on g-books - to get hard copies I'd have to order either of those via interlibrary loan. That's not a problem, but it takes time. Can we leave it, that I'll order the books that I think are most likely to contain that information and add it to the article if I find it? In the meantime, I can keep looking, and might find it on the web. Certainly we know that all the books of the initial print run did sell eventually, and the issue is clouded by the fact that within months of the book's publication Hemingway broke his contract with Boni & Liveright, so it is possible they never recorded the sales. They were quite livid with him. Victoria (tk) 01:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adding: I have found info that when EH broke the contract he told B & L they could have "20,000 in sales" - have added that. He was finished with them four months after the release of IOT. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well of course we can only add what we can find. Some day or other soon-ish I'll devote another hour or more to looking for this and for a good cite about the reason Up was censored, but for just now, everything is probably the best we can make it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Okay, I've added that the B & L edition had 4 reprints; the Scribner's edition had one. Still can't find hard numbers re sales, but that's better than nothing. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Semicolons go between independent clauses (or between items in a list which itself contains commas, but that is irrelevant here); commas go before direct quotes.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So I tell my students; they never listen, though. Thanks for fixing; I missed it. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we need a cite for the "overshadowed, ignored & forgotten" assertion? [I actually added the word "overshadowed", but it was implicit in the extant text].  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is cited to Benson, compiled in the Reynolds book I mentioned above and now gone, but I believe the overshadowed was in the text I'd written so should be ok. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Syphilis or gonorrhea? This article said syphilis. I don't actually have a copy of IOT, but I changed it to gonorrhea (and added that it was from "A very Short Story") based on review texts etc. Please revert me if I am wrong.
      • Also that sentence about "filthy" needs its own individual cite to a specific book and specific page because it includes a direct quote (even tho the quote is only 1 or 2 words long).
          • That's a good catch. In the story it's gonorrhea. Added the ref to the sentence. Victoria (tk) 12:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • was there a story called "Up in Michigan" that was censored/removed? And another put in its place, maybe "Indian Camp", or...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • When he submitted to Boni & Liveright they expressed concern over "Up in Michigan", the second story - a very early story he wrote, the only one to survive loss of the suitcase incident, one that Gertrude Stein thought not very good and is now generally considered juvenalia. In response to them, he pulled "Up in Michigan" and wrote "The Battler", which became the fifth Nick story. I can spin that out in the article later today - had wanted to avoid the "Up in Michigan" issue because it's somewhat peripheral, but probably should go in. Victoria (tk) 12:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adding to above: I've added in a little bit about this, but ideally it would be fully developed in the Up in Michigan article. I don't have that story at hand and I wonder if what I've added begs the question of why it would cause censorship problems? I'm not finding anything anywhere to suggest why - simply the Boni & Liveright were worried. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I found a source that said there was a brief sexual scene, but not sure how reliable the source is.
            • Seduction scene; Stein thought it too graphic (and clumsy). Added. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "features Nick as a child" should/can we add "witnessing both a birth by Caesarean section and the immediate aftermath of a suicide"? It fits with earlier mention of juxtaposition of life versus death
        • Yes, excellent point. Done. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "and sheds a rare light on Hemingway's childhood" Again I do not have IOT gosh darn it, but does this fit in with earlier mention of weak being exploited by strong? Didn't H's mom bully his dad or something? Not sure if that's right, but if you add it, you need to find a cite to back it up.
        • Would prefer to leave this as is here and then spin out fully in the article on that story. Lots of little bits to trawl through and pull together and I think the mention here of hostility is enough, but I've restored a small snippet more that I'd previously snipped out. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Whether the collection has a unified structure"... apparently D. H. Lawrence called it a "fragmentary novel"
        • Another good point. Found it; added it. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (more later, this will take days, sorry) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No prob. Yesterday I was sidetracked mid-edit with real life (and thanks for fixing the mess I left). I'm not in a rush. Thanks again for the good comments. Victoria (tk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm happy to help, of course
      • I perceive some tension between assertions that early critics went bananas with slobbery love for this book, and later assertions that everyone collectively said "Whatever". What happened? Did it somehow start out well but then fall off everyone's radar? Or were those laudatory critics just a pitiful few feckless ivory tower types? Is this article's characterization of either the early praise or the later tepid response overstated? [I suppose it could be the "overshadowed by Sun Also Rises" reason, but that just seems odd, because the way this article currently reads, the opinions actually seem to have changed]. BTW, the early praise section mentions "Fitzgerald", and our article on The End of Something says this was F. Scott Fitzgerald. If that is true, then please spell out the name, and if it hasn't been mentioned earlier, please wikilink. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The overshadowed sentence, as first written, was meant to speak to studies from literary critics. I.e how much attention have scholars given it over the years? Because it was, to an extent overshadowed by SAR, then bundled together with other stories, losing its structural integrity, for a long time only the separate stories were written about. As a stand-alone work it received less attention for a time. But Tetlow's 1978 work is a full length book, and Cohen's 2012 work is a full length book. That statement was taken from an essay written in the 1980s, so yes, at that point it was getting less attention from scholars. I can delete it because I see how it's confusing; I can wait for the book to arrive and when I have source in hand rewrite; or I can do both: delete now, rewrite later. Fitzgerald is linked higher up.Victoria (tk) 12:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • So … I had to think about what to do here. Obviously, the way I wrote was misleading. I tried deleting, but it's a point I think is worth making, so I've rolled back to the original version and rewritten. I'm trying to differentiate between attention it garnered from scholars vs. critical reviews it received. I'll be happier when I have the source at hand to check it's correct, but from what I remember I'm fairly certain it is. I have re-ordered the source via inter-libaray loan; not sure when it will arrive. Hopefully it's more clear now? Victoria (tk) 16:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've rewritten it. But it is definitely about scholarship vs. reviews. Not sure it's necessary, but I found it interesting. Victoria (tk) 21:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lingzhi, just to let you know that this morning I picked up the volume of essays about IOT Michael Reynolds edited from the library. Hopefully some of the issues you've raised above will be in it and will get resolved over the weekend. I should be able to find more about Up in Michigan as well, but that will take some trawling through all the sources. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Groovy. I'll have another look at it soon. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They claimed American copyright for the works published in France" who claimed?
    • @Victoriaearle:. I'm almost ready to support, but in the bit where you talk about reviews, it almost seems the first two paragraphs ("Hemingway's style brought" and "In Our Time is considered") are referring to different editions... Is that so? If so, please check each review carefully to make sure it is in the correct paragraph, and clarify that the two paras refer to different editions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent catch. Something got lost there, but now found. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Lingzhi for the support! That was a truly excellent review - I very much appreciate your time and the thoughtful and incisive comments. Victoria (tk) 23:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2015 [29].

    Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption edit

    Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about the 2000 role-playing game set in White Wolf Publishing's World of Darkness. It was developed by Nihilistic Software and released by Activision for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. The game is based on White Wolf's role-playing game Vampire: The Masquerade; it follows the adventures of Christof Romuald, a 12th-century French crusader who is killed and revived as a Vampire. The game depicts Christof's centuries-long journey from the Dark Ages of 12th-century Prague and Vienna to modern-day London and New York City in search of his humanity and his kidnapped love, the nun Anezka.

    The article is as comprehensive and detailed as can be about this game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Cas Liber edit

    Oh goody, never got to play this but did play Jyhad quite a bit...taking a look now. WIll jot queries below and copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally guff the meaning) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The first sentence is misleading - need to add something that lets me know it is a computer-based RPG. I would swap the sentences around so it is something like this, but need to remove one "rpg" from first sentence. I have reverted it and you can play with it.
    • Sentences in the lead are a little on the short side, which makes the prose a little abrupt-sounding.
    • Do we have to say "playable character" all the time? Can't we just say "character" or "protagonist" or something....
    • I'd link mesmerize, melee weapon, gothic, and linear adventure (if possible)
    • and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to live in shadows to avoid humanity --> "and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to remain hidden in the shadows" (?)
    • The setting and plot sections overlap a bit too much for my liking - my solution would be to remove everything from "As a member of the Brujah under Ecaterina..." onwards and incorporate that into the following section.
    • ...while a duo called[Youth Engine provided - a glitch?

    The prose flows better in the body of the article than the lead, which is a good thing. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for taking a while to respond, unexpected things came up.
    • The first sentence is misleading - need to add something that lets me know it is a computer-based RPG. I would swap the sentences around so it is something like this, but need to remove one "rpg" from first sentence. I have reverted it and you can play with it.
    • Sentences in the lead are a little on the short side, which makes the prose a little abrupt-sounding.
    • I've tried to rewrite this and expanded it a little by adding some of the gameplay functionality in there.
    • Do we have to say "playable character" all the time? Can't we just say "character" or "protagonist" or something....
    • I've tried to change it up a bit by alternating to different versions.
    • I'd link mesmerize, melee weapon, gothic, and linear adventure (if possible)
      • Done for all.
    • and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to live in shadows to avoid humanity --> "and the monstrous Nosferatu are condemned to remain hidden in the shadows" (?)
    • Done.
    • The setting and plot sections overlap a bit too much for my liking - my solution would be to remove everything from "As a member of the Brujah under Ecaterina..." onwards and incorporate that into the following section.
    • I see what you're saying, but I find that the separate setting/characters section allows you to go into more detail without bloating the plot which I like to keep 700 words or less and to the point. Like I could cover the Vukodlak backstory in the plot section but it would really start to get long. IDeally I'd also like to have the voice actors in there but apart from Curtis Armstrong as Pink (Booger from Revenge of the Nerds no less), I can't find evidence for any other actor.
    • ...while a duo called[Youth Engine provided - a glitch?
    • Yeah it was a markup error, fixed.
    Thanks for taking the time to review this Cas, please feel free to give me any other feedback. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, looking alot better - I see where you're coming from about the prose. It is a tricky one and I don't think there are any correct answers per se. I'll take another look. PS: Let me do the striking of my comments - happy if you slot in answers underneath mine. What I do is use colours - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus luteus/archive1..and no templates :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, more:

    Experience points are awarded for the completion of objectives and the defeat of enemies; these points are used to unlock or upgrade existing disciplines and improve each characters' statistics, such as strength or agility. - could be folded a bit, as in, "Awarded for the completion of objectives and the defeat of enemies, experience points are used to unlock or upgrade existing disciplines and improve each characters' statistics, such as strength or agility." or "Completing objectives and defeating enemies results in experience points, which are used to unlock or upgrade existing disciplines and improve each characters' statistics, such as strength or agility." - in these the subjects are linked more closely (not a deal-breaker but worth thinking about)
    Changed to the second one, but shifted "results in" to "is rewarded with" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    From the outset, the team wanted to make a large, ambitious RPG - err, people or plans are ambitious, not the end result. I'd remove it...or just use the adjective "grand" here or something
    Changed it to grand. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Reception section you've flogged the adjective "mixed" a bit, why not use some synonyms...."muted"..."equivocal"..."cool".....(possibly) "ambivalent" etc.
    Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Alright, I think I tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending more critical eyes than mine having a lookover. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your time Casliber. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: this is just an aside, but would it be possible to include one or more decorative/illustrative images? Are any public domain photos of the team members available—or perhaps of the Gothic architecture that inspired the game's look? At the moment, there's a whole lot of text and not much visual interest, which gives the article a very intimidating first impression. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried and tried again just now to find free images but there just don't seem to be any. Plenty of NFC but just no free stuff. I've added one image about Gothic art at least. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The two new images are a big improvement! Nice work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to get a source and image for CUrtis Armstrong too so there's another image there JimmyBlackwing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Article looks great now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Cyclonebiskit edit

    Resolved comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    *I've made a couple corrections/changes myself here and there to fix grammar or sentence flow. Please double check these to make sure they retain the intended meaning of the original.
    • The article needs a decent copy edit all around from what I can tell; the prose in general is a bit clunky. I'm not the greatest at copy editing, but I'll offer what help I can below. I'd suggest requesting assistance from a dedicated copy editor (see: members of the Guild of Copy Editors). A good rule of thumb for copy editing is to read something out-loud, and correct what sounds weird.
    General review
    • First thing I noticed was there is almost no information regarding development in the lead; the only mention is when it began and how much it cost. I'm not sure if this is normal practice, but considering how large this section is, it warrants another sentence or two.
    • Both "12th-century" and "12th century" are used throughout the article. The latter of these is the proper version so instances using the hyphen need to be corrected.
    • When discussing options "or" should be used instead of "and" to show it's a set of different choices. Also, when listing "things" in this fashion, a colon (:) should be used, not a semicolon (;).
      • i.e. Characters can be set to one of three modes; defensive, neutral, and offensive.
    • Make sure foot notes are in order. There are three instances of this:
      • The playable character can lead a group of three additional allies into battle, controlling their actions to attack a single enemy or to use specific powers.[3][1]
      • The game's graphics received near-unanimous praise. Game Revolution said its "brilliant" graphics were among the best in gaming and Next Generation said the graphics were the best in any PC RPG.[17][10]
      • ...pathfinding failures meant allies would become stuck on environmental objects or each other during combat, use up their costliest abilities on enemies regardless of their threat, and were poor at staying alive in battle.[15][17][81][8]
    • When discussing disciplines, the prose suddenly switches to mesmerizing then comes back to disciplines. Needs to be reordered or reworded to flow more smoothly.
    • The last paragraph of the gameplay section needs to be re-written for flow and comprehension. One sentence in particular is quite overwhelming: Players can also use the multiplayer tools to create new scenarios using the Storyteller interface, which allows the Storyteller to place items, monsters, or characters anywhere on the current map; modify character statistics such as experience points, abilities, and disciplines, and control any character in the game.
    Comments

    I've only reviewed through the gameplay section, but I'll have more tomorrow when I'm more awake. Would rather not provide a half-asleep review~ Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article was actually copyedited by the GOCE in June.
      • It might be because I'm used to a different writing style stemming from tropical cyclone articles... I'll readdress this with specific points where I feel another copy edit is necessary as I go through the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed the ref ordering issue.
    • Fixed "12th century"
    • Went through the article and changed ", and" to ", or" where I noticed options. Similarly changed ";" to ":"
    • I'm unclear on the "mesmerize" point raised, it is a Discipline and the ones mentioned after it are also Disciplines.
      • Ah, that needs to be made clear then. The way it's written now led me to assume that mesmerizing was a different aspect and not part of disciplines. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • RE: Last sentence of gameplay - "Redemption features an online multiplayer component, allowing players to play through scenarios together. One player becomes the in-game Storyteller, who guides the other players through a scenario using the Storyteller interface which is used to modify or create scenarios. The interface allows the Storyteller to place items, monsters, or characters anywhere on the current map; modify character statistics such as experience points, abilities, and disciplines, and control any character in the game. These functions allow the Storyteller to dynamically manipulate the current play environment while the other players traverse it." Yay or nay? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try this version: "Redemption features an online multiplayer component, allowing players to engage in scenarios together. One player assumes the role of the in-game Storyteller, guiding other players through a scenario using the Storyteller interface. This interface allows the Storyteller to modify or create scenarios, including the placement of items, monsters, and characters across the current map. Character statistics, such as experience points, abilities, and disciplines can also be modified. Additionally, the Storyteller can assume the role of any character at any given time. These functions allow the Storyteller to dynamically manipulate the current play environment while the other players traverse it." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added "Disciplines can also allow the player to mesmerize an enemy" to the start of the sentence, I think that makes it more clear?
        • I like your Storyteller version, I added that in.
        • I added some info to the lead that covers some of the broad development strokes - "Founded in March 1998, Nihilistic's twelve-man team began development of Redemption the following month as their first game. It took the team twenty-four months to complete on a budget of US$1.8 million. The team relied on eight outside contractors to provide elements that the team could not supply, such as music and artwork. The game's development was difficult: late changes to software forced the developers to abandon completed code and assets; a focus on high-quality graphics and sound meant that the game ran poorly on some computer systems; and the original scope of the game exceeded the game's schedule and budget, forcing the team to cancel planned features." Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All my concerns have been addressed and after some additional minor copy edits, I'm happy to support. I do have some qualms about how the "Reception" section is written, with the prose becoming a monotonous repetition of "X said Y. Z said A. B said C. etc..." but I don't really see a way around this without fluffing the section unnecessarily. Additionally, my prior statement about needing a(nother) copy edit stemmed from similar writing to this. There's nothing technically wrong with the article, which is why I'm supporting it, but it could be written in a more engaging manner in places. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Image review
    • All images check out
    • I've left the image review separate for the convenience of the FAC delegates. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Cirt edit

    • Support. The article is really of quite a high level of quality and the writing certainly is, as well. The sourcing appears to be meticulous, throughout, and supports the factual statements in the article's body text. Good fleshed out Reception section. I'd like to see the game's sequel, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, brought to WP:FA, as well. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by SnowFire edit

    Mostly looks good. The development section in particular is amazingly detailed, great work! A few comments / questions, though:

    • Design: "They came up with a basic solution that would be solved later into development". I think you should be more explicit that "They came up with a basic solution and planned on improving pathfinding later into development" or the like, since the later sentences make clear it wasn't really solved.
    • Release: You jump right into the Collector's Edition, but while obvious, it might be worth somehow indicating there was a vanilla edition that didn't have the cool gizmos, right?
    • Reception: This is something that other Wikipedia articles like to do, in fairness, but I don't think "sound" / "audio" is actually a thing. There's no guarantee that voice acting, background music, and sound effects have any relation to one another in quality, barring some kind of general encoding problem. It's fine to discuss those three topics, but I wouldn't pretend that there's something called "sound" which got mixed reviews.
    • Reception: "counter to the greater focus on political intrigue and social interaction prevalent in the first game in the series, Vampire – the Masquerade." This seems misleading, as it implies there was another computer game earlier in the series. "prevalent in the original table-top role-playing game" perhaps?
    • Reception: I'm quite shocked that the multiplayer was apparently reviewed so well, with all 3 reviews being largely positive. If that's truly the case, I suppose it's fine, but I seem to recall that this was something that was *severely* overhyped in previews, and landed with a dull thud. Basically the MP had been suggested as something that would allow people to play a more story-heavy game online, closer to the tabletop roots, and the tools just plain weren't there for that. It's a game where you do Diablo-esque hacking through hordes of enemies and that's it. This is in addition to the MP bugs already mentioned. I'm pretty sure the game never acquired a notable multiplayer following (unlike, say, Diablo II of the era) but I suppose the *lack* of something can be hard to source. Additionally critical reception for multiplayer is classically a weird area, since critic reviews are published at time of *release* and often can't comment on whether there was a long-term MP following. Anyway, I'm not sure it's possible, but I'd definitely hope for more sources on the multiplayer aspect's irrelevance. (Or maybe I'm just crazy and all the sources really do disagree with me.) SnowFire (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • --> changes so far
      • Modified the design sentence
      • Modified the release sentence
      • Modified sentence about the combat being prevalent in the tabletop game (a victim of copyediting)
      • I removed the sentence lead-in about Redemption's sound so now it's just a general paragraph related to audio.
      • I can't say I ever played the multiplayer part and I wouldn't have had the same access to the net then as I do now so I'm just going off the three reviews that covered it, but I'm gonna go back over them. As you say it's harder with MP as those reviews will cover immediate reactions but not something like Diablo-esque longevity. Though I think Diablo probably had a more interesting base-game to bring more people in. Reading the development section, the part that perhaps landed with a thud is that they promised to let you co-op the Singleplayer campaign? The sources from that time that I've read at least don't seem to promise anything multiplayer wise besides that, that was not in hte final game.
      • BTW, thanks for taking the time to review this.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at a few more reviews, the multiplayer seems to be the part that's genuinely singled out as good (IF the vampire community gets behind it). Here's ZDNet and Gamespot only really talking about the limitations of the interface itself to craft the scenarios. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It's weird to me how the MP was well-reviewed, but if that's what the sources say, so be it. (Probably too obscure now to find fansites or the like which would be the main source of a contrary opinion, I'd imagine.) Looks good otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks SnowFire. I've tried looking around a little more but can'#t really find anything bad said about it, like at GameOver, it looks like it was just somehing that never really clicked with people. I did add a little negativity to the review section regarding the interface criticism however.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    FAC Coord's Note - Did I miss a source review? Graham Beards (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe so. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I have made a request at the FAC Talk Page for one. Graham Beards (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source Review by ProtoDrake edit

    I've gone through all the sources, passed them through Checklinks, and checked for consistency. Everything seems very much in order. I am willing to give my Support to this article's promotion to FA. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 [30].

    Ununseptium edit

    Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a rare synthetic chemical element. That alone may seem scary for some readers, yet the best of my efforts have been applied to make this article as readable as it could be. After the first FAC, it was not promoted on the basis of poor prose quality; the article has been improved and updated since then, but the second FAC hasn't even scored enough attention to stand a chance. Now's a third time; hopefully, it'll bring me luck! --R8R (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support: I gave it a look through and corrected a few grammatical things: otherwise, I don't see any problems. (Disclaimer: I did a substantial amount of work on this with R8R in 2012, but all of the more recent work was done by them.) Double sharp (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...although: Comment The alt text for the Zagrebaev chart doesn't match its actual contents. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        A good catch. I've written an actual alt text for the pic.--R8R (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no claimed proposed name yet? Helholzium? Nergaal (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I can see this article was written by some Becky Ferreira, who I don't know, but she doesn't work for GSI or anything close to that, as I can see she is a columnist writing about pretty much everything. The word "helmhotzium" only appears once, in the following para: "It remains to be seem whether the IUPAPC will finally allow ununseptium into the official element club. But if it does get the green light, I can take a pretty good stab at what its real name will be. Given that the majority of the other transactinides are named after the relevant research centers, let's assume this superheavy newcomer will be called helmholtzium. You heard it here first." This doesn't make me want to add that to the article, especially labeled as a "proposed name."--R8R (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Leaving aside how the GSI announced it confirmed the discovery in Dubna, rather than claimed it did discover it first -- why would an element be named after those who confirmed its discovery rather than the actual discoverers?--R8R (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean necessary that source, but were any of the researchers quoted to propose some name? Something like for 118. Nergaal (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked and didn't find any suggestions for E117: R8R told me before that they think it's bad karma to discuss naming in advance now (^_-)-☆. For E115 they dared to suggest moscovium (http://in.rbth.com/economics/technology/2015/08/25/element-115-in-moscows-name_392319), and we should add that (but that's a long-standing suggestion from 2012: see this, using the Russian name московий). No news for E113 from the Russians, but many suggestions from Japan. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, pretty much so. I read it once in a Russian-language source, quoted by a senior Dubna official. (However, I think "the bad karma" also meant how there might be premature arguments over how to name the elements.) --R8R (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So did any go on record to say that they won't disclose any proposal because of bad luck? And a side-thing, I thought proposals for elements can be reused for others (i.e. Mk was suggested for 116 but rejected so I thought it can't be used for any other). Nergaal (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find it now. I think, though, it is an issue worked around for now. Like they were not confirmed the element will be recognized, so they hare hadn't caught by that point. (Even now.)--R8R (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am under impression "moscovium" has been discussed as a name for 116, but not actually suggested to the JWP. (Not to mention how we have rutherfordium as a name for the element 104, even though Berkley originally wanted it to be the name for the element 106.)--R8R (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, didn't Berkeley propose Rf for E104, and then IUPAC 1996 shifted it to E106 to avoid naming an element after Seaborg? Double sharp (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the svg diagram again: can you at least it rotate it 180 degrees? so higher values are on the right side? Nergaal (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, why not. OK now?--R8R (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems better, but I think the atom labels should remain on left? Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't fight to death for it, but I think the labels are better off now. If we do the change, then the legend (85At and 117Uus) will still be aligned to the right from their vertical lines, while the electron level labels will be aligned to the left from theirs, and this difference may bring some make the pic a little messy. This is the problem about making the pic oriented to the right.--R8R (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref. Nergaal (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The refs are on the isotopes page, like they usually are for the element infoboxes. But I've copied them over. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking time for another read. Much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Refs:
    The last two dois don't seem to work. Also, for the book at least be consistent and give the full first names.
    ref 2 add the doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3598-5 and page #
    This may take a little time; skipping for now (but will be back for it soon)
    I meant just add the pages for the used chapter, not all the single pages. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ref 6 the publisher seems to be GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH
    This is equivalent to what we have now, except we have the thing we use is in English with their suggested spelling, and your thing is in German. (I am not all that great at inter-language things: does it mean we have to use the German version?) I tried to work this issue around, but I'm not all that good with citing sources, so just tell me how to fix this if I haven't done it right.
    Whatever is now is ok. But I don't think you should have it as both author and publisher. Use just as publisher. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    8 is missing accessdate
    12
    16 is missing link or doi
    20 author
    29 doi
    33 doi 10.1088/0954-3899/30/10/014
    a few other refs in the 40s might have dois that should be added
    of all the forties, only no. 48 may look problematic, but it appears it doesn't have a doi.

    Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tried to fix these, except where I left a note.--R8R (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    42 seems a book series. format it so it is clear
    per this 47 seems a bit off
    Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    54 probably needs a page range?
    note c perhaps should mention/link metastable isotope?
    Isn't that a little different? I mean, yes, both are excited states, but the metastable isotopes are called "metastable" because they last a while instead of promptly decaying like these ones. (Also, the metastable isotopes tend to emit gamma rays instead of having enough energy to expel neutrons out of the nucleus.) Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I would rather not. It's not the regular metastability we're talking about when an isomer decays into a lower-energy one, so it could create some confusion, which I would rather want to avoid.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think JWP and IUPAC acronyms could be mover after the intro for the sake of ease or reading.

    Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Except for the penultimate comment, where I left a mote, i think everything's been dome by now.--R8R (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support feel free to rc my comments. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll have a look at this one shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • So will I. --John (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going though, trying to improve the prose as I go, but I haven't looked at the FA standards. YBG (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Sandbh edit

    I read and edited as I went. So far it has been a much more interesting story than I was expecting. Only the Chemical section to go, then notes, the infobox and references. I have four minor questions seeking clarification of some statements and phrases which I'll post tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Finished the main body of the article. Will now look at notes etc. Only one question so far:

    Discovery

    • "The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days"
    What does this mean? Cooled for 90 days? Cooled after 90 days? Why 90 days? Sandbh (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is, berkelium underwent a 90-days-long cooling. I leave the choice of the exact wording to you. I haven't seen a paper giving this more than a brief mention like we do, but the answer coming to my mind would be, they couldn't just cool it once, because it's radioactive and it heats itself, especially given there were radioactive by-products, which were especially intense at heating (but also decaying away faster than Bk), and it took them some time to decay away.--R8R (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that's good. Sandbh (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Notes and info box done; only references to go. Sandbh (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In the references, sometimes the first and second names of authors are spelled out in full e.g. Audi, Georges; Bersillon, Olivier; Blachot, Jean; at other times all there is the initials e.g. Jepson, B. E.; Shockey, G. C. I'd like to see a consistent approach to the way the names of authors are presented. Sandbh (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you're pointing at. I've made some considerations on whether we should use full names or initials, and I think we'll be better off with the latter (even though I originally wanted to go for full names), mainly because full names are somewhat problematic for non-English names (in particular, Russian ones and the patronymics; and there may be similar/other issues for names of any other ethnicity). I hope I'll get to fix that sometime later today.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I've found an opportunity to do the standardization work; if I missed anything, feel free to point me at it.--R8R (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support subject to the reference formatting being addressed. Sandbh (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from John edit

    I took a look at this last night and this morning started hacking at the prose, which needs some work. Some comments have therefore already been addressed.

    • oon-oon-SEP-tee-əm; I know we have discussed this before. Remind me, what does having the respell alongside the IPA pronunciation guide add?
      Okay, as long as we're not going for another debate on this. It's okay to have these either in or out per WP:MOS/Pronunciation, and they are actually easier to read than the IPA keys, so I'd want them in (if I have both IPA and these respells in front of me, I'll use the latter for reference).
      What is the source for the "oon-oon" pronunciation? I know chemists who say "un-un" and I am sure I saw one source supporting "yoon-oon". If the pronunciation is important, it should come with strong sourcing. At present it has none. I still think that listing two separate systems for the pronunciation is overkill, and as you say it is optional whether to have it at all. If it is to be there it ought to be strongly sourced. --John (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That's how the original 1979 IUPAC recommendations, which first established such naming, expect it to be pronounced. Quoting the recommendations, "The root 'un' is pronounced with a long 'u', to rhyme with 'moon'. In the element names each root is to be pronounced separately." I'll add that to the article.--R8R (talk) 06:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, that's genuinely interesting. I still think it has undue prominence on the article but at least it is sourced now. --John (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed down "Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists in the field, who call it "element 117", with the symbol (117) or 117." This text seems to have been added to a lot of these superheavy articles. Most readers will not find the detailed history of the use of the nomenclature all that interesting, and it seems to be contradicted later on. (more to come) --John (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not, it's not a move I would argue against. Thanks for taking part, much appreciated; waiting for your comments.--R8R (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the work that is being done to clean up the prose but I find it hard to aim at a moving target, so I will leave this review for a week or so until the work is stabilised. Ping me if I forget. --John (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @John: R8R Gtrs and I are done, thank you. Sandbh (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Mike edit

    Well done for tackling such a complex scientific topic, and producing a very good article on it! I've got a few queries/requests for clarifications before I'm ready to support the promotion of this article to FA status:

    • Is there a case for the article being at Element 117 rather than Ununseptium, given the temporary nature of that name? (I'm not advocating either way, I'm just asking out of curiosity)
      You actually have a great point here. Originally, the articles were just established this way. I proposed to change this, and The proposal has gained support within WP:Elements, but the process died after I requested a renaming per consensus, but the process was comducted via a regular articles to move (or whatever it is called), and even the supporters said, move, but some other way, so oppose for now. Now that you bring this issue up, it may be reconsidered.
    • "fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam" - this needs clarification, as it's not the beams that are being fused, but the particles in the beam and target.
      I think the phrase itself is okay, but I added a one-phrase-long description of the whole process.
    • "The Russian team sought to use berkelium..." - it would be good to say why a large neutron excess is important for the synthesis of heavy elements in this paragraph.
      Yeah, the info was somewhat spattered across the section; indeed, a good catch, thank you.
    • "The berkelium was subsequently cooled for 90 days" - to what temperature?
      i don't know. Not a single paper I have seen says this. I may give this another look if you want me to, but personally, I don't think it's important: after all, the thing was radioactive, so it heated itself up.
    • "because the half-life of berkelium-249, the only isotope of berkelium that can be produced in weighable quantities,[13] is only 330 days: after that time, half the berkelium produced would have decayed away" - this might read better if you separate out the sub-point about berkelium-249 from the half-life point, and condensed the text about the half-life.
      I've reworked the text to make shorter sentences. (Except I don't really want to cut the "what a half-life is" part: it is intended not for you and me, it is intended for those who have less knowledge on the topic.)
    • "the JINR particle accelerator" - is that the name of the accelerator, or should that be "the particle accelerator at JINR"?
      Why, your suggestion is good, I'll use it.
    • "All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown" - I think these decay products need to be given in the text, rather than relying on a figure to display them.
      I'd rather disagree. The exact list of the subproducts is not important for the story of element 117, which is why I avoid it. A picture would not hurt; mentioning them in the text could possibly distract a reader from the more important thing given in the article.
    • "Ununseptium is expected to be a member of group 17 in the periodic table" - why?
      The obvious answer would be, you expect period 7 to be 32 elements long because of the current theory of electronic structures of elements, especially the Aufbau principle, or Madelung/Klechkovsky rule (these three are basically the same thing), astatine is element 85, so the element directly under it should be element 85+32=117. A more detailed answer would be, the more sophisticated computational data also predicts this will happen (which we discuss in the body of the article).
    • Is there a convention in the field to use Celsius for temperatures? I would have thought that Kelvin would be a more natural unit of temperature to use.
      Nah. Either is fine. We're not talking about superlow temperatures, and we're not writing a super technical text (as you may see, I've done my best to make it as accessible to everyone as possible). There is no special benefit from using Kelvin here, so it is not used.
    • Are there any future plans to produce more of these atoms that could be mentioned/referenced in this article?
      I can't find any. The synthesis was indeed a very tedious and difficult work. Especially now that the element synthesis has been repeated, and it should be recognized soon. And this is not the most interesting element to try: from a point of view of chemistry, 114 and 118 are the most interesting ones, and for any nuclear stability issues, even-numbered elements are preferable.
    • Are the external links worth keeping in the article, or would they be better used as references instead?
      No. The press release is already used as a reference; and I'm not a fan of the Periodic Table of Videos, so won't regret losing it.

    Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for reviewing the article.--R8R (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 [31].

    Oviri (Gauguin) edit

    Nominator(s): Ceoil, Modernist, C1cada

    This article is about a rather frightening 1894 sculpture by Paul Gauguin, who described the Tahitian goddess of death and mourning on which it is based as "monstrous and majestic...drunk with pride, rage and sorrow". Gauguin was optimistic about its commercial potential, but it languised unsold for years; today first rank casts sell for around €80k at Christies. It was finally placed on his grave in 1973, which is both curious and moving. I wouldnt want it anywhwere near my headstone.

    Myself and Modernist laboured on the article for years until white-knighted by C1cada. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Driveby comments by Curly Turkey edit

    • Normally we don't have inline cites in the lead unless it's for something controversial, which isn't the case with any of the info in this lead. It would be much more readable if they were dropped.
    • Would vengeful mother be worth a redlink?
    • Réunion des musées nationaux almost certianly should be redlinked: it has a French, Dutch, and German page already.
    • "Recent exhibitions" is problematic—how "recent" is "recent"? What determines the cutoff? Who will maintain the list as "recent" exhibitions become un-"recent"? A number of them are unsourced.
    • All are now sourced; the section will essentially remain as current as possible...Modernist (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The French article for terre-cuite links to the English article for Terracotta. Are they different things? If not, is there any reason to prefer the French term?
    • Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Curly, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Update; think I have most sorted; trimming the cites in the lead, adding a few links (need an article on "vengeful mother"). Modernist has cited the recent exhibitions sect. Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Per WP:IMGSIZE, should generally use image scaling rather than fixed pixel size
    • File:Agostini_-_Tahiti,_plate_page_0080.png needs a US PD tag
    • File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_30.jpg: if I'm reading the history correctly this was first exhibited in 1945 - how does the current tag apply? Was it published prior to that? Same with File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Oviri_-_Watercolor_monotype_F_31.jpg
    • File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg: need to account for the copyright on the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All have been sorted, except the last one, which I am mulling over. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Paul_Gauguin_-_Soyez_amoureuses_vous_serez_heureses_MFAB_57.582.jpg has been removed. Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This version is fine: File:Paul Gaugin, Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, relief.jpg Coldcreation (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Coldcreation, and for all the edits. Myself and Modernist have decided against including Soyez amoureuses vous serez heureuses, tempting as it was. We had issuers of text squash, and other things. Ceoil (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support from Coemgenus
    • Excellent article, I enjoyed reading it. All of the prose is good, I could find only one change to suggest: is there something you can link "vahine" to? Either that, or use an explanatory footnote. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I agree about removing, I see there's still some cites in the lede. The Reception sect is a bit small but Interpretation is nice. Perhaps the Reception sect could be expanded upon a bit more with additional info from secondary sources? — Cirt (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Cheers Cirt - down now to two cites in the lead, which are better off explained early. Looking at expanding the 'Reception' bit; always interesting and waspy in that period. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, I keep forgetting to get back to this, but I will soon. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ok. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Mike Christie edit

    • "a savage woman with long blond or grey hair": "blonde", surely, not "blond"? This is in the lead and also in the body.
    • The first sentence of the "Description" section has a trailing quote; is this just editing debris, or is this partially a quote?
    • "the only of his songs": presumably should be either "the only one of his songs" or "the only song of his".
    • The paragraph beginning "Nancy Mowll Mathews" is uncited.
    • "Richard Brettell depicts the Oviri figure in at least one drawing": Brettell is a modern critic, as far as I can see, so I'm not sure what the intended meaning is here.
    • If either the 1894 woodcut or the 1894 drawing in the gallery are among the works that Brettel discusses then I think this should be made definite in the captions.
    • Can you give the locations of the three castings Gauguin himself made? The only location that seems to be given in the article is that one is in the Musée d'Orsay. Similarly, if the locations of any more of the bronzes made from Monfreid's plaster copy are known, that would be worth mentioning.

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Mike, thanks for the ce's and helpful comments. I've taken care of the first few easier ones; working on the last two, also pinging Modernist who knows more about this period and the sources than I. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixes look good; I see there's now a broken image link near the top of the article, so you might look at that. I'll check in again when you've responded on the last two points (and if there are no sources to answer those questions, that's fine; I just think we should give that information if it's available). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Mike; img fixed and I agree; will ping you when we are done, one way or the other. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    re the other two casts - private collections sothebys,christies - now mentioned in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, but it should be in the body too -- am I not seeing it or did you not add it yet? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, mentioned now in the body; but not entirely happy with what we have found/pieced together. See discussion here with User:Coldcreation, one of our more knowledgeable editors on such matters. We just don't know, and can't be sure; it's a secretive and frankly money driven business. Ceoil (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspected it might be like that. I've supported below; I'm sure you'll add any definite information that can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Your help and constructive input is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. This article really is about the Orsay version (the context within which Oviri was created, and how it was received), so the whereabouts of other versions is secondary. That said, I will try to track down the locations of divers casts (whether bronze, plaster, or stoneware). Until then, I will remove the mention of private collections, as this has yet to be determined. Coldcreation (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Lingzhi edit

    • In refs but not cited: Branciforte, Castets, Goldwater, Kunstler, Malingue (1943), [not sure what to make of oft-mentioned but never-cited Morice and Vollard], Pielkovo, Sugana, Szech, Wadley.
      Banished to "further reading, but may cut Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why does Gedo give the year of publication as a page number? Coincidence?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really; fixed Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gauguin was deeply unhappy..." This paragraph seems a bit incoherent.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Cut now Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is Yeon Shim Chung?
      Don't know, debris from an earlier version, but has a fb page! Cut now Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his familiar Inca profile" familiar to whom, and who says it is Inca?
      Cut Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "monstrous and majestic, drunk with pride, rage and sorrow" if you're suggesting this also is Gauguin's self-perception and was thus projected into his work, please make the connection explicit
      Now says Related is the delight Gauguin took from its alternative title "savage", and the implications of a brutal, bloodthirsty deity, which, he seems to imply, refers as much to himself as the goddess Ceoil (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • when Degas quoted La Fontaine's fable The Wolf and the Dog: "You see, Gauguin is the wolf." OK. According to Degas, is Gauguin the wolf in the story, or in the Oviri, or both... and... if you're gonna toss out a mention a story by La Fontaine, you should give at least a one-sentence summary of the story itself and how it is connected to Gauguin
    • linked fable, with short, 8 odd word summary. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • what Vaugirard studio?
    • "She smothers a wolf with her feet while tightly clutching" Later text says it's unclear if she's smothering or embracing.. perhaps the uncertainty whether the civilized is embracing or killing the wild is a point worthy of mention in the lede.... maybe
      • The whole smothering/not smothering contradiction still not addressed.
    • "ever keen to increase his public exposure" please add "According to Danielsson" to make it explicit that Danielsson adds this editorial info, not WP
      Yes; reworded Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "invoking ideas of sacrifice, infanticide and the archetype of the vengeful mother." None of these 3 ideas are mentioned in later text, none cited.. and while we're on this topic, you know, I think the whole interpretation section hits pretty hard on the idea that Oviri is a symbol of Gauguin himself as an androgynous wild man, yet that isn't mentioned in the lede... so the interpretations in the lede are unsupported, but those supported by the text are unmentioned.
      Yes, that's absolutely the case. Drat; working....Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please translate Tueuse in both mentions ["The Murderess", referring to Oviri]
      Done Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a request not strictly related to the current article and thus not formally a part of this FAC review, but as a polite appeal to your better nature, you'd be doing a service to us all if you'd create at least a stub for Ernest Chaplet.
      • Multiple thanks for the Chaplet article. I added Wikiprojects to the talk page.
    • The description section doesn't mention the vagina in the back of Oviri's head
      • Still doesn't mention it. Should.
    • "The ceramic was never shipped out." where do quotation marks go? Is that part of the quote?
    • "invoking ideas of sacrifice, infanticide and the archetype of the vengeful mother." Is all of this from Taylor, then?
    • No, cited to the Kahn now. Ceoil (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interpretation is a large section, so there should be at least 1 sentence in the lede about interpretation (unless I missed it). You know, "Some people say it's Gauguin's epithet as an androgynous wild man, but some people say it's a a vengeful mother, blah blah bah.
    • Added a bit, more to come there - might have to re-balance the lead. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lingzhi, heading out now for a while, but hope to finish addressing these this evening. Your input has been most helpful and welcome. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am re-giging the interpretation sect. Ceoil (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • interpretation sect re-giged. Phew. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry so slow but I don't always have blocks of time big enough to actually engage my bain and think about what I'm doing. After Oviri wasn't or nearly wasn't admitted to the salon in the winter of 1894, was there any notable reaction to its... showing? I'm actually not clear if it was admitted or not because an earlier sentence says it was expelled, which to me at least seems to mean "sayonara baby!" And then it made a stir much later in 1903 or so, but where was it between times? Tks.
    • "and invokes 'Séraphitus-Séraphita'" invokes is present tense, confusingly, and did the play invoke that or did Gauguin? I assume the latter.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "of the vengeful mother, drawing from..." the word "drawing" ambiguous in article about art
    • "Tahitian song; a melancholy" dash or comma but not semicolon please (grammar/punct)
    • "the love of two women" for each other, or third person? Nitpick: I'd go with "recount" rather than "convey", but maybe that's just me.

    Comments by Johnbod edit

    Generally seems a tad unpolished, but the key stuff is there.

    • Noa Noa, explain & move link to first mention. Italicise.
    • "including Assyrian and Majapahit mummies" - Not Assyrian mummies. Lk to an art article. Mention that this one is the one, & in the gallery, & expand caption.
    • Foxes in Japan - lk to Kitsune
    • Belinda Thomson's catalague for the Tate/NGA exhibition seems to say there was only one (coloured) woodcut (the one you show), plus the 2 monotypes.
    • More later Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi John, have begun to address these. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All done except incorporating Thomson. We need an article for Noa Noa. Ceoil (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2015 [32].

    St Denys' Church, Sleaford edit

    Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    St Denys' in Sleaford is an Anglican church in the English county of Lincolnshire, dating to the 12th century. Its tracery was praised by Pevsner, but the church, like the town, has not attracted much attention. Hopefully, this article will help correct that. The article recently passed GA and I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. This will be my first FAC, so I am not holding out for too much, but any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note from nominator: I will not be at my desk between 8–16 September and I may not respond to comments swiftly or at all before I am back; I will be around as normal from the 16th. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for checking this.

    Support Comments from Tim riley edit

    This seems to my layman's eye to be comprehensive and balanced. The prose could do with a little attention:

    • Lead
      • "A church and priest has existed" – two nouns but a singular verb
      • "alter tombs" – "altar tombs", surely?
    • Description
      • "It is dedicated to St Denys…" – this sentence is eighty words long and could do with being chopped in two or even three. (split into two - hopefully an easier read now!)
      • The second paragraph is liable to suffer from WP:DATED, which can be mitigated if you add "As at 2105" or words to that effect.
    • Background and origins
      • "A large horde of coin moulds" – wrong sort of hoard
      • "Late Iron Age" – if the middle Iron Age, a few lines above, has an uncapitalised "middle", do we want a capitalised "Late" here?
      • Second para: you wait till the second batch of carucates, sokemen and villeins to add blue links. Better to link them at first mention.
    • Expansion
      • Not quite sure why "Despite" in the first sentence – it doesn't seem to have any connection with the fact that the town and church were altered.
      • "likely c. 1180" – unexpected Americanism: one would expect "probably" in a BrEng article (here and below)
      • "the post-Conquest Bishops, who were its patron" – could they all be one patron?
      • "according to the local historian Edward Trollope" – you've already introduced him; we don't need the job description and given name repeated here.
    • Early modern and later
      • Trollope again – the job description, given name and another blue link.
      • "non-conformist" – I'd be inclined to lose the hyphen, to match our WP article on the subject, to which you should add a blue link, I'd say.
      • "2,000 persons" – do we need "persons" here? They'd hardly be anything other than persons.
      • "two major "restorations" to St Denys" – I sympathise with the implied horror at well-meant Victorian mucking up of old churches, but I think your quotation marks are too tendentious for Wikipedia and should be deleted.
    • Architecture, fittings and grounds
      • Some grammarians, particularly American ones, no longer consider it illiterate to use "due to" as though it had passed, like "owing to", into a mere compound preposition. But "because of" is plainer and better than either, and is usually the best bet. Here, though, I'd just write "after".
      • "restored by Sir Ninian Comper in 1918" – he wasn't knighted till 1950 and the Manual of Style bids us take care not to give people titles prematurely. - well-spotted
      • "The screen, altar rails in St Hugh's Chapel are the work of C. H. Fowler and, while E. Stanley Watkins completed the reredos in 1906." – this sentence needs a bit of work, possibly an "and" after "screen" and "and, while" could be replaced with a semicolon.
    • Memorials
      • First sentence: change of tense from present to past, and the comma splice before "however" needs attention. (Personally, I'd lose the "however" and add a semicolon instead.) - tweaked, is it okay?
      • "The English novelist" – is it important to mention that she was English?
      • "to local solicitor Henry Snow" – unexpected and unwelcome false title here. The addition of "a" before "local" and a comma after "solicitor" would remedy it.
    • Sources
      • I'm a bit dubious that Hoare's book necessarily qualifies as a WP:RS, but I know how limited the available material often is on local history/geography, and I think it reasonable not to press the point. Happily you don't rely overmuch on the book. Trollope is very heavily relied on, but there are enough citations to other published sources to make this acceptable, I'd say.

    I'm not an expert on church architecture, and as I'd value the input of editors who know more about the subject than I do, I'll do a little (legitimate) canvassing. For my own part, I'm inclined to support the promotion of the article, and will revisit the matter once you have addressed my points, above. – Tim riley talk 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks ever so much, @Tim riley: Hopefully, I've addressed all of the issues you've raised above (as of this edit). I agree that Hoare's book is less than perfect, which is why I've mostly used it for minor 20th century developments; sadly, he is the only author who discusses the dedication. Let me know if I've missed anything. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Good – the prose strikes me as up to standard now, and as I have said earlier the content seems to me both comprehensive and adequately sourced and cited. I see no reason to withhold my support. I hope (reasonably confidently) that more expert reviewers than I will take a similarly favourable view. Tim riley talk 18:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Tim, that's much appreciated. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Support Excellent article. My only complaint would be maybe the lede is a tad short and might benefit from a bit more architectural detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dr. Blofeld: thank you very much. I will see what I can do about expanding the lead. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Comments I do not consider myself to be a reviewer but would like to make comments on the comprehensiveness of the article:

    • It has been pointed out to me in the past that an active church is not just a building, but is also a community of people, and I think information abut this should be included in a FA. The church as a website here, which gives info including the present personnel in the church and its current activities, and there is also the CoE website here.
    I have taken a look at the websites you suggest. I believe I have already covered the services the church offers. Aside from its summer fete, I can't see much more about its activities that's worth including. What did you have in mind? I've also looked at the list of people. I can add the churchwardens and organist if it's necessary, but I do worry that it's information which is liable to go out of date and probably isn't needed and it's not included in existing FAs like St Nicholas, Blakeney and St Helen's Church, Ashby-de-la-Zouch.
    • It would be helpful to have a map in the infobox.
    I have added one.
    • There is no information about the present state of the organs (main and chapel). This can be found here and doing a search for Sleaford.
    Thanks for pointing this out. Is it a reliable source? If so, I will add it as a reference.
    It is the official website of the British Institute of Organ Studies, and having used used it in most of my church articles, have found nothing to suggest it is unreliable. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the info on the bells has not changed since the Trollop reference (1872), there is current info here.
    As above, is this a reliable source?
    Similarly for Dove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers. Its authenticity is described on its home page here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not happy about the "Previous denomination" being given as "Roman Catholic". This presumably refers to the pre-Reformation state, when the whole western Christian church was Catholic. I suggest this field be left empty to prevent confusion.
    I was unsure about this myself and I agree with you. It's gone now.
    • Not essential, but have you considered having an "Appraisal" section to confirm why the architecture of the church is important. Such a section could define what Grade I listing means, and also include comments from Pevsner and others about its special and/or unique features.
    All of Pevsner's comments worth including have been incorporated into the architecture section. The English Heritage listing is short and doesn't say much about national significance apart from the tracery, which I've already talked about in the architecture section. As a result, I am really not sure it needs an appraisal section.
    A nice article but I should prefer it to be more comprehensive at FA level. Good luck. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter I. Vardy: thanks for you comments, I have some queries about a few of them, which I've outlined above; I've tweaked a couple of things as per your suggestion. I am not really sure that there is any more activities/services information worth adding, likewise about personnel. I am also not sure it needs an appraisal section because that material is already in the architecture section. If you could confirm that the two links you suggested are reliable sources, I'd be happy to add them to the article. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @Peter I. Vardy: thank you for clarifying the reliability of the sources above. I have now added them and information on the organs - would you be okay to take a look and see whether it's all right now? (Thank you too for providing the sources - I shall use them for future articles!) All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that looks fine. The following can be linked: Samuel Green (organ builder), Forster and Andrews, Harrison & Harrison. (I am now away for a few days.)--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all linked now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Tentative Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

    Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    first the north aisle was rebuilt by the local builders Kirk and Parry in 1853; second, the tower and spire were largely rebuilt in 1884... - I think the "first" and "second" are unneeded here and not helpful for flow
    A Perpendicular clerestory adorns the aisles with three-light window... - any reason why "perpendicular" is capitalised here?
    I made these changes. Hope they're ok.
    @Casliber: Your alterations are fine - thank you. I have removing the problematic "first ... second" phrasing as per this diff; as for your other comment, I am referring to Perpendicular Gothic, a type of Gothic architecture, which appears to be capitalised throughout its article. Let me know if there are any other comments or suggestions. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Okay, in which case I would link "Perpendicular" to the appropriate section/article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Casliber: it is already linked, in the first paragraph of the "Architecture, fittings and grounds" section. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @Noswall59: aaaah my bad indeed. In which case strike that and consider me moving into Support territory on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Cirt edit

    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Minor quibble really: I think it's best practice to have in-line citations for the info in the image captions, to make it easier for future editors and readers to find out more about that info in a quick fashion. — Cirt (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cirt: Thanks for taking a look. The MOS seems silent on the issue. Which of the images do you have in mind? All of the dates etc. included in captions are cited in the article and most of them don't contain that sort of information anyway. I am happy to add references to any where you feel it's needed though. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rood screen, restored by Sir Ninian Comper in 1918
    • East window of the chancel with stained glass by Ward & Hughs, 1853/4
    • Yvonne Double memorial window, by Glenn Carter, 2006

    These 3 should have cites. The rest are all fine per your argumentation. :) Let me know once those are fixed, then happy to have another look. — Cirt (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cirt: okay, thank you for clarifying. I've cited two of them and removed dates and maker from a third (I think it was copied from the geograph info, which was not correct). Let me know if there are any other concerns you have. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support. Looks a bit better, thank you ! — Cirt (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much for your comments and support. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Comments by Mike Christie edit

    • "the present vicar, Rev. Philip Anthony Johnson, was appointed in 2013": since this article will, I hope, be around after the vicar retires, this would be better with an "as of" construction: perhaps "the Rev. Philip Anthony Johnson, who was appointed in 2013, is the vicar as of 2015". Or perhaps roll this in with the "as of" construction you have in the following paragraph?
    • Done
    • "an unknown Syrian saint": I don't quite follow. In what sense is he unknown?
    • His name and details of his life are not known beyond his works. I've changed to anonymous - is that better?
    • In a couple of places you say "Holy Communion is conducted from", rather than "at", a time. Is that the usual wording? "At" would sound more natural to my non-churchgoing ears.
    • Changed both instances to "at"
    • I think the plural of "sokeman" should be "sokemen", per this.
    • Well spotted.
    • In the background section, I don't follow the final part of the argument -- if they conclude the reference in Domesday is to the church in Old Sleaford, how can it also refer to New Sleaford?
      I am not sure where the confusion is here. There were two manors in Sleaford: one held by the Bishop and one by an Abbot. The Bishop's manor included a Church, which was assumed to be the church at Old Sleaford (because it was supposed that St Denys' didn't exist at that time). However Mahany and Roffe showed that the church in old Sleaford was actually included in Quarrington's entry; therefore, the record of the Bishop's manor at Sleaford which included a church must have been alluding to St Denys' Church. Does this make sense? I have tried to convey that in the article anyway... —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I think I get it now. You say "there were two manors in Sleaford", but in the article you say "Two manors called Eslaforde were recorded in Domesday"; I didn't realize that Eslaforde was an early name for Sleaford, and I therefore didn't understand that the argument was that the churches referred to as being in these two manors had to be the churches in Sleaford. Can you make that a bit clearer? If I'm slow on the uptake about that, others will be too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a fair point. I have put Sleaford in brackets after Eslaforde - does that help? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't until I finished that paragraph that I realized that the reassessment referred to in the earlier paragraph was, in fact, laid out for me in the second. I wouldn't suggest anything as clumsy as "as follows", but I'd like to see the reader made aware that the argument is first mentioned and then given. It might be enough just to move the mention of the reassessment to the start of the second paragraph.
    • I believe I have tweaked it to make it less confusing; I have moved the last clause of the first paragraph to the beginning of the next.
    • Is there any reason to link to the Google Books version of a source if there's no text available? I'm not sure it's harmful, though perhaps a source reviewer might comment if this is usual. Nikkimaria, is there any reason not to do this?
      Per WP:PAGELINKS GBooks links should usually only be added when preview is available, although I wouldn't say it's harmful here - just redundant (ISBN already links to GBooks and many other sources). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I assumed it would be okay. I have removed the links where the books are not available for preview on Google Books.
    • "A prebendary of Sleaford is recorded in the late 13th century and was probably founded by the post-Conquest Bishops, who were its patrons." A couple of things. I'm not an expert in church terminology, but isn't the prebendary the holder of the benefice, and the prebend is the benefice itself? So it would have been the prebend that was founded, not the prebendary? Second, does the last part mean that the Bishops who were its patrons founded it, or that it was founded by a group of people whom you're referring to as "the post-Conquest Bishops"? I think you mean the former, since the latter implies that all post-Conquest Bishops founded it; in that case you need to drop the comma after "Bishops".
    • I have tried to make this clear, let me know if it's still problematic. The prebend was probably founded by one of the post-Conquest Bishops and the Bishops were always its patrons.
    • "Located on the north aisle, the chaplain was instructed to pray there": needs to be reworded; this makes it sound like the chaplain was located on the north aisle.
    • Clarified
    • Why do we need Edward Evans death date?
    • We don't - removed.
    • "during its 1870 elections": I think "its" refers to the Board of Guardians, but there are so many nouns in between that I think I'd make it explicit -- at least "during the Board's 1870 elections".
    • Done
    • What or where is Westgate?
      A street - how should I make this clear in the text?
      I don't think you need the street, do you? Couldn't you just say "in Sleaford and Quarrington"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I don't think you need "But" in "But the Anglican congregation ...".
    • "an estimated 700 to 800 people in 1851 (St Denys' had a sitting of 743 people)": what does "sitting" mean? That's how many people could be seated? Or that was a typical number of attendees at a service?
    • It's the space available [33]. I have tweaked the wording
    • "memory of the local solicitor Henry Snow": perhaps just "memory of a local solicitor, Henry Snow", unless he deserves special mention in some way.
    • "and an extensive restoration work": do you need "an"? It doesn't sound natural to me.

    -- I should be able to finish this review tomorrow. Generally this is looking pretty good to me; just a few quibbles so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Christie: Hello and thank you ever so much for your comments so far. I have striken the comments which I believe have been corrected as per this edit. I could do with clarification about the query re Westgate. Could please you let me know whether the passages on the saint, Domesday and the prebend are up to scratch now as well? All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    I see from your nomination that you're new to FAC, so welcome! This is a solid article and I look forward to seeing more of your nominations. A couple of very minor formatting points for the FAC (as opposed to the article). It's usual to let the reviewer do the striking, rather than striking the comments yourself as you reply -- that's because the reviewer may not always agree that the point has been dealt with, so it's best to let them decide when something can be struck. Not an issue here, since I agreed with you in every case, but something to be aware of. Also, it's usual (though not universal) to sign each of your interspersed replies to points, so that if the conversation extends beyond a single reply it's clear who said what. Again not an issue here. Finally (and this is something even experienced Wikipedians get wrong all the time) the indents following a "*" or ":" should always match the one above, otherwise you can get odd-looking results, such as bullets floating to the left. For example, if you're responding to a bulleted entry beginning with "*", and you want a simple indent below it, use "*:", not ":*".
    Everything you've struck looks OK to me; I made a couple more little tweaks. I've replied to your question above, and it looks like you missed one point, which is still unstruck above. I expect to support once those minor points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: Hello and thank you for the comments and advice - I will bear it all in mind from now on. I have removed the Westgate reference, but I am not sure how to address the remaining query you have. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Continuing the review:

    • "a 15th-century window was moved to churchyard": presumably "the churchyard"? Is the churchyard a part of the church building? "Yard" in the US means what "garden" means in the UK, so this sounds a bit as though the window was just dumped outside. Can you be more specific?
      It does indeed refer to the church's grounds, and the window was removed from the building and left standing in the corner of the churchyard, as can be seen here [34]. I have tweaked the wording and linked churchyard. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      That is amazing. I would never have guessed you meant that. Perhaps make it "placed outside in the churchyard", which I know is redundant but makes it quite clear. If a picture is available that would be good too. I'll go ahead and strike this point since there's nothing wrong here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I know, it's hard to believe they did that... There is a photo at Geograph, which I will transfer over and add to the gallery. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "the building's listing": many readers won't know what you mean by "listing", so I'd explain this inline.
      I have used the list's full name, which is probably more meaningful, and I've linked to listed building. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "19 cwt, 3 quarters and 6 lbs": an odd way to give the weight. No doubt this is in the source, but I'd just give it in whatever units a modern English person would use, with an approximate conversion to metric. You can keep the original, but it needs to be in modern units too. The quarter in particular is not a measurement most people have ever heard of; and the hundredweight is a different weight in the U.S. and Canada to the U.K. measure. I'd also suggest giving approximate metric and imperial measurements for the acres/roods/poles, and linking rood and pole. See MOS:UNITS and MOS:CONVERSIONS for details.
      Okay, I have converted these. The roods and poles aren't supported by the convert template, so I've had to do them manually, while I found a nifty little template called long ton designed for working with bell weights. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The bell weights look good. Any reason why you went with hectares for one of the land conversions but square metres for the other? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I've converted them to hectares. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I didn't know what a dole cupboard was until I looked it up. Is there an article that can be linked to for this? Perhaps something on ecclesiastical furniture or church architectural terms?
      I'm struggling to find an article with a definition... —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I won't oppose over this if there's no link. You might redlink it; up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have redlinked and may create a stub at some point. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • The photo of the tomb of Sir Edward Carre mentions its mutilation by Puritans; you don't mention this in the article. Do your sources mention it?
      I've not seen any other mention of this and have checked Trollope, who describes it in detail but doesn't talk about any mutilations as far as I can see. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Page 131 of the Google Books edition of Trollope says the memorial is "said to have been mutilated during the Civil War"; I think that's good enough to cite. Incidentally, were you aware of this? Might be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, well discovered. I have quoted Trollope in the article and cited the page. I am aware of the 1825 book; it's good, but Trollope seems to cover the noteworthy points and it is in that early Victorian antiquarian phase which makes me doubtful of its reliability. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      In the church itself there is a plaque next to the tomb saying this is what happened to it. If you like I can try to find out their source? --Errant (chat!) 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @ErrantX: I have included the information in the article now, so I am sure it is fine, but if there is anything else you can find, that would fantastic. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • You refer to Eleanor Peart's memorial as the "the 'heavy' slab"; what does that mean, and why the quotes?
      It's how Pevsner describes it. I think it's his polite way of saying that the design is perhaps too bold and not as fine as it could have been. I can remove it if you'd like? —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I think we need to be clear what he means, or we can't use the description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have removed the "heavy" part. —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    -- That's everything I can find. All the points are minor, and I expect to support once these issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mike Christie: I believe I have addressed all of these issues by these edits [35], although I haven't found an article offering a definition of dole cupboard, nor have I found mention of Puritans desecrating Carre's tomb; I also have a query about the last comment. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    @Mike Christie: okay, I feel I have addressed all of these concerns now, but do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks ever so much for the review, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you so much for carrying out this review. All the best, --Noswall59 (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Comments by Hchc2009 edit

    Not quite a support yet

    • "1 acre of woodland, 320 acres of meadow and 330 acres of marsh" - felt like it needed a metric equivalent.
      Done. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • There are quite a few instances where century is used as an adjective without a hyphen (compare "13th-century sources" and "a 14th century slab")
      I believe I have caught them all. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • What is a cantarist?
      I have replaced with "chantry priest" (chantry was linked earlier in the paragraph). —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "There is a strong local tradition" - I wasn't sure what a "strong" local tradition was. Widely held? Possibly correct? etc.
      Changed to "widely held". —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "As of 2015, regular church services are held on Sundays and Wednesdays..." - this is cited to the church's own site, so I don't think it is a reliable source in terms of backing up the claim that services are actually regularly held, or just regularly scheduled. (In reality they might often be cancelled, for example.)
      Changed to scheduled. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "1809–1851 and 1851–82" - this seemed inconsistent in style
      It is and I have switched to the latter style, as per the MOS. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "establishment of National Schools in Sleaford " - is the capitalisation correct here?
      I believe "school" should be lower-case, but National is derived from the National Society for Promoting Religious Education and I believe should be capitalised. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I can't work out why some names have death dates after them, and not others. e.g. why "Sir Edward Carre, 1st Baronet (d. 1618)" or "Elizabeth Cooper (d. 1792)", but not "the Bishop of Lincoln, John Bokingham" (who died in 1339, btw)
      I have added the Bishop's death date. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • My concern was more general - why are some being given dates and not others? (e.g. " Bishop Alexander of Lincoln", "Samuel Green of London" etc.) I'd expect there either to be an implicit rule that the article is following (i.e. "dates are given if...") or to be consistent (i.e. everyone gets dates, or no-one gets dates). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hchc2009: Ah, I see. Well, I note that Pevsner records the death dates when he talks about tombstones and that makes sense, especially because many of the interesting monuments' subjects don't have articles. It would probably also be useful for architectural/art historians to place. As a result, I've made it so that death dates are only included for individuals with memorials. Does this make sense? —Noswall59 (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Is "Pawley, Simon (1996), The Book of Sleaford, Baron Birch for Quotes Ltd" a high-quality reliable source? This is an open question, as I'm not familiar with the publishing house and can't find it on-line.
      Pawley has a doctorate from the School of Historical Studies at the University of Leicester and compiled his thesis on "Lincolnshire coastal villages and the sea c.1300 - c.1600 : economy and society" [36]. According to this document by Bishop Grosseteste University and published by the County Council, Pawley "is a former Chairman of the Lincolnshire Family History Society, Conference Committee and a former Vice-Chairman of that society, former Chairman and Treasurer of Friends of Lincolnshire Archaeology and sometimes acts as a historical consultant to North Kesteven District Council." I have taken him to be a pretty reliable source, although I cannot vouch for the publisher. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • The bibliography is inconsistent in style: some items have publisher and location, others just publisher.
      They now all have locations; I have also switched to ISBN-13 throughout. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "The architectural historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner states" -Pevsner died around 30 years ago, so I'd have put this in the past tense myself.
      Switched to the past tense and caught two others relating to Trollope. —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hchc2009: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns through this edit [37], but do let me know if there is anything more to be done. Thank you very much for taking the time to review the article, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Comments by Lingzhi edit

    • " illegible when he recorded it." when?
    • Sometime before he published his book in 1872... I've added "in or before 1872". —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • commemorated in St Denys' by a brass. Are we missing a noun, or is this common usage?
    • No, there is no missing noun. According to the OED: brass, a noun, is "Used elliptically for various things made of brass: esp. A sepulchral tablet of brass (or latten), bearing a figure or inscription, laid down on the floor or set up against the wall of a church." In other words, a monumental plaque made of brass can be called simply a "brass". If this is an issue, I can change it. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      • If it's relatively common in british English usage, then it is not an issue. :-)
    • I didn't know "peal" was a group term for bells. Is it? That doesn't seem to jibe with peal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Peal can mean both the act of ringing the bells and, to quote the OED "A set of bells tuned to one another". —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I have a request not strictly related to the current article and thus not formally a part of this FAC review, but as a polite appeal to your better nature, you'd be doing a service to us all if you'd create at least a stub for three-light window, which appears often in WP articles, but wait, what's a six-light window? Should there be some sort of umbrella term? Are "strainer arches, sometimes described as scissor arches" the same as the "Scissor truss" described at the bottom of our article on Timber roof truss?
    • Firstly, I am not sure articles on six-light, five-light, four-light etc. windows are really necessary. The word "light" in this context refers to "A window or other opening in a wall for the admission of light; specifically one of the perpendicular divisions of a mullioned window" (OED). So, it is basically the number of main divisions in these windows; I guess a definition may belong in window or mullioned window. Secondly, the strainer arch looks like this: [38]. It is made of stone, so probably shouldn't be linked to Timber roof truss, although structurally it is similar to the scissor truss shown in that article; instead, it really ought to have its own article or section of an article, so I've redlinked. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • "Roger the chaplain" admittedly this is a minor point, but Roger is not previously named, so...
    • There is no further information on him, the source simply says that the house belonged to "Roger the chaplain"; I have added "one" in front of his name, which implies that this is all we know about him. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lingzhi: thank you very much for the comments above, all of which I believe I have addressed in some form, but please see my replies. Let me know if there are any further changes you have in mind. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    • Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":7" defined multiple times with different content
    • As far as I can see, this was because they both contained the same content, which happens sometimes when using visual editor; I've removed the duplication. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • Do we want to put "speculative" before "reassessment, and put some sort of hedge word before the date 1086 in the lede? Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so I have added speculative, although I feel it's a bit strong a word. I've also added "probably" before 1086 in the lead. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    @Lingzhi: thanks once more for these comments, which I believe I have addressed through this edit. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    • Thank you very much! All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    Comments from West Virginian edit

    • Thank you very much, @West Virginian: Your comments and support are very welcome and I wish you the best of luck with your church article. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2015 [39].

    SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901) edit

    Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Another WWI-related article with a major centenary coming up, this being the anniversary of the ship's sinking (which was the worst loss of life for the German Navy in the Baltic). I'd like to have the article through FAC in time to run the article on the centenary. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    • No DABs, external links good.
    • Images appropriately licensed.
    • Infobox issues, some of which also crop up in the main body: link boiler, indicated horsepower, knot, nmi, torpedo tubes, belt, turret, deck
      • Tell the reader what kind of engine a triple-expansion engine is.
      • Abbreviate indicated horsepower
    • Link training ship, squadron, Baltic, German Army, magazines, main battery
    • Need a hyphen between coal and fired and twin and gun.
    • More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think I've got everything so far. Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you men by construction number? Is that like yard number?
      • Linked.
    • young sailor Prince Adalbert of Prussia Not sure what you mean by young sailor, but do tell the reader that Adalbert was Willy's son.
      • Clarified.
    • Gunnery school or gunnery training ship?
      • Fixed.
    • German ranks need English equivalents
      • Think I've gotten them all.
    • Add |lastauthoramp=1 to your multi-author works to match the format of your notes. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review - spotchecks not done

    • Should use bold markup rather than semicolons for dividing the Notes section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). References 1, 4, and 5 seem to have some template problems. Invalid |last-author-amp=1, not sure how to fix that. — Cirt (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I've been encouraging Parsec to use the ampersands, I went ahead and fixed them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, looks better now, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and with the above tweaks, I believe it meets FA requirements. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2015 [40].

    Trout Creek Mountains edit

    Nominator(s): Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about perhaps the most rural area in Oregon and a section of the vast American Basin and Range Province. These mountains are little known to outsiders and rarely visited. So I find it fascinating to learn and write about this landscape (though I wasn't the one who initially wrote the article). The GA reviewer in January wrote, "Please take this to FA," and a peer reviewer provided helpful suggestions on the talk page in August, helping work toward that goal. Now with more improvements since the middle of August, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Jsayre64 (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Finetooth edit

    • I reviewed this article in early August and posted my thoughts on the article's talk page: Talk:Trout Creek Mountains#Peer review. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a few more suggestions.

    Lede

    • It might be better to recast the first sentence to eliminate link bump: Great Basin mountain range. One way to do this would be to unlink "mountain range", which is already familiar to most readers. I would also unlink "United States"; it's too well-known to need a link.
    • "the mountains are open to recreation but see few visitors" – Maybe "are rarely visited" since mountains can't see.
    • "Wildlife includes bushes, grasses, birds and mammals." – Too general. Specific examples from the main text would make this more interesting. Big sagebrush, desert grasses, mule deer, pronghorn, sage grouse, a few cottonwoods and alders?
    • I'd mention the mercury mines in the lede; they were of significant historical importance.
    • "However, the effects of grazing allotments on riparian zones and the fish led to environmental concerns in the 1980s." – "Concerns" seems too mild. Perhaps "led to land-use conflict in the 1980s"?
    • "to help resolve disagreements between livestock owners and environmentalists" – Since the list of parties is long, "among" would be more accurate than "between", and perhaps "environmentalists" should be expanded to "environmental organizations, government agencies, and other interested parties."
    • "riparian zones have begun to recover from more than a century of cattle grazing." – I'd lop off "from more than a century of cattle grazing" and just end with the word "recover".

    Geography

    • "Disaster Peak anchors the southern end of the mountains in a smaller range called The Granites." – Would "sub-range" be more clear than "smaller range"?
    • "on the east along the Harney–Malheur" – Remove the duplicate link to Harney County?
    • "The Kings River begins in The Granites and flows south toward the interior of Nevada, while McDermitt Creek flows generally east toward McDermitt." – Add that Kings River is a tributary of the Quinn River, which ends in the Black Rock Desert. Add a bit more specific detail from the GNIS description of McDermitt Creek: "Heads in Oregon, flows southeast into Nevada, where it disappears into the valley floor, 0.7 mi west of the Quinn River and 2.5 mi southwest of McDermitt."

    Land-management compromise

    • I think the bulleted list would be better as straight prose.
    • Done, except I think the list of parties in the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group is easier to read in bulleted format. The MOS:EMBED guideline isn't very specific, but I feel that it's more practical to list 13 items with bullet points instead of in prose. I'd be glad to discuss this and hear others' opinions. By the way, regarding your other comments, it's simply amazing what one pair of eyes can see and another doesn't find. Jsayre64 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. If others find the bulleted list problematic, it will be easy to change. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other. As for eyes, ever it was thus. I have never seen anything at PR or FAC that sailed through with no suggestions for improvement. Meanwhile, I have three more suggestions.
    • I would break up the third long paragraph of the lede after the word jackrabbits.
    • Citation 23 links to an abstract rather than a complete article. The citation should probably include a "subscription required" parameter; that is |subscription=yes.
    • You might consider adding pre-emptive archiveurls to head off link rot. You can search for existing clones of articles in the Internet Archive or use the "Save Page Now" function at that site to create an archived copy if none exists. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. All links that can be archived have now been archived. Thanks for your helpful comments. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you happen to know when to use "land-use" or "land-management" as opposed to "land use" or "land management"? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the top of my head, I'd say hyphenate when it's an adjective, as in "land-use conflict" and not otherwise, as in "unusual land use". Finetooth (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose, comprehensiveness, style, research, layout, length, etc., and media as soon as Nikkimaria's concerns are addressed. I should note, as above, that I peer-reviewed the article and that I also made a few minor additions and corrections to it along the way. Finetooth (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Antilocapra_americana.jpg: couple of problems here. First, I don't see this image on the given site - do you have a more direct link? Second, the site's copyright page currently claims CC BY-SA 3.0 on all images, not PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on prose, presentation, sourcing, and useful illustrations. It's informative and a highly interesting read. A couple thoughts: first, I do like the Trout Creek Mountain Working Group member organizations displayed as a bulleted list, and second, I'm wondering if the Oregon Desert Trail should be mentioned somewhere in the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'm glad you reminded me of the Oregon Desert Trail. I think it makes sense to link to that article in a "see also" section, so I've done that and linked to High Desert (Oregon) as well. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Quite well done and educational. Beautiful use of photos. Excellent climate graphic to help inform the reader. Only minor quibble with the short final paragraph in sect Human uses. That paragraph just reads a bit odd to me, I don't know, maybe it's the use of "Today" that feels a bit colloquial. Perhaps "Currently" or "At present" or "As of 2015" or whatever the source says, something like that. — Cirt (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the adverb to "currently," and I'm guessing you thought the wording was a little choppy, so I tried to make the sentences flow better. Thanks for looking over the article. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Reads a bit better now, thanks. — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 [41].

    Apatosaurus edit

    Nominator(s): IJReid discuss 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC) & LittleJerry talk 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about Apatosaurus, a sauropod commonly associated with but separate from Brontosaurus. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and was nominated for FA earlier. However, in the time during the review, a major study was published revolutionizing the systematics, and the article now follows that more Apatosaurus tends to be one of the best known sauropods because of its previous synonymization with Brontosaurus, and this article comprehensively covers what it known and proposed for Apatosaurus. IJReid discuss 00:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Infographic could stand to be larger
    Expanded. LittleJerry (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Field_Museum_Apatosaurus_mount,_1909.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    Removed. Seems to high quality to be from 1909. LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is the Field museums own Flickr page[42], so shouldn't be a problem. But we do have a newer photo of the mount:[43] FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    They say it's PD, but they don't say why - I'm not sure the given tag is correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Its because the photograph was taken in 1908, and thus was taken before 1923, so that photograph is now in the Public Domain with no restrictions. IJReid discuss 13:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the current tag applies to images published before 1923, not just created. Was this image published then? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, even if it is not, the image is still PD, by selecting the "no known restrictions" license link, it reads "Participating institutions may have various reasons for determining that "no known copyright restrictions" exist, such as: The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired; The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions; The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control; or The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions." Therefore the image remains PD. Also, it is no longer on the page so it does not affect the outcome of the FAC. IJReid discuss 23:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Dinosaur_National_Monument_quarry_map.png: has this permission been recorded via OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The owner of the blog got permission, see under the permission field, and in the source link. FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Carpenter has reponded on Commons:[44] Seems it would have to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Any further comments Nikkimaria? IJReid discuss 03:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Jens Lallensack

    General comments

    • You are citing a lot from Gilmore 1936, which is a very old source, but are not critical enough. Some examples:
    • The cervical vertebrae were stouter than those of other diplodocids, and were found to be most similar to Camarasaurus by Charles Whitney Gilmore. - Here you state the vertebrae are more similar to Camarasaurus than to other currently known diplodocids. The age of the cited study is not even indicated. In this context, Gilmore 1936 should not be used as a source, as only few sauropods were known at the time; it is highly unlikely that the statement still holds.
    Well, I kept this information, and elaborated upon it using the info in the peer preprint you link below. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the humerus resembles that of Camarasaurus" – same as above. It's probably not true anymore.
    The fact that the humerus resembles the humerus in Camarasaurus actually cannot change, as it is like saying that the feet of troodontids are similar to ornithomimids because they are both actometatarsalian. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The femora of A. louisae are the stoutest of any member of Sauropoda." - Again, the statement is to old. You cannot expect that such a statement can possibly be true after 100 years of research. Is the femur really more robust than for example those of derived titanosaurs like Saltasaurus?
    I changed this. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some information is missing.
    • Why is Apatosaurus considered different from other diplodocids, especially Brontosaurus? I would name and explain at least some autapomorphies.
    I have now listed the autapomorphies that show Brontosaurus is valid. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are the two species condidered to be distinct?
    I have added the information from Tschopp et al. on why they chose 13 characters for generic separation and 6 characters for specific separation. IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This information has been added under description (info on vertebrae anatomy) and paleobiology (info on the neck combat proposal). IJReid discuss 16:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article sometimes seems to be a bit overloaded with details that are not relevant. The importance of these details remains unclear to the reader. Some examples:
    • "The bones are articulated and their fusion indicates the bones are mature." – This is inside the "Description" section. In this section, only information on the anatomy of Apatosaurus are expected. Why is this information on a single specimen important in this context? Could be removed without a problem. You do not give age estimates of other specimens discussed in the article.
    Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In an individual of A. louisae, the astragalus was not found fused to the tibia." - It is not clear why the reader should know this, at least without any further information. Is the astragalus fused to the tibia in other sauropods?
    Removed. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Within Apatosaurinae, the scapula of Apatosaurus louisae is intermediate in morphology between those of A. ajax and Brontosaurus excelsus." – there is little the reader can learn from this, without any discussion.
    I think I've fixed this. IJReid discuss 23:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The stoutest metatarsal is in digit 1; the third metatarsal is the second stoutest.[3]" – Don't understand me wrong, I love detail in dinosaur articles. But you always should try to provide context. Is this an autapomorphy of Apatosaurus, or is it the general condition in Diplodocidae?
    Removed. IJReid discuss 23:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Roughened surface textures (rugosities) are present on both ends of the femur" - Again, context is needed: What does this tell us, and is it unique in Apatosaurus?
    Removed. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check the text for duplicate links (e.g., there are two links for Mike Taylor)
    All uplinks are removed. IJReid discuss 20:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The conclusions of Cobley et al. were disputed by Mike Taylor …" Mike Taylor was previously introduced as "Mike P. Taylor" in the text. You should decide wether or not to use middle initials, currently its a mess. Please check all names.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • please check for redirekts (e.g., Brontosaurus yahnahpin should point directly to Brontosaurus, not to the redirect)
    Well, it is useful to have the species in the redirect, and it does not overly affect how the article is read. IJReid discuss 20:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article makes a lot of use of the world "say". E.g., "Some studies say", "Wedel said", and so on. The word appears 14 times in the article! I would prefer using other words (e.g., "argued", "declared", "suggested", "came to the conclusion", "implied", "reasoned", "found" – there are a lot of possibilities. It has not to be "say".
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple issues with tense. You are describing the fossils and referring to published works both in past tense and present tense, this should be uniform. (e.g. "This was first noted" but "Some studies say"; "The neck vertebrae were" but "The phalangeal formula is".
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please take a look at reference formatting:
    I believe that all the reference changes have been completed. IJReid discuss 20:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, first names are written out, and sometimes not (e.g., ref 1 vs ref 2).
    • Just cite the year, not the month (e.g. ref 3).
    • ref 7 misses a lot of information
    • ref 8 needs a comma or something before "Programme and Abstracts"
    • title mode in journal articles (e.g. ref 31).
    • I'm not sure if ref 26 is a published citeable source at al. At least, the reference is totally misleading; there is no journal "dinoaurs". Best remove it completely.
    • missing page ranges (e.g. ref 29)
    • missing ISBN (e.g. ref 36)
    • in ref 37, the position of the editors is awkward
    • ref 53: add "first edition"
    • ref 54: not sure why we need "Retrieved 2008-09-05" for a journal article. Suchs dates are not given in other journal article citations.
    • scientific names must be in italics. e.g. ref 60.
    • missing title in ref 63
    • consider removing "Albuquerque, New Mexico: New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science." in ref 69, 72, 73 and 74, as places are not given in other references

    Lead:

    • "Like all sauropods, Apatosaurus had a single claw on each forelimb and three on each hindlimb." - This is not true, this applies only for Diplodocidae except for Barosaurus, which shows only two claws on the pes. Other sauropods can have four claws.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it may have grown 520 kilograms (1,150 pounds) per year until it reached 70 years of age" - why citing this estimate which contradicts most other studies? The consensus is that sauropods grew much faster, as stated later in the article.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    More specific comments:

    • "He classified this group within Sauropoda." - … which he had errected in the same study. I would provide this context.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Most authors still use Sauropoda as the group name." - Is there any author who does not?
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All Apatosaurus specimens are from the Morrison Formation. In 1877, this formation became the center of the Bone Wars, a fossil-collecting rivalry between early paleontologists Othniel Charles Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. Because of their rivalry, Marsh and Cope hurried to publish and describe the taxa." – what has this to do with Apatosaurus? I would expect to find some information on which important Apatosaurus fossils were discovered during this time.
    I have partially redone that paragraph. IJReid discuss 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The length of time taken for Riggs's 1903 reclassification of Brontosaurus as Apatosaurus to be brought to public notice, as well as Osborn's insistence that the Brontosaurus name be retained despite Riggs's paper, meant the entangled Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus became one of best-known dinosaurs." - Do I understand this right, that Brontosaurus/Apatosaurus is one of the most famous dinosaurs only because of the naming issue?
    I've reworded this now. IJReid discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The AMNH specimen, sometimes assigned to A. ajax" - was this specimen mentioned before? It's out of context. I would at least expect information on the date of discovery.
    Mentioned previously now. IJReid discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Field Columbian Museum – never heard of this museum. Which city? Link it.
    Linked. IJReid discuss 20:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Now this specimen is considered to either be a basal diplodocine or a derived apatosaurine." – You spend a whole paragraph describing the history of discovery of this specimen, and than stating that it is not Apatosaurus at all? It makes the whole section unbalanced, as other specimens are not discussed in that much detail.
    Rewrote. The specimen is significant as it is what proved to Riggs that the apatosaurus holotype was a juvenile, and thus the distinguishing features are not valid. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The skull was found a short distance from a skeleton (specimen CM 3018) identified as the new species Apatosaurus louisae, named after Andrew Carnegie's wife Louise." Louise is linked, but Andrew Carnegie is mentioned for the first time and not linked.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1931 at the Yale Peabody Museum, a skeleton was mounted with a skull different from the others. While at the time most museums were using Camarasaurus casts, the Peabody Museum sculpted a completely different skull." There is a lot of redundancy in the two sentences.
    Rewrote. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The conclusion was based on a comparison of 477 morphological characteristics across 81 different dinosaurs." Its not clear what "different dinosaurs" mean, could be different species, genera, or individuals. The latter is the case I think.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, some are sceptical of the large number of sauropod taxa in the Morrison, instead grouping taxa like Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus together." You are citing a single blog post, the opinion of Donald Prothero. You should at least cite a second to be able to state "some are spectical". The link leads not to the whole blog post, but precisely to a comment made at the end of this blog post. This is no better than a forum comment and is not a reliable source.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2005, Paul Upchurch and colleagues published a study that analyzed the species and specimen relationships of Apatosaurus.[19] Their analysis was revised and expanded with many additional diplodocid specimens in 2015, though this larger study found that only two species could be referred to Apatosaurus.[1]" The formulation "though this larger study found that only two species could be referred to Apatosaurus" implies that the earlier study by Upchurch et al. found more species to be valid. But this information is not given.
    Added info on findings of Unchurch. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The species remained largely unknown; it was overshadowed by A. excelsus and A. louisae." Not my favorite sentence, and I don't really understand it; are you refering to the famousness in popular culture?
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apatosaurus louisae was named by Holland in 1916 in honor of Mrs. Louise Carnegie, wife of Andrew Carnegie who funded field research to find complete dinosaur skeletons in the American West." Ah, here is the information on Andrew Carnegie. This should be moved to the first mention of Carnegie in the article.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A. louisae is one of the most distinct species, yet it was recovered as the most primitive species in the Upchurch phylogeny" – The word "yet" implies that it is unusual that the most primitive species is the most distinct. You should explain this.
    changed to "and". IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marsh said it was only provisionally assigned to the genus when he reassigned it to his new genus Morosaurus in 1878.[42] It is now the oldest species of Camarasaurus after being reassigned to that genus.[43]" – I see some problems with the formulations here, please rephrase it to make it more clear (that you are not talking about geologic age, and that Morosaurus is now known as Camarasaurus).
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the paragraph on Apatosaurus minimus, why are the new findings in Tschopps study not incorporated and cited?
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added the info per the discussion of Tschopp et al., A minimus was found to be a camarasaurid. IJReid discuss 20:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It was based on postcrania from Portugal. In 1990, this was referred to Camarasaurus …" It should be either "it was" or "these were", but not "this was"?
    "this material was" now. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bakker made A. yahnahpin the type species of a new genus, Eobrontosaurus in 1998,[38] and reclassified it as Brontosaurus yahnahpin in 2015.[1]" Bakker in 2015 reclassified it inside Brontosaurus? Please check this, I thought it was Tschopp et al. who did this.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "large proportion of pits, and fine, subparallel scratches in Apatosaurus" – I guess you are talking about teeth here? Please clarify.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "graze below the level of the body" - perhaps better "graze below the level of the feet"?
    I don't see why that would be better. LittleJerry (talk)
    Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not happy with the sections "Feeding" and "Posture". There is a structural problem: "Feeding" contains a lot of information on neck posture, which should be in the section "Posture" instead. "Posture" contains important information on feeding, which should be within the section "Feeding".
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2008, footprints of a juvenile Apatosaurus were reported from Quarry Five in Morrison, Colorado. Discovered in 2006 by Matthew Mossbrucker, these footprints show that juveniles could run on their hind legs in a manner similar to that of the modern basilisk lizard.[56]" - I'm not happy with this statement. The reference is a web link which is not working, so I cannot check the source. For this statement we really need a reliable source. Interpretation of fossil footprints is very tricky. If this speculation has not been published in scientific literature, I would suggest removing it due to lacking notability.
    Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole paragraph "juveniles" does not really contain much precise information, and is much to vague. You are talking of "Slight proportional differences", but what age are you reffering to? Consider writing a section on ontogeny, detailing changes appearing throughout life history. In such a section, you could also place the sentence "One of the first identified growth factors of Apatosaurus was the number of sacral vertebrae, which increased to five by the time of the creatures' maturity.", which currently is out of place.
    I think I've fixed this. IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mention "Saurophaganax" in the image caption but not in the text.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This are my notes from my first read. I'm sorry for the long list, but I fear that the article still needs a bit of work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    All your above comments have been resolved Jens Lallensack. Do you have any further suggestions? IJReid discuss 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Second look by Jens Lallensack I think the article has improved a lot already. I still have questions regarding some of my points mentioned above, and found some new ones. Especially, I think that the section "discovery and species" still has major problems. General comments

    • The "discovery and species" section seems a bit unbalanced to me. There is an extensive discussion of the skull problem, and some specimens are introduced in some detail. But other important specimens, for example the holotype of A. louisae, are only mentioned shortly (while discussing the skull problem), while others are not mentioned at all. For example, the article contains two images of "Einstein" (BYU 17096), with one image caption stating it is the "most complete specimen known to date". This specimen is not mentioned at all in the "discovery and species" section, and the important information "most complete specimen" only appears in the image caption (without a source).
    The specimen is mentioned in the description, now a brief mention in the discovery section as well. IJReid discuss 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article recently underwent a split from the article Brontosaurus therefore following Tschopp at al. (2015). Thats fine, but then we need to be consequent. The section "discovery and species" mostly discusses specimens that are not Apatosaurus according to Tschopp et al. The discovery of the real Apatosaurus specimens, on the other hand (CM 3018 and YPM 1861) are barlely discussed, and also the holotype YPM 1860 could be discussed in more detail. What is known from the holotype, where is it now, and is it on exhibit? There currently is much more information on FMNH P25112 in the article, which according to Tschopp is Brontosaurus, than on the Apatosaurus holotype.
    More info on ajax holotype, and less on FMNH, but unfortunately, there is not much information on the discovery of ajax, or even on the holotype. IJReid discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have uploaded an additional source for you, see also the references cited there: [45]. Its very helpful, also for interesting additions in other parts of the article. Please ask me if you need anything more, I will see what I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at it, But I don't know how to incorporate it, as it is kinda defunct what with Tschopp et al reclassifying many specimens mentioned. IJReid discuss 19:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For a start, you could add the bits on the Apatosaurus holotype and the A. louisae skeletons, that would already be a big improvement I think. I would incorporate the source by myself, but probably will not have time within the FAC window. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now added more info on the ajax holotype, and some on the louisae. IJReid discuss 14:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "discovery ans species" section, you give specimen numbers for some specimens but not for all. Consider to add the missing specimen numbers as those will make clear what you are talking about exactly.
    Specimen numbers added. IJReid discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    more specific points

    • A sentence now reads "The bones are articulated and their fusion indicates the bones are mature, so they do not only superficially appear closer to diplodocoids." – To be honest, I do not understand the second part of the sentence. Closer to diplodocoids than what?
    than macronarians. IJReid discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please help me, I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. They are closer to Diplodocoids because they are mature?? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed, did not really add any descriptive info to the article. IJReid discuss 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the paragraph starting with "In the 1903 edition of Geological Series of the Field Columbian Museum" still a bit confusing. The skeleton in question is introduced as "a well preserved skeleton of Apatosaurus", but later-on it is stated that it was not Apatosaurus at all. Is there a possibility to reduce confusion by rewording?
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "labeled the Apatosaurus mount of the American Museum of Natural History Brontosaurus." – Here again I find stringency is missing. The section "Discovery and species" starts with describing the first finds of Apatosaurus. Now, we read "the Apatosaurus mount of the AMNH". If you formulate it like this, I would think that this specimen was already mentioned previously. But where? If this specimen was not mentioned previously, it should at least be introduced shortly.
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sauropod feet that were discovered at the same quarry" – again, this was not discussed previously, so I have no idea which quarry this would be.
    Add discovery info. IJReid discuss 16:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After studying this skeleton, Riggs made a proposal. He proposed […]" – This is a prose issue, consider to remove "made a proposal."
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • specimen "BYU 17096" is not mentioned in Tschopp et al. Could it be the same as BYU 1252-18531?
    I believe not. The BYU 1252-18531 material apparently does not include a skull, which is certainly present in BYU 17096. It is very well possible that the specimen was simply not evaluated, as with other apatosaurus specimens. IJReid discuss 16:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the fixes. I answered directly below the few ones that still are pending. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Third look by Jens Lallensack Sorry for the delay. I have another look; I still found some inconsistencies in the discovery section, but I hope I can move to "support" quite soon.

    • Othniel Charles Marsh, a Professor of Paleontology at Yale University, described and named an incomplete, juvenile skeleton of Apatosaurus ajax in 1877. – Later in the text it is contrarily stated that the skeleton was fairly complete.
    • For the sentence on the holotype cited above, I cannot find the statement "juvenile skeleton" in the provided source.
    • The holotype of Apatosaurus ajax was found in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, within the Morrison Formation. – This location information is very vague; according to Tschopp et al. (2015), it is from Gunnison County in Colorado.
    • The specimen was found in the Morrison Formation in 1898 by Walter Granger. – It was already stated above that all specimens came from the Morrison Formation, no need to repeat information here. Rather, it would be much more helpful to have a more specific location information here.
    • A very complete skeleton, BYU 17096, is known from a well preserved skull and skeleton, with a preserved braincase. – This sentence is completely out of context, not integrated in the paragraph to which it is attached to. A bit of additional information can also be helpful: Where and when was it discovered, and in which museum is it now?
    • Despite Riggs publication, Henry Fairfield Osborn, who was a strong opposer of Marsh and his taxa, labeled the Apatosaurus mount of the American Museum of Natural History Brontosaurus. – Is this about specimen AMNH 460? This specimen was not introduced before. Perhaps better to quickly introduce it (date and place of discovery) before further detailing about it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these are now fixed. Anything else Jens Lallensack? IJReid discuss 01:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I give my Support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support by WereSpielChequers. I've read and reread this several times made a few tweaks and discussed a few inconsistencies.

    "Apatosaurus would have attained a mass of 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons) in 15 years. This would imply sauropods had a growth rate of 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) per year." I make 15 times 5 as 75 tons. Is it possible that this is a peak growth year, in which case instead how about "Apatosaurus would have grown to 25 t (25 long tons; 28 short tons) in 15 years, with growth peaking at 5,000 kg (11,000 lb) in a single year." ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I think LittleJerry would be best to resolve this, as he wrote the paleobiology for the most part. IJReid discuss 19:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article mentions the theory that the tail generated 200db sounds, but not the theory or possibly former theory that the whip was used as a weapon. Also would it be appropriate to mention the theory that this may have been a way for males to communicate? Sciencenews ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Added weapon theory, but the communication theory should first be in published literature before addition. IJReid discuss 16:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lede says "To lighten its bones, Apatosaurus had air sacs that made the bones internally spongelike and full of holes" But the article later describes the limb bones as "robust", I'm assuming that the load bearing lower bones were robust and the upper ones light, but if that were the case the word "some" would be helpful in the lede. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "To lighten its vertebrae...". IJReid discuss 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "only a potentially unnamed genus" Either something is named or unnamed. Could this be "only an unnamed proposed additional genus"? ϢereSpielChequers 05:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now changed this. IJReid discuss 16:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Any further comments WereSpielChequers? IJReid discuss 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No I'm done, thanks to both of you for your work on this ϢereSpielChequers 06:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from FunkMonk edit

    • Since two reviews are already ongoing, I'll wait a bit before doing an in-depth review, but here are a few comments. I did a talk page peer review of this article before the genus split, but much has happened since, so a fresh look is in order. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "something truly different to any dinosaur" Too hyperbolic.
    Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, the study of Tschopp et al. in 2015 found that the genera were in fact distinct, and the specimen was either the most basal diplodocine, or a specimen of Brontosaurus closer to B. parvus and B. yahnapin than B. excelsus." Why is this text in the beginning of the section? Doesn't make chronological sense to have it away from the main text about the 2015 paper at the bottom.
    Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text about bipedal juveniles was removed due to insufficient sourcing, but I have read this elsewhere (and we even have a photo9 of the exact tracks), so instead of removing info, another source should be found.
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intro seems a bit scrawny for an article this length.
    I merged two small paragraphs. Is that better? FunkMonk. LittleJerry (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since neck vertebrae are such a distinct feature of sauropods, perhaps a photo of an isolated vertebra could be found, perhaps on the SPOW blog, and added left above the description paragraph staring with "Like those of other sauropods, the neck vertebrae are deeply bifurcated"?
    Added, an alternate image is File:Apatosaurus ajax YPM1860 lateral.jpeg. IJReid discuss 19:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nice! Perhaps they should even be combined to a single (horizontal) image, like the taxobox one at Xenoposeidon? FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This specimen, CMC VP 7180, was found to differ in both skull and neck features from A. louisae, and the specimen was found to have a majority of features related to those of A. ajax." Make clear what these features are, since no other cranial material appears to be known of this species.
    Specified neck features. IJReid discuss 19:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ". Its forelimbs are slightly shorter than its hindlimbs." Why present tense?
    Past tense. IJReid discuss 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As in other diplodocids, the last portion of the tail possessed a whip-like structure." But the whip like structure is the last portion of the tail, so it reads a bit oddly. How does the source describe it?
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The caudal vertebra number was said to vary, even within species." This wording makes it seem like hearsay or something.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and are found to be most similar to Camarasaurus by Charles Whitney Gilmore." Gilmore is long dead.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apatosaurus, like its close relative Supersaurus, has tall spines," Specify neural spines.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which may also include Suuwassea, Supersaurus, and Eobrontosaurus" The latter is now Brontosaurus.
    Removed. IJReid discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking it should rather be changed to Brontosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm thinking the history section should maybe come before classification, because then much of the confusing stuff is already explained when the reader gets there. Did the same at Ankylosaurus.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He named the new species Brontosaurus excelsus,[24] meaning "noble thunder lizard", from the Greek brontē/βροντή meaning "thunder" and sauros/σαῦρος meaning "lizard",[22] and from the Latin excelsus, meaning "noble" or "high".[25]" Is this really relevant here after the split?
    Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "those of the Como Bluffs" Is there more than one Como Bluff?
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Almost all modern paleontologists agreed with Riggs that the two species should be classified together in a single genus." Which two species? And wouldn't it be more than two?
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They found that A. louisae was the most basal species" and "A. louisae is one of the most distinct species, and it was recovered as the most primitive species in the Upchurch phylogeny." repeated information.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the November 1997 issue of Discover reported research into the mechanics of Apatosaurus tails by Nathan Myhrvold, a computer scientist from Microsoft" Why so much detail here?
    Removed. IJReid discuss 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are weird tense shifts within sentences, some of which I have fixed, but it could be checked throughout.
    • "While the subfamily Apatosaurinae was named a while ago" Saying a whikle ago is very informal, and I'm not sure the info is significant enough for the intro here, the article is not about apatosaurinae.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could briefly mention the story of the skull in the intro, as it is one of the most well known facts about the animal.
    Added paragraph. IJReid discuss 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I'd say that's a bit too much, almost as much detail as in the article. Could be neater to summarise it further, and leave it in the paragraph that already mentions the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thinned it out a bit now. IJReid discuss 14:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a bit odd that description of the animal starts in the first paragraph of the intro, only to stop and continue in the third paragraph.
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is only one naming authority mentioned in the intro, and not for the other species?
    Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intro used the term "spongelike", but this is not used in the article body.
    Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - alright, the article looks good to me now. You've had quite some obstacles (perhaps more to come with further taxonomic revisions), commendable that you kept it on! I guess you can request a source review now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We just have to wait for Jens Lallensack to finish. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). No need for inline cite in lede intro sect unless controversial info likely to be contested. My only other quibble is also with the lede sect, you mention an "Osborn" but don't provide context for the reader, and since the WP:LEAD should be a standalone functional summary, we are left not knowing who is "Osborn". In fact, I see he's not wikilinked until his third appearance in the article text. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Cirt. I have fixed this. IJReid discuss 02:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thanks to nominators for being so quick and responsive to FAC comments. :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review edit

      1. 5 Bates - source supports statement in article.
      2. 13 Upchurch - source supports statements in article.
      3. 21 Marsh - source supports statement in article.
      4. 28 McIntosh - source supports the lengthy statement in article.
      5. 38 Marsh - I can't find the information cited in the source though it may be there. The print is very small.
      6. 45 Gallina - I can't find the information cited in the source, but perhaps you could guide me to it.
      7. 54 Taylor - source supports statement in article.
      8. 61 Curry - source supports statement in article.
    • In reviewing a sample of sources I found no evidence of close-paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review. I have checked marsh, and the info is on page 503 to 504, which is now specified in the reference. IJReid discuss 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang sorry. I was working on the wrong marsh paper. IJReid discuss 15:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked marsh 1878, and it states the info in the article in a note on the bottom of page 414 (page between 413 and 415 labelled 514). IJReid discuss 15:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything else Cwmhiraeth? All the current problems have been fixed. IJReid discuss 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's fine. The article is of a high standard but the subject is so technical that I did not feel qualified to judge whether it should become a FA which is why I chose to do a source review instead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dudley

    • "during the early Tithonian ages" Why "ages" in the plural?
    Done. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The cervical vertebrae of Apatosaurus are less elongated and more heavily constructed than those of Diplodocus". I suggest saying that they are both Diplodocidae (moving the information from the fourth para) to explain why you are comparing them.
    Done. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Henry Fairfield Osborn disagreed with this association, who went on to mount a skeleton of Apatosaurus with a Camarasaurus skull cast." The grammar has gone wrong here.
    Fixed. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While the subfamily Apatosaurinae was named in 1929, the group was not used validly until an extensive 2015 study." It is probably my ignorance, but what does "validly" mean here? Approval by an official body? The text below seems to say it is just the conclusion of the most recent study.
    Linked. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think that linking to the Wiktionary definition of valid helps. My query was whether "validly" has a specialised meaning in paleolontology, and if it does not why one study which may be disproved by further discoveries is definitive. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This could help: Valid name (zoology) FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The braincase was placed in a phylogenetic analysis; its morphology was found to be very similar to that of other diplodocoids". "placed in a phylogenetic analysis" reads a bit oddly to me. Perhaps "A phylogenetic analysis found that its braincase is very similar to that of other diplodocoids."
    Rearranged. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the tail transformed into a whip-like structure farther rear" Maybe "towards its end."
    Changed. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The holotype of Apatosaurus ajax was found in the in the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains, within the Morrison Formation.[16] More specifically, the specimen came from Gunnison County, Colorado." Repetition of "in the", and I would merge the two sentences - "found in Gunnison County, in the eastern foothills..."
    Merged. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "features now considered to have been widespread among sauropods could be used to distinguish genera" I do not understand this.
    Rewrote. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 2015, AMNH 460 was found to potentially be Brontosaurus, and in the phylogeny only the holotype was assigned to A. ajax." It is probably my ignorance, but I do not understand this. The holotype of Brontosaurus was assigned to A. Ajax?
    Rewrote. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apatosaurus louisae was named by Holland in 1916 in honor of Mrs. Louise Carnegie" You have already said above that it was named in her honor.
    REmoved and merged with following sentence. IJReid discuss 14:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Trackways of sauropods like Apatosaurus show their average range was around 20–40 km (12–25 mi) per day" The source is more tentative, saying "perhaps at rates of 25/40 km/day".
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "An alternative method, using limb length and body mass, found Apatosaurus grew 520 kg (1,150 lb) per year until it was about 70 years old." Is this a serious suggestion? You say below that they lived until about 30 and surely no animal keeps growing until 70.
    Yes, quoted from the paper "...yields a revisited growth curve suggesting that Apatosaurus adult mass was reached by 70 years with a maximum growth rate of 520kg/yr". It really seems crazy, but that's what it says. IJReid discuss 16:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would leave it out. A journal paper which makes a strange claim is not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Crocodiles grow all their life (so do other reptiles), and reach about 70 years, so wouldn't be too far-fetched, given they are their closest relatives along with birds. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The specimens exhibit distinguishing features of Apatosaurus, justifying their referral." What does this mean?
    Reworded. IJReid discuss 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Apatosaurus fossils have only been found in the upper levels of the formation. Fossils of Apatosaurus ajax are known exclusively from the upper portion of the formation (upper Brushy Basin Member), about 152–151 mya." Repetition of fossils, upper and formation.
    Removed repetition. IJReid discuss 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Additional Apatosaurus remains are known from younger rocks, but they have not been identified as any particular species." Does not this mean that 152-151 mya is too narrow?
    Not unless they have been dated. IJReid discuss 17:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other vertebrates that shared this paleo-environment include..." No mammals?
    None known afaik. Amended. IJReid discuss 16:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2015 [46].

    Boroughitis edit

    Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about... a peculiarly New Jersey article. Boroughitis may sound like a fake disease, but it's a real thing: the aftereffects still afflict New Jersey today. It seemed normal to live in one borough growing up, going to high school in another, getting our water from a third, a fourth was down past the end of the street, the supermarket was in a fifth ... and I haven't gotten five miles from my house yet. And all of the boroughs I mentioned were incorporated in 1894. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – Taking part in a peer review of an article on local government may not seem a prospect to quicken the pulse, but I much enjoyed reviewing this, and found nothing to quibble at during the PR. Very entertaining goings-on in the 1890s! Beautifully constructed, clear, pleasing prose, good balance and well referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 06:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Bergen_County,_NJ_municipalities_labeled.svg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've dealt with that. Thank you for the review. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review

    • Format error in ref 30 – check the template
    • I'm not quite clear what information is being cited to re 33.

    Otherwise, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that review. 30 has been fixed, 33 sources the number of municipalities and counties, the merger of the Princetons, and some of the efforts for consolidation, as well as the per capita stat. Regrettably, I found the need to run sources together and then another came along, resulting in something of a cite string, I'm afraid. It would be difficult to untangle.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I was a peer reviewer and my questions and occasional perplexities were answered there. An unsual offbeat topic, typifying the breadth of range in this weird encyclopaedia of ours. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Quite nicely done. Reminds me of a guy who was inflicted with "Boneitis"... But anyways yeah I wonder if there's some sort of longer term plan put forth attempting to address this -- that never gets fully followed through upon. — Cirt (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. There really isn't any plan to deal with this. Home rule is very important in New Jersey. Every governor since the 1960s that's been in office for any length of time has urged mergers, but they don't happen very often. Three that I'm aware of.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to Oppose this as the article gives undue weight to Bergen County...when this phenomenon is equally and quite dynamically present in the state's other 20 counties (often with quite unique circumstances). There's scant coverage of other instances..., for example, like Franklin Borough in Sussex County where the ruralites separate it from Hardyston as a result of a battle of schools vs. the interests of NJ Zinc Company and backlash from locals who didnt like all the Hungarian, Slavic, and Chilean miners coming into the area. Also in 1693, those two dozen townships were not covering the entire area of the state, only a small portion along Newark Bay, Raritan Bay and the lower Delaware Valley...70% of the colony/state's area was unpopulated by european settlers and unorganized (Karcher is wrong on this...the last parts of northwestern nj were not organized until 1750-1751, West Jersey north of what is now Trenton didn't begin getting organized until 1711). To say this without qualification is unclear and misleading. ALSO, i do take issue the use of Senator Karcher's book (I knew the Senator, btw) in a kindle edition...citations with page numbers like 851 and 1389 don't comport with a book that in print is easily accessible (including online postings like Google Books) and only 238 pages long. Further, there's more primary information on the phenomenon, referencing the laws, in other areas of the state in Snyder's history of NJ's civil boundaries available in its entirery online in pdf...which I use and cite at List of municipalities in Sussex County, New Jersey...and in many other sources (some of which Karcher relies on) that are available quite easily. Some on state websites. Based on undue weight, some historical inaccuracies, and lack of covering other counties sufficiently, I think the article, while good, is incomplete in its coverage. JackTheVicar (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your views. I do not believe the issues in the other counties were tied to 1894 and 1895, do you have information that they do? I can get pretty close to page numbers using the index, if that will help.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up, I downloaded Snyder, I had been thinking of getting him on interlibrary loan so thank you. I've integrated some of his background and so forth, but he really doesn't talk much about boroughitis. Using his lists, I found that boroughs were incorporated in 16 of NJ's 21 counties in 1894-96, but except Bergen (26) no county had more than 3. So I'm not sure it is undue weight. The system worked more or less as it was supposed to elsewhere. The Franklin Borough matter did not happen until 1913; this article is about what happened when the legislature left the door open. I'm not as familiar with Sussex County as I am further east, but I would think Franklin Borough was chartered by special act of the legislature? I'd welcome any sources you have on boroughitis as applied to other counties, but given the relatively small number that acted, I think we fulfill WP:DUE by mentioning Roselle and Mountainside. I didn't see anything happening in Sussex. So I've deleted the incorrect background info, inserted new stuff from Snyder, changed Karcher to page numbers, and would welcome any sources that deal with boroughitis outside Bergen County because I didn't see any.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a bit on borough splits later in Camden and Essex counties.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Interesting read, very nicely put together. – SchroCat (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments - leaningSUPPORT: Hi Wehwalt, I like the article and am leaning support, but found a few places where I scratched my head and perhaps you can address these matters. Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I'm a little fuzzy in the lead with the difference between a borough and a community, i.e. " townships, in which there might be several communities, each with a local school that formed its own district." If the words are used synonymously, or if they mean two different styles of small municipality, can you clarify? (The township article is of some help, but just a minor rephrase of a sentence or two should solve the problem.)
      Community is used to mean a settlement which doesn't have corporate existence on is own. They generally formed into boroughs, or possibly some other form of New Jersey local government. In New Jersey, community generally followed (and in my opinion, still does) the schools.
    2. Lead could be clarified to put the impact of railroads and the early development of suburbs as a sociological factor a bit more prominently.
    3. Would like to see a bit of the Voorhees analysis of the problems with Borouhitis placed into the lead, the final paragraph doesn't really summarize the end result and thus I'm left feeling unsure about why a reader would wish to delve into the issue. Perhaps expand a bit to put the juicy stuff up front, at the very least, the "township all but disappeared from Bergen County as a form of government" bit.
    4. Background section, second paragraph, the bit about dirt roads seems artificially sandwiched between the other sentences, suggest reworking for better flow.
    5. Last paragraph of background and first paragraph of Legislation section really should somehow be melded into the Legislation section, the transition is clunky
    6. Still a it fuzzy why Bergen County was the hotbed and would value a brief analysis of other counties that may have been caught up in the craze (Don't agree entirely with Vicar's analysis above, but as someone not from around there, am wondering) ... was it geographic proximity to NYC plus wealth of commuters only or were there other factors?
      The railroad was a very big factor. I've added a bit here. Bergen County was fairly unique in having townships with multiple stations/communities. Other places, the legislature chartered a doughnut hole into a borough, but Bergen County's differences held things back for a while.
    7. Passing reference to corruption, but was local-level corruption another factor?
      A bit, in places like Jersey City, that are eternally corrupt. But given that the Democrats suffered the biggest losses in history in 1894 in Congress, I think that it was more the economy. The lower house of the legislature was annually elected until 1949 or so.
    8. In Legacy, still unclear why so much resistance to fixing the mess, even over 100 years later. Anything more to add?
      I've added a bit, but it's really about home rule and the local schools again.

    Hope these questions/comments can help improve the article. To tell the truth, school control, taxes for local improvements, and the rural-urban battlefields that form as a result sounds just like modern Montana politics. Nothing changes... :-P Montanabw(talk) 23:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect the difference is that Montana doesn't allow many fixes without the legislature weighing in. Thanks for your very helpful comments and suggestions. If I haven't responded, I've gone ahead. I hope it is clearer now.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's much clearer now, thank you. Voting support above. Montanabw(talk) 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For coordinator information, I've asked JackTheVicar to look back in, here. No doubt they've been busy.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, I haven't forgotten. It has been a busy week with some family medical issues and work, but responding to your questions has a prominent spot on my desk when I get some more time this week. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I hope those things are working out well.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2015 [47].

    R U Professional edit

    Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    "R U Professional" is an article about a satirical song and a form of parody music using sampling. After being promoted to WP:GA quality, the article had a peer review where I received helpful feedback from Onel5969. Subsequently it went through a copy-edit from the kind folks at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Then John performed two more copy-editing passes, and I'm grateful to John for that assistance.

    I appreciate your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified: Talk:The Mae Shi, User talk:John, User talk:Satkara, User talk:YumeChaser, User talk:Onel5969, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Talk:R U Professional, User talk:Cirt. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by West Virginian edit

    • Support. Cirt, thank you for submitting this article for FAC. Following my review, I find that it meets the criteria for FAC. I just had a few minor comments, and made a few minor tweaks to the inline citations and some wiki-links. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments by West Virginian (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Lede and overall
    • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the song, establishes the song's necessary context, and explains why the song is otherwise notable.
    • The info box for the song is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
    • All images included in this article include alt captions per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and standard captions.
    • The image of Christian Bale is PD, the first two images of Mae Shi are CC BY-SA 3.0, and the third image of Mae Shi is PD; all are acceptable for use here.
    • I took the liberty of reordering inline citations in numerical order throughout the prose.
    • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Background

    • In the third paragraph, I suggest using one inline citation at the end of the paragraph since all the content is sourced from Citation #7.
    • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Inspiration and composition

    • I de-linked sampling, as it was wiki-linked above.
    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

    Release and reception

    • I de-linked new wave music and The Arizona Daily Star as they were both linked above in the prose.
    • This section is well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.
    Done. Thank you for the Image review, and thanks very much for your Support. The kind words are most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt, you are quite welcome! Everything looks in order. Thank you again for your extraordinary work on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

    Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage (addressed)
    Prose:
    • In §Background, TMZ is the name of the website at TMZ.com; there's no need to refer to it by URL. Similarly, later on, I don't think MTV.com is the correct styling. You should be good with just MTV. In general, very few websites are actually named their URL (Phys.org is a counterexample off the top of my head). To some extent, that applies in the references also.
    • There are some inconsistencies in the spacing of line breaks in your quoted lyrics in §Inspiration and composition. Sometimes you line break with a slash, other times with a slash and a trailing space. MOS:SLASH indicates these should be spaced on both sides.
    • §Release and reception does not read to me as compelling prose. Mostly, the problem here is that it is just a series of statements of the form "Media outlet said observation." Now, obviously, there aren't scholarly retrospectives to cite for general statements, so to some extent that's unavoidable. But it might be preferable to make certain that the observations are arranged into logical groups, and provide some sort of introductory statement letting the reader know what to expect from that group of observations. For example, something about how several media outlets attempted to categorize the song by genre, followed by the various cited sources which did so. Likewise, comments about its rapid production. And so on.
    • My singling out of genre is especially on-point, because the infobox calls this piece "experimental rock"; you've got a number of media outlets making pronouncements about genre, but none of them call it that.

    References:

    • I believe that "Christian Bale's Verbal Attack Draws Today's Attention" was bylined by Adam Bryant. This was also probably distributed via one of the wire services, although I can't confirm that. I say so only because TV Guide appears to have an identical article here. You don't ever attribute material from this article to the newspaper directly, though, so there's no problem with citing it where you found it.
    • If a source doesn't have a listed author, there's no need to cite it to "Source staff".
    • There's sort of an art to when you need to include publishers for web sources, and the MOS doesn't provide any hard rules to go by. In general, that's necessary only when the publisher is both relevant and not obvious from the website name. So, for example, MSNBC and BBC News don't need a cited publisher because they are obvious from the website; CNN doesn't need a publisher because it's not generally relevant that CNN is owned by Time Warner. On the other hand, noting that Pop Candy is a publication of USA Today is probably correct.
    • The various cases where a URL has been used as a publisher are definitely wrong.

    I'm neutral on promotion at this time. I don't think there's anything here that's fatal to promotion, but I'd prefer to see some reworking of §Release and reception and reference format tidying before I'm comfortable dropping my name in the support bin. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, no worries, I'm going to try my best to be responsive to above helpful comments. :) — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

    Thanks very much to Squeamish Ossifrage for these helpful comments, I've made some responsive changes to the page and I think thanks to you the article is much better for them.

    1. Done. I've gone ahead and removed that cite, as suggested.
    2. Done. Changed TMZ.com to just TMZ.
    3. Done. Likewise with MTV.com, to just MTV.
    4. Done. Fixed issues with spacing before and after the slashes, per recommendations, above.
    5. Done. Removed "Staff" from cites, as suggested.
    6. Done. Fixed or removed "publisher" fields, kept a couple only in specific cases as recommended.
    7. Done. Fixed infobox field to reflect cited sources in article body text.
    8. Done. Rearranged section as suggested, to group sources together by Genre and Production speed.

    Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Things looks much better. A couple follow-up notes:
    • §Release and reception is much better than before! I might reword the introductory sentence to the last paragraph though; not all the sources seems to say that it was an "odd" tribute, so that adjective has something of novel synthesis about it.
    • "Outburst reveals Christian Bale’s ‘Dark’ side" appears to be a doubly-dead link. The archive has been suppressed via robots.txt, and the original isn't resolving. Probably need to check them all, since archive dates are back in 2009 here (and I lazied out and didn't do it).
    • You have a few cases where you're not consistent about whether you're using {{cite news}} or {{cite web}} for web-news references. Normally, that's irrelevant, but when combined with
    • Support. Making my position clear. Everything has been admirably addressed; we're good here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your helpful feedback and very useful suggestions, and for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Maile edit

    In the time it took me to read the article and check out the references, the two reviews above covered anything I probably would have touched on. I was wondering why there is not an image in the Infobox, but that doesn't affect my comments here. Personally, I think this was quite well-written, and the tone stayed neutral. The article appears to have stability. The sourcing, as far as any I'm familiar with, seem to be reputable. The style of inline citations is consistent throughout. Certainly well researched.

    Thanks very much for checking out the references and quality of sourcing, and thanks for your Support. — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by Tim riley edit

    Just one comment, probably showing my ignorance of the pop field: is "the The AV Club" meant to have two definite articles? – Tim riley talk 21:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for stopping by, Tim riley, and thanks for picking that up. Fixed. Although I did enjoy how Stephen Colbert used to say, "The The New York Times... — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by FrB.TG edit

    Comments by FrB.TG (addressed)
    * "The piece was made available on YouTube" – what does "the piece" exactly mean?
    • Sentences after fourth line of second para are quite repetitive – xxx described it as, xxx praised its...
    • Suggestion for image caption of Christian Bale: Christian Bale in July 2008.
    • "but rather an homage to Bale" – why is it an homage?
    • TV Guide can be linked in ref 1.
    • I don't see why you should italicize publishers like MSNBC and CNN as they are television networks.
    • Ref 14 – Digital Spy does not need italics and can be wiki-linked.
    • Ref 16 and 17 – ditto (no italics).
    • London is a well-known geographic location. I don't think it should be linked, per WP:OVERLINKING. -- Frankie talk 13:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Done. Changed from piece to song.
    2. Done. Copy edited these a bit to increase variation, I'm also quite thankful for the two (2) copy editing passes performed by John.
    3. Done. Changed image caption, as suggested.
    4. Done. Fixed this, as suggested.
    5. Done. Linked TV Guide here.
    6. Done. Removed italics for these, as suggested.
    7. Done. Removed italics. Added wiki-link.
    8. Done. Removed italics.
    9. Done. Removed link to London.

    Thank you for these helpful suggestions, FrB.TG, the article looks much better for them! — Cirt (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support – I posted my craps above. -- Frankie talk 20:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for your helpful comments, and your Support. — Cirt (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from John edit

    Where we have "Bale was filming with actress Bryce Dallas Howard when he yelled at director of photography, Shane Hurlbut, for walking into his line of sight.", could we substitute "berated" for "yelled"? I was uneasy about "yelled" when I copyedited this all these months ago. Other than that, I think it looks good. --John (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Changed "yelled" to "berated", as suggested by John, above. Thank you for your comments and your copyediting help, I think the article is much better for them. — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on a second read through. --John (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much for the Support and the copyediting assistance, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 [48].

    The Turn of the Screw (2009 film) edit

    Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article covers a 2009 BBC adaptation of Henry James's classic ghost story The Turn of the Screw. Is it just another TV film? Well, yes and no. The BBC's horror films and costume dramas are both well loved, and this is a nice example of both. Also, this holds special interest as a pre-Downton Abbey collaboration between Michelle "Lady Mary" Dockery and Dan "Cousin Matthew" Stevens. Finally, as this is an adaptation of James's novella rather than an original story, it holds interest both for fans of classic literature and for literary theorists. I started writing this in January after catching the film on TV (the article was pretty rudimentary), and I'm pleased with how it's come out. I'd like to thank Eric Corbett for a great GA review back in March- since then, the film has been released on DVD in North America, and so the article has been slightly updated, but it remains mostly as-was. This is a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Cassianto edit

    • "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their A Ghost Story for Christmas series" the "A" and "their" clash when used together so I would move "series" to before the introduction: "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas.
    • A personal preference and a normality in BrEng is the use of the definite article. I would adopt it in this article seeing as it is on a BrEng subject: "BBC executive and drama commissioner Ben Stephenson..." → "The BBC executive and drama commissioner Ben Stephenson..."
      • Do you have a source that suggests that my approach is nonstandard? I'm not convinced. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • These prominent authors and linguists say that it is normal in BrEng as do the British Council who call it one of the most used words in the English language. This reliable website compares the definite article use to that of the Americans who seldom ever use it to introduce things. Less reliable, perhaps, is me :). I use it in all of my FA's and I've never had a problem. Tim, I know, uses it a lot too. CassiantoTalk 17:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • See the article False title. The use is common in tabloid papers, but is better avoided in high quality writing. The advice in the NY Times style guide is both amusing and wise. Tim riley talk 17:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tim, Cassianto: Thanks, I'm learning a lot already! I'll try to internalise this rule... Fixed that example in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "this framing device is not used in the original novella, but both the novella and the film share a first-person narrator" -- Novella/novella repetition. Is there another word you could use for one of them?
    • Who said "screaming-banshees-and-horrible-corpses style of ghost story"?
    • "The Turn of the Screw was filmed on location in the West Country of England -- "on location" is redundant here.
      • I disagree- it could, for instance, have been filmed at a sound stage in the West Country. On location filming refers to a particular kind of filming (namely, at a "real" location, rather than on a made-for-filming set), not just filming that is at a place. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I bow to your superior knowledge on this. It's a subject I'm quite ignorant on. CassiantoTalk 17:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The period in Mrs. Sarah Grose is AmEng. Do the BBC use this?
      • Removed (also sorted "Dr."). Clearly something I've been getting wrong for some time... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Up to plot, will continue soon. CassiantoTalk 15:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for taking a look! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support -- Nothing else from me everything else looks to be tip-top. Great work Josh! CassiantoTalk 13:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    SupportComments from Tim riley edit

    I'll look in after a proper reading in the next day or so. Meanwhile, as we seem to be in BrEng, pray consider the spelling (four times) of "sanitarium" for the usual English "sanatorium"; and did the critic in The Times really spell "suppurate" as "supperate"? Tim riley talk 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed both. The mistake was mine, not Chater's, and I blame the "sanitarium" spelling on a band I used to follow... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Later:

    • Lead
      • If you agree with Cassianto and me about the false title, you may like to look at "by housekeeper Mrs Grose" in the lead.
      • "significantly less ambiguous" – what does it signify? It is a pity to waste "significantly" as a mere synonym of "considerably" etc unless there is a measurable significance.
    • Production
      • "adapted many times, although not previously by the BBC" – not true: see here. Put not your trust in The Daily Express as a WP:RS.
        • I think Baylis (and, correspondingly, me in the article) specifically meant television/film adaptation. All of the mentions on the BBC listings were either on the radio, versions of the opera or else non-BBC films. I've changed this to "The film is an adaptation of Henry James's 1898 novella The Turn of the Screw. As one of his more popular stories it had already been adapted for films and television many times, although not previously by the BBC." (And I appreciate that The Express isn't exactly a top-quality newspaper, but Baylis is a professional television critic notable in his own right who has also written for much better papers- he's not just some hack.) Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ann's father is a pastor" – in England? I don't think I have ever heard an English clergyman called a pastor. It sounds like something out of Ibsen or the Deep South of America.
        • I'm not sure why I wrote that. The source uses "preacher", so I've used that instead. I don't want to be more specific, as it's not clear in the film itself precisely what his job is. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Corin Redgrave, who played the professor, is the son" - alas, was the son.
    • Plot
      • "affected by the War" – really necessary to capitalise?
        • I'm using "War" as a proper noun- it's the War, not just the war (that has just passed). Or would you advise against this? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Point taken. I think MoS zealots may purse a lip or two, but to Hell with them. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critical reception
      • "commended the performances of Dockery[9][22][11][12][30][31][32]" – you need to get the refs in numerical order here
    • Literary analysis
      • "literary theorist Anna Viola Sborgi" - "Good morning, literary theorist Sborgi"
      • "with regards to both setting and costume" – I think "with regards to" means sending good wishes. What you want here, I suggest, is "with regard to"
      • "For literary theorist Thomas S. Hischak" – a close friend of harpsichordist Yagyonak?

    All very minor stuff. I'll read the article once more tomorrow, and then I think I'll be able to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much- I think I've fixed everything/clarified why I haven't. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. (Forgive my King Charles's head in re false titles, and thank you for taking my sarcastic comments so graciously.) Having read again this evening I am happy to support. With the exception of Britten's chilling opera I have never run across an adaptation of HJ's original novella that really works, and I note with approval that you scrupulously reflect the balance of critical opinion over this attempt. The article seems to me to cover everything that should be covered, impartially and in most readable prose. In my view it meets all the FA criteria. It almost makes me want to see the film. Tim riley talk 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've watched the film twice, which is why I did the GA review. I don't think I'd watch it again though, as I was never certain when the events were happening, or whether in fact the governess was mad. But that was of course the point of the film, and which I think is well explained. Eric Corbett 20:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, Tim! For me, the film is very watchable with a great atmosphere, but is by no means perfect (in its own right or as an adaptation). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Henry_James_by_John_Singer_Sargent_cleaned.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really haven't a clue (and I hate to say this, as someone who spent a lot of time working with images...). I thought the US had a copyright term of the author's life plus 70 years. I've no idea when the painting was first "published", or what that would constitute. It's a 1913 painting, if that helps anything. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • For paintings, display counts as publication - was the artwork publicly displayed, and when? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I couldn't say for sure, so I've switched it to a photograph definitely published in the US prior to 1923. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Cas Liber edit

    Taking a look now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't follow why M. R. James is referred to at the opening of the article.....
      • Thanks for taking a look. I'm aiming to set the scene with regards to the BBC's previous adaptations of classic ghost stories; when the BBC originally revealed that they were working on The Turn of the Screw, they presented it effectively as a spiritual (hurr hurr) successor to their adaptations of the M. R. James stories; it also helps establish the significance of the fact that they'd never adapted Turn of the Screw, mentioned in the next paragraph. They'd done lots of M. R. James's short stories, but never Henry James's more famous novella. So, put it this way: The first paragraph establishes the film's relationship with previous BBC dramas, the second establishes its relationship with Henry James. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critics disagreed about the extent to which the film was successful in capturing the ambiguity of the novel. - a little ungainly - maybe, "Critics disagreed on how successful the film was in capturing the ambiguity of the novel." or somesuch.
      • I've gone with "Critics disagreed about how successful the film was in capturing the ambiguity of the novel." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Grapple X edit

    • On a similar note to Cas Liber, I do feel the MR James information is useful but is maybe better served being rearranged a little. The sense now is that the previous productions were adapted due to their author, and broadcast at Christmas, when the intended sense seems to be that they were adapted out of desire for material at Christmas and the author happened to be a fruitful one. Perhaps rearrange "The BBC had previously adapted M. R. James horror stories for Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas including adaptations of The Stalls of Barchester, A Warning to the Curious, Lost Hearts, The Treasure of Abbot Thomas and The Ash Tree." to read as "The BBC had previously adapted several horror stories as Christmas films, with their series A Ghost Story for Christmas including adaptations of the M. R. James stories The Stalls of Barchester, A Warning to the Curious, Lost Hearts, The Treasure of Abbot Thomas and The Ash Tree." (or, of course, reword it better since prose is not my forte)
    • Following on this—is "The Ash Tree" the proper title of the BBC broadcast? The story itself seems to be "The Ash-tree". Similarly, the article prefaces these titles with "adaptations of...", yet "The Stalls of Barchester" is given the name of the adaption, not the name of the story that it is adapted from.
      • I have rejigged so that I more clearly refer to the original novellas, rather than the TV films. It seems Barchester is the only adaptation with its own article, so I've included a link to that in addition. The "The Ash Tree" issue is a funny one- my James collection (I've just checked!) entitles it "The Ash Tree", so I'm happy to call it that in this article- why the main article is titled with the dash is unclear to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a great fan of just listing cast members and their roles as a series of bullets. This isn't strictly an objection but I feel it's redundant to their mention in the plot, especially given how names in the plot section are given unlinked, surname-only, before they're first used in full.
      • I note that the cast list has several more characters than the plot section. I could remove the parenthetical actor IDs from the plot section, if you prefer. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I tend to feel that if a role is not worth noting in a summary of the plot, it's probably not worth noting (we do link to sites like IMDB in the external links for those who want a full cast list). It's my personal preference not to see one unless it's used to summarise information about the casting process (see Eraserhead versus Manhunter (film)#Cast for two examples I've written in either style). But ultimately it's personal preference and not objective criticism so whatever you feel is right for the article is right for the article, it won't affect my judgement. GRAPPLE X 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do see the merits of your view, but I think I'd rather keep the list; for example, I think the link to Wendy Albiston is useful, though Baines is not a significant enough character to be included in the plot section. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know it's a BBC production, so UK critical sources will be predominant, but I'm surprised there aren't more sources outside of the UK, especially given the article's mention of a Downton Abbey connection that I would have thought US audiences may have been intrigued by.
      • I've delved as deep as I can- I don't think it's actually been shown on mainstream television outside of the UK/Ireland, to be honest. My American sources (Hicks/Cooper) are in response to the DVD release. (It'd be OR to note in the article, but I'd guess that the American release was made precisely to cash in on the Downton connection.) Another search threw up lots of unreliable blogs, an Entertainment Weekly article (which I added, though it's more about Downton than Turn) but also this one, which I can definitely bring some material from. I'll get to this later this evening. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider adding alt text to any images used to allow them to be picked up by screen readers.
      • Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I gave one of them a tweak as it didn't really describe what was being shown (the DVD cover), but otherwise these are good. GRAPPLE X 09:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:British films is redundant to Category:British television films.
      Overall quite happy with this articles, though as always be aware that any assessment by myself is going to be based on everything but prose. GRAPPLE X 10:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks a lot for taking look; thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Everything has been addressed or discussed to my satisfaction. GRAPPLE X 22:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Mike Christie edit

    This looks in good shape. I have a handful of minor points; I expect to support once these are resolved.

    Thanks for taking a look- thoroughly appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have both "Clara" and "Carla"; it seems that "Carla" is correct, but I'll let you fix it in case I'm wrong.
      • Well spotted; fixed.
    • "Inside, Mrs Grose assures her that she must be confused": how about "Inside again, Mrs Grose assures Ann that she must be confused" to establish sequence and clarify the pronoun?
    • The sentence beginning "Mrs Grose stops Ann ..." doesn't tell me if that's at the lakeside or later.
    • I also don't follow "After ordering the staff and Flora away from Bly": Ann has the authority to order some or all staff to leave the house? And what does it mean that Flora, a child, was ordered "away" from her home? Was she sent somewhere?
      • Yes, Ann is very much in charge of the house, and sends the servants away. As I understand it, governesses were traditionally somewhere between servants and family- typically of a higher social class than the other staff, sometimes even related to their charges. Where Flora goes is not made clear. I'm not sure if something needs to be changed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Given what you say, I think this is as clear as it can be made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fisher is dismayed to see Ann led away by the police, accused of Miles's murder, and sees Quint's face on one of the officers": suggest "Fisher is dismayed to see Ann led away by the police, accused of Miles's murder, and he sees Quint's face on one of the officers" to make it a little easier for the reader to parse.
    • "This subtly, according to a review": is this a typo for "subtlety"? That would make more sense.
    • I think it should be a colon rather than a semi-colon after "expressed a contrary opinion".
    • "Critics disagreed about how successful the film was in capturing the ambiguity of the novel. Part of the enduring appeal of James's story is its ambiguity, and, for Tim Dowling, a columnist for The Guardian, the film failed to capture this." This is a little repetitive. How about "Critics disagreed about how successful the film was in capturing the novel's ambiguity, which is part of the enduring appeal of James's story. For Tim Dowling, a columnist for The Guardian, the film failed in this regard." Or something along those lines; I see you use "in this regard" a sentence or two further on.
      • Yes, done- I've adjusted the Whittaker mention to remove "in this regard". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In several places you use brackets to indicate the substitution of lower-case for upper-case letters; per WP:MOSQUOTE (see the section on typographical conformity) there's no need to do this.
      • Ok, removed. I can't say I like it, but I'm happy to go with the MOS! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Segal, by contrast, felt MacLiam was badly cast, meaning that": is "meaning" the word you want here? We haven't quoted a statement from him to interpret; we've characterized a statement, but his intended meaning isn't the meaning of the characterization, it's the meaning of his statement. Sorry, that's a bit confused, but perhaps you'll see what I'm driving at.
      • Good point. I've switched it to "Segal, by contrast, felt MacLiam was badly cast, which resulted in "one of the story's primary dark forces [looking] more like a member of Elbow than the very essence of evil"."
    • "another film adaptation of James's novella which focuses upon the supposed sexual aspects of the novella": two uses of "novella" in a short span.
    • Can anything be said about the DVD's commercial success? It appears to have been released in other countries; shouldn't that be mentioned?
      • I've come across nothing- it was originally released in the UK and rereleased for a North American market, which is discussed in the article; is there something I have missed? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        IMDB has some foreign release data; is that a reliable source? I seem to recall it's not, at least not for some things. I'll look at your other replies this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Interesting, thanks. IMDb is no good for that kind of information, but I will look into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll hold off on support till you respond on this, just for completeness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think (after some Googling) that some of those were just the title translated into other languages, but I've found some sources for DVD releases/TV showings in some foreign languages, so I have added this to the article, being careful not to state that they are the only non-English releases. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Cirt edit

    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Main sticking point for me before I can support is there is a bit too much liberal use of quotes. Try perhaps paraphrasing some. I'd recommend cutting them down at least by half. You can have the same rough amount text size, just paraphrase the gist of what they were saying. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll look into this; I'm a little frazzled right now, but I'll get to in the coming days. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed some quotes, and will try to do a few more. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2015 [49].

    Pyxis edit

    Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We're trying to (eventually) get all the constellations up to Featured Status. So far 25 have attained FA status in the past 3 years or so. Here is number 26. It's had an astronomer take a look at it, and I have been mindful of suggestions he's had for the past few nominations so hopefully there are fewer issues each time. I promise to address issues promptly, cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: my concerns were addressed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There are a couple of entries that need to be fixed:
    • "...the right ascension coordinates of these borders lie between 10h 32.8m and 27h 42.5m...": that can't be right.
    good catch/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "10h 32.8m and 40h 44.2m": note that R.A. coordinates only ever go up to <24h. The listed R.A. coordinate range is 8h 27.7m to 9h 27.6m. Just check the map in the infobox and you'll see. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've addressed this. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, thought I got this, but have been a bit sleep-deprived. thanks for fixing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Theta Pyxidis is a red giant... has expanded to 5.4 times the diameter of the Sun": that seems on the low side for a giant star. I checked and the CADARS entry says 54 (5.4e+01).
    good catch/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't find any other significant issues. The references look good, as far as I could see. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks - my other query is whether you think K 1-2 and WX Pyxidis are notable enough to include in the article too. I was unsure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they do have studies published, so they are notable in the Wikipedia sense. The VX Pyx system that created K 1-2 might be of interest to some readers because of its unusual nature.[50] Praemonitus (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, added K 1-2 now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added comment: There are two other deep sky Pyxis objects that probably should be briefly mentioned: the 8th magnitude open clusters NGC 2627 and NGC 2818.[51] They are listed in several observer guides. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    both mentioned now...over to you... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from edwininlondon:

    Overall a good article. But I wonder if illustrations could be better. For instance, I like what I see for Puppis. And an egg-shape star is mentioned which would be great to see. Any visuals supporting the planets section also very welcome.

    • Inconsistencies with the quotes around names and translations: I see 'Malus, the mast' and Malus (the "Mast") and "Log and Line," and the quoteless (the Marine Compass)
    aligned them now as quoteless Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead says its best evening-sky visibility is in January through March, but the infobox says just March
    good pick up - ddin't actually have it in the body of the article. Found a ref and added. Infobox is for one particular time only, while book source and text covers a range for viewers (as constellations appear at different times in different months) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • if I'm really picky I am not convinced about any of the capitals in 'Celestial Temple honouring the ancestors of the Emperor'
    downcased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1751–52: I couldn't quite see 1751 in the sources, all I see is 1752
    can't recall where earlier year comes from now but agree not in either of those sources so removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Greeks: Since we have ancient for the Chinese, it probably should have ancient for the Greeks as well. Also, its position is debatable, one could argue the Greek come before Lacaille.
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • spelling: neighbouring makes me think traveled should be British spelling as well (travelled)
    good catch/brittified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe be a bit more clear about what 'this' refers to in ' star atlas but this did not survive': the atlas or the concept?
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Argo Navis is linked twice. One could argue the first link should actually read just Argo.
    delinked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urania's Mirror (1825): the sources say it is 1824. And why only refer to Urania's Mirror in the caption, does it not deserve its own sentence in the section?
    fixed the date. I guess I haven't included it as the main thrust is th visual appearance, but the actual publishing of pyxis in Urania's Mirror itself is not that unusual. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • overlinking constellation 'in means that the whole constellation'
    removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • polygon of eight segments: link polygon and sides is probably a better word than segments
    tweaked and linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • brighter in 'with apparent magnitudes brighter than' should be smaller
    hmm, to me "brighter" is a clearer meaning and not less accurate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just being too picky: I favour "higher speed" over "faster speed", and this is similar, but because the scale goes the other way, it's probably less confusing. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • visual magnitude: would it not be better to keep using apparent magnitude? I got confused because visual magnitude links to apparent magnitude page
    removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sun and Earth: I would link the sun and not the earth
    lniked and delinked respectively. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • interstellar dust deserves a link
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'brighter magnitude of 3.31' --> 'brighter with magnitude 3.31'
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'has exhausted its core hydrogen and cooled and swollen to 3.7 times' --> 'has exhausted its core hydrogen, has cooled and swollen to 3.7 times
    Hmm, to me that comes across as a bit repetitive, so I tried this instead. Let me know what you think.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I like that better than my version.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • overlinking in 'Kappa has a luminosity'
    delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • surface temperature: why only mentioned for Kappa?
    fleshing out some details...but I think they don't add anything so removed the unremarkable surface temps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'a magnitude 10 star' Does this star have a name?
    nothing memorable, I think it is CCDM J09080-2552AB and not sure adding would be helpful in reading the article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • dwarf linking: 'white dwarf with around 0.8 times the Sun's mass and a red dwarf' Both are linked later but should be only here
    linked at first instances both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd include star in the link in 'eclipsing binary star'
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • link starspot
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Pres and colleagues' come a bit out of the blue
    I generally prefer to give credit to specific people for some specific observation. But changed to 'researchers' for flow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see. Seems like a good rule. If it is that special compared to other observations, then they deserve to be singled out.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • a period of 1.23995 days seems oddly accurate. Two decimals suffice elsewhere
    trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • should the reference in between 26 or 28.7 be moved to the end of the sentence? this doesn't read so well. And the 28.7 needs a source as well
    the ref at the end of the following sentence covers it. I have added a note to clarify and expanded a little so all refs come behind some punctuation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Planetary systems: I would swap the order of the sentences and talk about the hot Jupiter before giving the details of HD 73256. The focus should be on the planets in this section. Likewise in the last sentence, the focus should be on the discovered planets, which now seems like a minor footnote to the plans to look for rocky planets.
    not entirely convinced but I hav had a go massaging this section to bring the planets to the forefront. Let me know if this reads better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this reads better.Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'as hot as 85,000 K' --> as high as
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we need 'and around 133,000 light-years distant from the centre of the Milky Way' ?
    Yes - the notability of the glob cluster is that this distance from the centre was not previously thought to contain glob clusters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'a distance not previously thought to contain globular clusters' Can a distance contain clusters?
    tweaked to 'region' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • References: Ian Ridpath 2006: it says "et al", but that's not correct I think. Also missing DK Publishing
    ref fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • does the year not suffice in Davis, Kate (19 April 2011) and Watson, Christopher (4 January 2010) ?
    I have always given dates if possible for websites - I guess because their updates can be alot more frequent so it assumes more importance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Edwininlondon (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking on board my suggestions. I am leaning to support. The only thing holding me back are the images. It needs more illustrations I think I had a quick poke around the web, and maybe you find some of these good enough to add:

    What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think the last one is very helpful as it just looks like a bunch of lines. I have added one of the T pyxidis ones, while the others would be good to import to the T pyxidis article at some point. Thanks for hunting around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have emailed the person who uploaded the image on the left on Puppis page if he would be so kind to put his Pyxis on in the public domain as well. Regardless, I've changed my status to support Edwininlondon (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). A high quality article with good concise writing style. Most obviously educational and encyclopedic on a topic in science. Complex subject matter and yet accessible for the layman -- good job. — Cirt (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thx Cirt ++ :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minor comments
      Overall this seems very professional so I've not much to quibble about. However, I would recommend the use of alt text in the images present, to aid with screen-readers.
    added to body of text. Need to chase down template of constellation box to do anything with that...might be tricky... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yeah, I can see now how that's coded; the image is called directly by the infobox without room to amend it. It looks like it would require the addition of another field in the infobox—though given the difficulty of describing the images in question, I would suggest simply adding something like |alt=A map depicting a field of stars, with the constellation {{{NAME}}} highlighted. This would automatically add adequate alt text to everything using the infobox without needing a further edit. But it's a change affecting a lot of articles so obviously weigh its merits with any collaborators you have in the field. GRAPPLE X 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel the "NGC 2818" image caption is a bit off-putting; even prefacing it as "The planetary nebula NGC 2818" might look a little better.
    expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the "planetary systems" heading, we have a colon (after "all discovered by doppler spectroscopy") that seems to indicate the start of a serried list, which is instead broken into different sentences. I'd consider just replacing it with a full stop.
    tweaked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The brighter star is deformed into an egg-shape". Should "egg-shape" be hyphenated in this usage?
    removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should "Galactic halo" be capitalised thus? GRAPPLE X 11:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    lower-cased - as it is not a unique object. target article lower case. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm happy to support this one now; the one outstanding comment is probably too fiddly to worry about. GRAPPLE X 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Coord's Note - Are we missing a citation here: " WISEPC J083641.12-185947.2 is a brown dwarf located around 72 light-years from Earth which was discovered by infrared astronomy in 2011." Graham Beards (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    whoops! fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2015 [52].

    Satoru Iwata edit

    Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A brilliant man who needs no introduction in the gaming world, Satoru Iwata is widely regarded as one of the main (if not, the main) people who brought video games to the general public en masse. His background as a programmer gave him invaluable knowledge that propelled him to the top of the world's largest game company by the age of 42. His name became synonymous with Nintendo as he frequently appeared in the Iwata Asks and Nintendo Direct series or on social media to bring information "directly to you". During his 15 years at Nintendo (13 as president), Iwata turned the struggling company around and propelled it to incredible heights by pushing for more accessible gaming. This included production and release of blockbuster consoles such as the Nintendo DS and Wii, both of which are among the best-selling video game consoles. His tragic death at the age of 55 shook the entire gaming community and is seen as a tremendous loss for the industry. Iwata is beloved for his cheerful, humorous, and inquisitive personality as well as passion to produce quality video games for everyone.

    It's been an absolute pleasure to write and improve this article over the past month and a half since Iwata's passing. I believe this to be the most comprehensive account of his life's work around. It goes without saying that as the years go by, more information about Iwata's life will emerge and when the time comes I will be more than happy to include such information. This was my time writing first biographic article so I have some uncertainties over how I've put it together, but I hope you all enjoy reading (and critiquing) this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try to help Cyclonebiskit with any issues that might come up since I helped improved this at news of his death. Cyclone's improves have been very good. --MASEM (t) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments From Indrian

    This is a very good article, but I don't think its quite there yet. It may be possible to whip it into shape during the nomination period, but it will take a little work. Right now the biggest source hole is Nintendo Magic: Winning the Video Game Wars which was written by a Japanese analyst and translated into English. This book contains interviews with Iwata, Miyamoto, Takeda, and even Hiroshi Yamauchi and provides additional background on Iwata and the creation of the DS and the Wii. Without incorporating this high quality source, the article cannot pass well-researched criteria. A few more specific thoughts:

    • "where his father was a municipal mayor" Iwata's father was a civil servant all his life, but he only became a mayor when Iwata was already in college.
      • Corrected to "prefectural official" per Nintendo Magic; municipal mayor aspect also added to the HAL Laboratory section. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • More info on his early programming exploits would be nice. This translated book excerpt at Shmuplations gives more information on Iwata's first encounter with computers, and Nintendo Magic provides more detail on his calculator games.
      • From what I've read so far in Nintendo Magic (about half the book), the only real mention of his calculator games was their names (p. 57). Added details from the translated source provided as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nintendo Magic also clarifies his early HAL involvement a little bit. The company was actually established as a hardware company, and Iwata was their only software guy in the beginning. He fell in with the HAL crowd because he would bring his programs in to a local department store to show them off.
      • Made the appropriate corrections and clarifications. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Iwata's heavy involvement in the development with Kirby's Dream Land is credited as one of the main reasons that the series was able to take off." This is overreach. The source only says that he was heavily involved in creating the first game and that it may not have been finished without him. It does not credit his input with being crucial to the success of the game or the launch of the series. According to Nintendo Magic Miyamoto deserves as much credit as anyone because he told HAL the originally planned game -- which did not star Kirby and was going to be published through HAL -- could be much better and not only gave them more time to finish it, but decided to have Nintendo publish it to give it a higher profile.
      • Removed the bit about Kirby's Dream Land altogether based on the info from Nintendo Magic. Iwata being involved with the Kirby series is already mentioned so bringing up a specific title is redundant and, as you stated, gives unnecessary weight to his involvement. Explaining the specifics in order to keep this bit would go beyond the article's scope and is fare more suited for the game's article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Martin Robinson suggests that Yamauchi saw similar traits in Iwata that he did in Gunpei Yokoi, who brought Nintendo into the video game market" This claim in the source is not really supported by evidence. At this stage in his career, Iwata was not creating the kind of "games for everyone" products that typified his early tenure as president of Nintendo, nor was he involved in hardware products created with the "lateral thinking" philosophy that Yokoi employed to create the Game & Watch and Nintendo later used to create the Wii. According to Nintendo Magic, the shift to "games for everyone" occurred at Nintendo in the early 2000s due to the sharp decline in the Japanese video game market in the late 1990s. Also, in Nintendo Magic Yamauchi said that he chose Iwata as his successor because he was a "software person," i.e. someone who understood that technology only got you so far and game experiences were more important. As Iwata was the only founding member of HAL that was software rather than hardware focused, this probably accounts for why Yamauchi insisted on his appointment as HAL president as well. The statement by Robinson comparing Iwata to Yokoi is a narrative convention to make his story more interesting rather than an actual scholarly argument.
      • I've removed the claim by Robinson accordingly and expanded upon the history of the "blue ocean" strategy. From what I've understood in Nintendo Magic, the company knew there needed to be a change but it wasn't until Iwata took charge that the direction was finally understood. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, a few things about Iwata's promotion to President. First, he did not have the same amount of power as his predecessor. Yamauchi basically was Nintendo and behaved autocratically according to most accounts, which is contrary to the typical Japanese consensus management style. When Iwata became president, the company also raised four other executives to the title of representative director and created an executive committe. Miyamoto and Takeda were both on this committee and assumed greater power over software and hardware development respectively, and there were a couple of more financially and business oriented guys. Sources for this should be readily available online. Second, there should be more info about how he changed the company culture by engaging with employees at all levels of the company. Iwata Asks was part of that, but he also encouraged employees of all levels to submit creative ideas, again very atypical in Japan, and tried to encourage cross-pollination between departments. Nintendo Magic goes into all of that. Finally, the Miyamoto quote about stuffiness and ventilation originally comes from Nintendo Magic, so it should really be sourced there rather than to the Firestone book.
      • Please don't overlook this one. I think its useful to note that while Yamauchi was essentially an autocrat, Iwata served as a first among equals with several other directors. This also plays into the more inclusive and collaborative atmosphere that predominated at Nintendo during this period.
        • I haven't gotten to this one yet since I have yet to finish reading the part that covers it in Nintendo Magic. Should get to it later today. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the time of Iwata's promotion, Nintendo was not performing as well as other console makers" I think this lacks a little nuance. Nintendo was a profitable company during this entire period because they owned handheld, were able to make a small profit on each Gamecube sold, and made a mint on Gamecube software sales. Obviously, however, they lagged way behind Sony in hardware sales and were edged out by Mircosoft as well (a more devastating defeat in the West than it appears based on raw numbers alone since Microsoft managed to outsell them while selling essentially nothing in Japan). Nintendo performed well financially, but lacked console marketshare. There is nothing technically wrong with your statement; I just worry about painting a picture of a company in deep trouble when it was highly profitable.
      • Added "though still a profitable company" to the sentence in question to avoid it being misleading. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article may over credit Iwata for the DS. It was Yamauchi that wanted two screens and Miyamoto that came up with the touch screen concept. Also, while it is fair to say that Iwata played a key role in leading the company towards "games for everyone," less intimidating control schemes, and ignoring the technological arms race, Nintendo Magic emphasizes that these strategies were developed in collaboration and the groundwork was laid before Iwata was president (though after he was already active in corporate planning). On the other hand, there is no mention at all about the DSi, which was built around the concept of "one system for every person" as a way to grow the DS market after it appeared to be saturated due to nearly every household in Japan owning one. This strategy appears to have originated from Iwata.
      • Explained the the basis of DS stemmed from Yamauchi and Miyamoto and added a bit about the DSi. Iwata was far less involved with the DS than the Wii, with Miyamoto mostly taking the helm on the DS's development, from what I've read in Nintendo Magic, which accounts for the lesser size of the "Nintendo DS" section despite its extreme success. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is almost done, but I would still like to see a more in-depth look at the DSi. In short, the Japanese market was virtually saturated at the time, and Iwata hit on the idea of creating a cheaper, slimmer model that would encourage households to buy multiple units. This was an unprecedented move in console hardware and crucial to the DS family achieving its status as the best-selling game system of all time.
          • I've expanded it a bit more with specifics on sales and a brief mention about why they were successful, but I can't find any reliable sources (most of what I found that mentions the DS and market saturation are on forums) that explain what you're looking for about the saturated market. In fact, I found evidence contrary to your statements from Iwata himself: "Iwata still sees vast market for current DS hardware" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Cyclonebiskit:Nintendo Magic addresses this I believe. And actually, the article you linked to here also addresses the exact point I am making. Based on conventional wisdom, the DS market was saturated because at the time no one ever bought more than one system per household. The point of the DSi was an attempt to move the handheld market to one system per person. In the article, Iwata is saying that the DS market is not saturated based on total population rather than household penetration, but that was a novel idea at the time, which is why the article calls it a "big dream." I would still like to see this reflected in the article. Your expansion is 99% of the way there, I am just looking for something about how the one system per person strategy was novel at the time. Indrian (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the article slightly overstates Iwata's influence on the Wii. Once again, there is no doubt that his leadership at the top influenced the overall strategy of a less intimidating console that did not try to achieve cutting edge grahpics, but reading both Nintendo Magic and various Iwata Asks interviews it was Takeda and Miyamoto that shaped most of its key features, including motion control. Iwata set the tone, but the success of the system was due to the creative talent.
      • I've reworked the section a bit to better indicate the influences behind the console. I think details from Nintendo Magic are sufficient in conveying that Iwata was the one driving the metaphorical Wii-bus while Miyamoto, Takeda, and Nintendo engineers were the one who created it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 2010-2015 section is lacking in size and scope. The earlier sections are quick to credit Iwata for success with the Wii and the DS, but this section does not discuss his role in Nintendo's failures. There have been heaps of criticism written about Nintendo's "walled garden" online strategy, its refusal to consider the lucrative mobile market, the strange focus Iwata placed from time to time on "lifestyle" games and accessories that never went anywhere, and the company's failure to adapt quickly to the greater demands of HD development. With the Wii and DS, Nintendo placed itself at the head of the casual market, but it misread that market with the 3DS and Wii U, which led to the first losses at the company in thirty years. This should not be glossed over.
      • Expanded upon this greatly and split off the the quality of life ("lifestyle") and mobile market aspects into their own sub-sections. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is all well done. The only additional change on this point I would make is mentioning the lifestyle section in the lead since it is now a prominent section of the body. A single sentence should suffice.

    That's all for now. I know its a lot, but I really do feel the article is on the right track. Good luck! Indrian (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for the review, Indrian! Once I have Nintendo Magic at my disposal I'll start cracking on the related comments. Should be able to look into the "walled garden" aspect you mentioned sooner, though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indrian: – If you have any suggestions as to which of the Iwata Asks interviews to look through I'd greatly appreciate it (with over 200 of them, reading through them all with a fine-toothed comb would be overwhelming). Already compiled multiple references to add more information to the 2010–15 section and still going...honestly, I'm a bit embarrassed that I overlooked this much information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyclonebiskit:Wow, this is really coming along! If you can source a copy of Nintendo Magic, I am fairly confident we can get this whipped into shape. As for Iwata Asks, its been too long since I've read most of them to know exactly which may have the best info pertaining to Iwata himself. I would definitely check out any related to hardware products though, because that is where the general company philosophy stuff tends to shine through. As I stated before, I get the sense he was particularly involved with formulating the strategy for the DSi. I look forward to your continued progress. Indrian (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indrian: – Got a copy of Nintendo Magic today~ :) I'll start reading it tomorrow and work on chipping away at the missing/misrepresented information that this book can amend. In the meantime, would you mind checking back over the "Financial downturn" and "Mobile market" sections to see if they're up to snuff and if not, what's still missing? When you have time, of course. I haven't run across anything about the lack of HD development nor a direct, negative view of Iwata's insistence on "lifestyle" games...just mentions that the games/accessories exist. Thanks in advance! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyclonebiskit:Sorry to take a bit to get back to you. Glad you have a copy of the book now. I'll try to take a closer look at the revamped sections soon. In answer to your specific queries, this article explores Nintendo's difficulty adapting to HD with the Wii U. Its not really an Iwata specific complaint, but its part of why the company has struggled a bit this generation. As for the lifestyle stuff, I would Google "Iwata" and "vitality sensor." Its not so much criticism as people found his decision to try and make lifestyle products rather odd and could not see where he was going with the concept. It did appear to be a concept close to his own heart though, so it deserves a mention. Let me know if you need anything else. Indrian (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cyclonebiskit:This article has come a long way in a short time. Kudos for all your hard work! I have given the article a copy edit and updated my list of concerns above to acknowledge that most of them have been addressed. There are just a few small points left, which I elaborated on above. Once those issues are dealt with, I will probably be ready to support, though I will need to do a final pass on the article to be sure. Well done! Indrian (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indrian: Thank you very much! I've replied to the additional comments, but I'll reiterate here that I'm still working on the sixth bullet point. I'll another drop a ping when I've addressed that particular one (which is the only outstanding major concern I believe). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indrian: I think I've covered everything now. Recent developments with Kimishima taking over as President have also been added by ThomasO1989. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. This review is not abandoned; I have just been ridiculously busy the past few days. I believe my concerns are mostly met, I just need to do that final review. Hopefully this weekend. Indrian (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support After one more thorough copy edit, I am ready to throw my support behind this excellent article. Kudos once again to @Cyclonebiskit: for putting in an incredible amount of work over the last couple of weeks. Well done! Indrian (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick comment—sorry to overwhelm you, Cyclonebiskit, but I feel one other thing that the article is missing is a conclusive Influence or Legacy section to end the article. Concluding by talking about Iwata's death makes chronological sense, but it leaves you without an overall afterthought about how his life impacted the video game industry. Even if short, a section discussing this would touch off the article very nicely. Are there any sources that cover Iwata's overall importance and influence in the world (eg. posthumous honours, comments from biographers, game critics, or even criticism about his overall involvement in Nintendo, etc.) that could be compiled to compose this section? The Wikipedian Penguin 20:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some bits here and there within the article already that can be reworked into a section like that, yeah. Probably can pull together a paragraph or two. The scope might be relatively limited, and as I've seen some reports say, we likely won't understand the full scale of his influence for several years. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, the information will come with time, yes. But even, as you say, a paragraph or two would go a long way toward giving the article that final touch. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikipedian Penguin: – Gave the section an initial go: Satoru Iwata#Influence and legacy. Is this the gist of what was needed? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is definitely what you should be aiming for, content-wise. I'd bring the tone down a little, as in certain parts, it sounds like a eulogy. I think the quote is unnecessary and I'd pay particular attention to avoiding weasel words. Some expressions such as "pushing" unconventional ideas, "whole new" genre and "break down a wall" are somewhat journalistic and promotional and should be redrawn. And if there was criticism of Iwata to balance the section out, do consider including it. Overall, this is just what is needed to finish the article. The Wikipedian Penguin 01:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, thanks! Still trying to get used to writing in a different style...hurricanes seldom have POV issues (mostly just factual type writing) so it's not an area I'm familiar with handling. As for the quote, I felt it was an appropriate addition to bounce off his "legacy" by emphasizing his view on video games which shaped his entire career. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It was brave of you to venture from hurricane articles into this, so well done! Once the updating is complete, I'd be glad to give the article another go, a Nintendo fan myself. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikipedian Penguin: I believe I've addressed all of Indrian's concerns in regards to content so the updating should be complete now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. I'll surely take a look at this over the weekend. I wish I could do so sooner, but I'm busy all day because of university. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wholeheartedly sorry that I haven't been able to look at this yet. I had no idea how busy I would become all of a sudden, but I will get to this whenever I can. Sadly, I'm now finding it difficult to make any promises though. The Wikipedian Penguin 21:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commenting on images (as I am involved with the article), I will point out the following:
    As such, I'm not seeing any immediate issues with the images but again, I'm involved and a second check would help. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Citation formatting review - did not check for reliability (though at a superficial glance everything seems OK)

    • Title punctuation: watch for style errors in article titles such as spaced hyphens misused for spaced en dashes (e.g. FN 6), no capitalization after colons (e.g. FN 11), etc.
    • Don't need to include designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" for publishers
    • Check for consistency in wikilinking publishers, newspapers etc. on multiple use. IGN is linked repeatedly (though not in all instances) while The Guardian is only linked on first and second use.
    • FN 21: Check host website (not the same as that for other Iwata Asks interviews)
    • FN 49: Check title punctuation
    • FN 51: Is "GamesIndustry.biz" publisher or website. Furthermore, wikilink redirects to Eurogamer
    • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for websites (e.g. FN 11 vs FN 20)
    • Be consistent in whether you include locations for news sources or not
    • Be consistent in whether news article titles are capitalized or not (compare FNs 1 & 2 with FNs 25 & 26; formatting of the former is preferred)
    • Be consistent in whether you list website names as publishers or work (e.g. FNs 37, 71, etc. vs FNs 11)
    • Be consistent in how magazines are formatted, namely publishers and whether these are included (e.g. FN 12 vs FN 52; FNs 42 & 63 vs FN 52, FN 64 vs FNs 83 & 84)

    This is it for now (got till FN 88). Mainly check throughout for consistency in how and when the work and publisher fields are used. I will check again (as well as the second half of the references) once this has been resolved. Auree ★★ 03:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support on criteria 1c and 2c only (source formatting and reliability). I ended up checking every source for quality and approved. Thanks for your diligence, Cyclonebiskit! Auree ★★ 14:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that all concerns were addressed through off-wiki discussion. Thank you very much for taking the time to both review the sources and guide me through how to properly improve them! I greatly appreciate it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Cas Liber on comprehensiveness and prose edit

    Reading through now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One of his main reasons for taking the job was simply to spend more time around computers - "simply" redundant
    While still attending university,... - "still" redundant
    Lacking prior experience in management, - "prior" redundant (all experience is prior...)
    Iwata's proficiency with programming quickly garnered him "cult status" among fellow programmers and gamers alike. Iwata would often continue to work on weekends and holidays because of his passion - I'd dequote and reword "cult status" why not just, "Iwata's proficiency with programming quickly placed him in high regard/esteem among fellow programmers and gamers alike. Iwata would often continue to work on weekends and holidays because of his passion"
    while still creating unique game experiences. - uumm, you mean, "while preserving quality"?
    Iwata established a "sense of crisis" in the gaming market in his keynote speech at the 2003 Tokyo Game Show. - again, dequote and reword ("highlighted an urgency/warning")
    In a March 2004 interview, Iwata stated: "Games have come to a dead end. " - dequote and reword
    @Casliber: Do you have any suggestions for how to reword this one? I'm drawing a blank here. The way it's written now has the quote followed by an expansion upon what Iwata meant with this statement. Thanks in advance. I've made the recommended changes in line with your other comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah point taken - I can see a point to leaving it as is anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Only minor quibble I can point out at the moment is there's a few places with short paragraph and one or two-sentence-long paragraphs. The intro is nice then breaks off suddenly to that short bit about his death. Maybe that could be started with Later hardware releases like the Nintendo 3DS leading off the last paragraph perhaps. — Cirt (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Cirt: I think tagging the bit about his illness and subsequent death onto the proposed new paragraph would retain the same flow as it does now. It would either have to jump back and forth between his work to illness to retain chronology. The way it's set up now closes off his general work and public reception (for lack of a better word) and then moves into his passing in a separate, short paragraph since there's a change of ideas. If you know of a way to work around this, it would be greatly appreciated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2015 [53].

    Bootham Crescent edit

    Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Bootham Crescent has been the home ground of York City Football Club since 1932, and is expected to be knocked down in two years time, when the club moves to an out-of-town multi-purpose stadium. The article has held GA status since January 2008, and forms part of the York City F.C. featured topic. I have worked on getting the article up to the required standard, and believe it now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Parutakupiu edit

    Good read (particularly the history section), well sourced and well pictured. Here are my suggestions/concerns/doubts:

    • In the infobox, it would be helpful to provide the match and date when the record attendance was set, for imediate information.
    • Try to avoid very short sentences if it is possible to merge them with the ones surrounding it. For instance, "The ground has a capacity of 7,872 and is located near the centre of the city..."
    • "Bootham Crescent hosted football in the Football League from 1932 to 2004, when York were relegated into the Conference National, and since 2012 after York were promoted back into the Football League in 2012."
    • I would remove wikilinks to common nouns such as "directors", "pitch", "manager", "chairman", "dressing rooms", "managing director", "first-team"
    • I don't think it's necessary to place an inline citation for the same source in consecutive sentences, only in the last one (if the next one is different).
      • I try to be as explicit as I can when referencing, so I prefer to cite each sentence. There's a passage from a user-written essay on writing featured articles that I agree with on this: "One citation for each sentence! In this way you'll avoid the annoying [citation needed], you'll impress and you'll convince everybody about the high level of your research". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The ground's one major drawback..." Is the presence of "one" here correct? Not a native speaker but it sounds odd.
      • I don't think it's grammatically incorrect, but reading it over it seems redundant, so I've removed it. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would close the article with the "Future" section. In addition – and totally optional – I would try to incorporate the "Transport" section (not so big) into the "Structure and facilities" (with creation of sub-sections, if adequate).
      • Placed Future as the bottom section, and moved Transport to below Structure and facilities. I've not merged them, as I feel they're too distinct to be part of the same section. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    — Parutakupiu (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for reviewing the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome. Good luck with getting the whole topic featured. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support My issues dealt with at peer review. A good read and nice to see such quality work about a lower league team. Particularly impressed by the lack of recentism in the history section. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments :

    • There is a slight confusion at the beginning of the article. The first paragraph of the lead begins: "Bootham Crescent is an association football ground located in York..." etc. The second paragraph begins: "York City took Bootham Crescent on lease from York Cricket Club..." That sounds as if York City leased a football ground from the cricket club, when in fact it leased land, on which it then built its stadium. I recommend that you slightly amend the beginning of the second paragraph as follows: "York City leased land at Bootham Crescent from York Cricket Club, as a replacement for thir ground at Fulfordgate, which was located on the outskirts of the city." You will probably need to make similar adjustments within the body of the article.
    • The club took a 21-year lease in 1932, which takes us to 1953. But we hear no more of the lease until 2002, when we learn that the lease was extended until 2004. What about the intervening extensions?
      • It is stated in the second paragraph of the second section in History that "It was announced at the shareholders' annual meeting in September 1948 that York had purchased Bootham Crescent for £4,075". I felt this passage was sufficient in informing readers that the lease had ended. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by some of the detail in the "Recent history" section: "...the club proceeded with plans to move to Huntington Stadium.[30] After months of negotiations the club bought the ground in February 2004, after securing a £2 million loan from the Football Stadia Improvement Fund (FSIF)." But then we hear no more of this new ground until the very end of the article, when the move is still apparently pending. What happened? Has York City owned two grounds for the past 12 years or so?
      • Clarified that the club bought Bootham Crescent, not Huntington Stadium, which was implied by the previous wording. D'oh! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed a tendency towards verbosity on occasions, e.g. "The move to Bootham Crescent was voted on, and the decision to take the ground on a 21-year lease was approved by 115 votes to 37" which could easily be shortened to "The move to Bootham Crescent on a 21-year lease was approved by 115 votes to 37." There may well be other opportunities to tidy the prose.
      • Reworded as suggested. Will reread for unnecessary text. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These points are the result of a fairly quick prose scan rather than a detailed read-through, for which I have not yet found time. I will continue when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • The only comment I have is the Future section which starts off with "the terms of the FSIF loan" but you have to go searching for the details of this loan and what FSIF means. It seems as though this section is out of place and there is no flow from what should precede it. Keith D (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved Future to the bottom after considering Parutakupiu's point on section ordering. It could be argued that Future is essentially a continuation of History, so maybe it should come directly afterwards? What do you think, @Keith D: and @Parutakupiu:? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess Keith D has a point. Maybe it does fit better as a follow-up; just not entirely sure if as a section per se or nested within History. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • May be at the end of the history section would be appropriate, as it will become history in a year when the new ground is opened, that would also allow a flow from the details of the loan to this section. Keith D (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments – Just a couple of things from me, since this looks to be in pretty good shape already.

    • Further improvements and a new stand: "The half-time scoreboard at the Shipton Street End ceased to be used in 1965, but remained as advertising hoarding." "hoarding" → "boarding"? Or is that a word used in Britain. Us Americans don't always recognize these at first glance.
      • Retains the same meaning and is probably a more widely recognised term. Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other uses: "the FA XI included former 1966 World Cup winners Bobby Charlton and Nobby Stiles." Is it appropriate to say they were "former" 1966 World Cup champions since they'll never lose that recognitition. It would make more sense if it started with "former England international players" or something similar. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reworded to "the FA XI included former England internationals and 1966 World Cup winners Bobby Charlton and Nobby Stiles". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support – With these fixes and the others above, I'm confident that this article now meets the FA criteria. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review – Apologies for getting back to you late...

    • No dead links, but ref 54 doesn't seem to work for me. Internal server error?
    • Shouldn't Ref 5, 8, 11, 12 have access dates given the template includes URLs?
    • No issues with close paraphrasing having selected a few random sources with links (Ref 29, 31, 33, 35, 47, 70, 71, 74).
    • Be consistent with publication title for York Evening Press. Compare Ref 35 with 40 for instance. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • For historical accuracy, I've gone with what the newspaper was called at the time the articles were published. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Suggest renaming sect Recent history to 1990s to present or something like that, so it's less likely to be dated. Two-sentence-long paragraphs in the first and 4th paragraphs of the lede intro sect, could either be expanded or have some info moved around to have more of a balance in flow for that sect. Otherwise quite comprehensive, that's about all that's holding me back from switching. — Cirt (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Section heading reworded as suggested.
      • Lead expanded. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Thanks for being so quick and responsive to my comments, — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've had a copy-editing hack through the lead, but the rest of the article looks very well done indeed. Great job Mattythewhite. I'm happy to support this promotion (though I certainly did not support York's promotion a few years ago. Grumble grumble). Cheers and well done again! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing note Although there has not been a formal image review, I see no issues. I will be closing this nomination in a few moments. Graham Beards (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2015 [54].

    United States presidential election, 1880 edit

    Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a presidential election in the United States. By the popular vote, it was the closest in American history, but by the electoral vote (the one that actually determines the election) the Republican, James A. Garfield, was elected by a comfortable majority. The election was the first after the end of Reconstruction, and reflected what would become a pattern in the U.S. for a generation: the Democrats dominating the South, the Republicans holding most of the North, and a few close states (New York, Indiana, and New Jersey, among others) determining victory. Some of the issues, like immigration, continue to be debated in our own time. Others, like the tariff and the gold standard, have faded from the political scene. I hope you'll find it interesting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am a Wikicup competitor, but will probably be eliminated by August 31, so this article is not likely to matter in that competition. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to say, I'm waiting this for so long... Only thing is 1880 Republican National Convention is not as good as 1880 Democratic National Convention & 1880 Greenback National Convention (I don't think that one could pass FA today), or else I think this could be another FT. Only one suggestion: I think section "Conventions" should had some short summary first, then goes to sub-section "Republicans", "Democrats", "Others", something like "...each party choose their candidate by national convention...", also the same as "Campaign". Just a thought.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! That's a good idea, I'll work on some language for that introduction to the conventions section. You're right about the RNC. I improved some of the references a few months ago, but the prose could still use some help. I hope to get to it before too long. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I went with this: "The parties agreed on their respective platforms and nominees at conventions, which met in the summer before the election." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • For some reason the title of the last image is appearing in the caption
      • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. I can't reproduce this problem on Chrome or Internet Explorer. Does still look that way to you? If it persists, I can replace the image and see if that helps. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still that way in Firefox; full caption is "File:ARTHUR, Chester A-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg Chester Arthur served as President after Garfield's 1881 assassination." Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Weird. I swapped it for a normal image, so that should be fine. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • By-county map could stand to be larger
    • What is the source for File:ElectoralCollege1880.svg?
      • I don't know what the original uploader used. He hasn't edited since 2009. Would it be improper to attribute it to some source that does match the data there, even if we don't know that the author used that particular source? The data are widely available. I could source to the National Archives website. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png/File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png: what is the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know. I think that tag is the wrong one, anyway. I've swapped it for {{PD-US}}. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's a campaign poster, than how is not publication?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Wehwalt edit

    Nicely done, just my usual nitpicks.


    • I hate to say anything negative regarding what is possibly the best short explanation of the silver question I've read, but " when both major parties nominated hard money men (candidates who favored the gold-backed currency were called "hard money" supporters, while the policy of encouraging inflation was known as "soft money")" could probably be compacted in a way that
    • " in the most hotly contested presidential election to that time in the nation's history" 1800? 1824? The Corrupt Bargain?
    • "the last election" I think you can get away with "it", so to speak. Maybe change the first word of the sentence from "The" to "That".
    • In the sentence "still others", I'd avoid one of the uses of "representatives" either by switching to "congressmen" or shortening the Speaker's title.
    • You have two people being flocked to. I suggest you select one, and as for the other, get the flock out of there (apologies to Porky's).
    • "in his formal letter to party accepting ... most likely a "the" missing?
    • You might want to make it clearer that Garfield made speeches from his front porch. A pipe for "his home" perhaps?
    • "he was noted in particular for his personal leadership at the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863" what's 'personal leadership' in this context?
    • "New York harbor" I would cap and link the three words.
    • " After several unsuccessful attempts at Republican nominations to various offices, and growing dissatisfied with the conservative wing of the party," I would add "making" before "unsuccessful".
    • "the length of the campaign" suggest "duration" for "length"
    • "As the Greenbackers had the only ticket that included a Southerner, he hoped to make inroads in the South." Southerner/South. Surely this can be avoided?
    • "also suggested difficulty " hmm. Maybe "presaged" for "suggested"?
    • "Confederate veterans pensions" this needs an apostrophe. Also veterans/veterans.
    • " Democrats never made clear what about their victory would improve the nation;" maybe "how" for "what about". Did they attack Garfield for being a member of the Electoral Commission?
    • "Garfield's success being centered in the more populous North " maybe "Garfield's triumphs in the more populous North"
    • "but without evidence" maybe "but had no evidence"
    • "served under him and Arthur without incident" maybe "served loyalty under him and Arthur"
    That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Wehwalt, I'll get to these tonight or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all done, except the first. I'm still not sure what to do with that, but I'll think about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: for the coordinators' sake, I just wanted to make sure that is a support (unless there's something I've missed, in which case I'd be glad to remedy it.) Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Hurricanehink edit

    Support now! As a minor political junkie, I was happy to stumble from my FAC to here.

    • How come the opening sentence is different? Most election articles start with "was the nth quadrennial presidential election". This just says that it was a contest. Was that a conscious decision?
      • I just thought it made more sense to mention first who contested the election, leaving the 24th quadrennial thing to the next sentence. More people know American elections the candidates than by whether it was the nth election. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Voter turnout was among the highest in the nation's history." - what was the ranking? Just curious. You say it was the highest at the time, but did any since then surpass it? Under the results section, you say "The voters showed their interest in the election by turning out in record numbers; 78 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot, the largest percentage to that date." But the article on Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections says 1876 surpassed it, as did 1860 and 1840.
      • My source there, Peskin, calls it the largest turnout to date, but as I read it again, it seems like it could mean largest percentage or largest number. I changed it to "among largest percentages in American history" just to be safe. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Weaver combined with two other minor candidates, Neal S. Dow and John W. Phelps" - I don't think "combined" is the best term here. Perhaps "in conjunction"?
      • I tweaked it, but I'm still not fully satisfied. I'll fiddle with it some more. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a position Allan Peskin, a 20th-century biographer, called "inconsistent"." - this could probably be rewritten without commas. Perhaps "a position that 20th-century biographer Allan Peskin called "inconsistent"?
    • "Garfield appointed a civil service reform supporter to the most lucrative government post in New York" - who was the supporter, and what was the post?

    All in all a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I can't really see anything I would change here, quite well done. Especially good intro lede sect, and Background sect. In addition, the graphics used are most impressive -- especially the Election Results by County !!! That graphic is quite something. Good job overall, — Cirt (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the support. I wish I could take credit for the map, but it was there when I started editing this one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source check All sources are of high quality, though I've never been a fan of the image of Garfield on the cover of Peskin. Not much you can do about that. References appear consistent, but 80 and 81 are identical.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ha! Thanks for the source review, and I agree about the Peskin cover. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2015 [55].

    The Wrestlers (Etty) edit

    Nominator(s):  ‑ iridescent 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hot naked man on man action! The Wrestlers is a companion article to Preparing for a Fancy Dress Ball, as one of the other highlights of the York Art Gallery's collection of Ettys, but could hardly be more different. It's something of a problematic piece from an art-historical point of view; there's no doubt of its attribution, but because no documentation exists for the first hundred years or so of its existence there's a lot of "probably", "likely" and "possibly" here. Showing a white man wrestling a black man to the floor, the point Etty was trying to make is lost; he may have been trying to illustrate the point that (contrary to common English belief at the time) black and white athletes were of equal strength and capable of competing on equal terms in sport; he may have been trying to make an elaborate point that supposed primitive races could physically match the Greek sculptures which were then considered the ideal of manhood; or, there may be no anti-racist theme to it at all and these two just happened to be the models available that day. Owing to its scantily-documented history—it was lost until 1947—this one doesn't have the "legacy" section one usually finds on paintings.

    (Brief note on capitalisation, which I'm aware will be jarring to readers in some countries; in BrEng "white" and "black" aren't generally capitalised when referring to race.[56]) ‑ iridescent 11:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source check from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

    • Checking the references, everything looks good. I spot checked the ODNB refs, and they checked out. Hoping to get a review of the article in tonight between watching the new Muppets. A search at Google Scholar and JSTOR only turned up a masters thesis with any sort of reference to the work (that wasn't already used in teh article). LOoks good on sources. If @Johnbod: has any of the art sources, it might not hurt for him to spot check a couple of spots, but I'd not be that concerned if he can't. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SupportComments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
    • Background:
      • In "and he was elected a full Royal Academician in 1828, ahead of John Constable." what does "ahead of" mean here? Does it mean they got in the same year but Etty got more votes? Or that he made full status some period of time before Constable?
        • Reworded that to make it clearer; there was an election to fill one slot, and Etty won it. I mention it as a shorthand way of illustrating that even though modern readers may not be familiar with Etty, at the time his peers considered him at least as important as Constable. ‑ iridescent 07:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh... "and the reaction of the lower classes to these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century." How did it cause concern?
        • The following sentence ("Although his portraits of male nudes were generally well received, many critics condemned his recurrent depictions of female nudity as indecent") is intended as the qualifier to that. In brief, a mix of a snobbish concern that people who didn't have the education to appreciate the context of his paintings saw them as pornography, and a good-faith concern that his overly sexual material was discouraging women from attending art exhibitions. I feel that in the background section to the articles on the individual works, it's necessary to explain the context in which he was working (someone who only tended to get public attention, and thus big-money sales, when he painted nude figures, but was at the same time struggling to shake off a reputation as a pornographer), but not to go into undue detail. Bear in mind that (presumably) most readers will have come to this either from or en route to William Etty itself, which explains all this. ‑ iridescent 07:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subject:
      • "aspire to an ideal of physical strength which people were worried was becoming lost" which people? I'm pretty sure the whole populace of England wasn't concerned about this...
        • "The decline of manual labor means the population is getting out of shape" was undoubtedly the general attitude in Britain, and later in Europe, during the early Industrial Revolution (The male body and physique…was a topic of much anxiety for Regency and early Victorian audiences. In an age of increasing prosperity and industrialisation, it was believed that Britain's men…were becoming flabby in both mind and belly. There was a widespread fear that men would become effeminate, sedentary and weak as their business was increasingly conducted from the comfort of desks in stuffy offices rather than outside in the open air. if you want chapter and verse from the source). I don't see "aspire to an ideal of physical strength which people were worried was becoming lost" as any more of a problematic construction than saying "in the 1900s the people of France were concerned about war with Germany" even though there were no doubt Frenchmen who never gave the idea a moment's thought. ‑ iridescent 07:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Caption for Andromeda - I'm not seeing where the phrase "but had become notorious for using scenes from literature and mythology as a pretext to paint nude women." is cited in the text - needs a cite.
      • Added a citation in the caption. ‑ iridescent 07:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent work - these are very minor quibbles, and I'll be happy to support when they are cleared up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Lingzhi

    • "and the reaction of the lower classes" specifically what reaction?
    • Primarily, attracting riff-raff into art galleries to get a fix of smut—the Vanity Fair quote I use on Musidora ("I know only too well how the rough and his female companion behave in front of picture's such as Etty's bather. I have seen the gangs of workmen strolling round, and I know that their artistic interest in studies of the nude is emphatically embarrassing.") probably sums the attitude up best. Per my comment to Ealdgyth above, I think it's necessary to mention the general attitude to him to give an idea of the context in which he was working (a serious artist trying to shake off a reputation for pornography, but who was only commercially successful when he included nudes), but I try to keep the background section to a minimum given that most readers will likely have already read Etty's bio which already explains this in detail. ‑ iridescent 08:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A single additional adjective would probably be sufficient.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sentence order: Some of the sentences seem to me at least to be in the wrong order within a paragraph, or even within the wrong paragraph. But changing sentence order is a heavier copy edit than merely changing "him" to " his work", and I am hesitant to disturb the current version too much while it is at FAC. I suppose I could edit in my sandbox with moved sentences highlighted, then my bowdlerizations could be reviewed by Iridescent, if that seems agreeable. (This might be spread out over a couple days, since I do not always have contiguous block of free time). Or I could just edit the article, but I would hate to start an edit war. :-)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give some examples of what you feel is problematic? I'm not seeing it, but this was one of the first ones written in this series, and I may be over-familiar and thus not seeing the obvious. ‑ iridescent 18:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I couldn't give you the final word on precisely where (IMO) any given sentence should be located, because in these situations I often feel something is misplaced, but then there are 2 or 3 potentially better locations, and I would actually have to try each. But at a glance, the naked/loincloth sentence seems misplaced, as does the bit about skin colors/contrast. I might move "many of his peers" to the end of its current paragraph, unless he became respected after he was selected. Some sentences about visiting Europe etc. seem misplaced. And so on. I would probably move other sentences as well. It's mostly just a matter of putting like topics together. IMO.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have another look through, but probably won't be until tomorrow. ‑ iridescent 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iridescent: Have a look at my sandbox for proposed changes so far. It still needs buffing, but this gives an idea... I have highlighted newly added content. In particular, there is an organizing sentence at the very start of the "Subjects" section. I have moved some sentences into entirely different sections of the article. I also count 26 semicolons, which is decidedly too many (here I'll add "for my taste", though I think it is goes beyond that). Half of the semicolons are reference formatting, sorry. Still a bit much, but much less so.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other changes look fine, but I'd be very reluctant to say Two characteristics of the subjects are worth noting: they are nearly-nude men wrestling, and the subjects are black- and white-skinned. so baldly. It's obvious to the reader that it's a painting of two nearly nude men wrestling and that one is black and one is white, so I don't see the need to patronise by pointing it out; plus, it's not for us to declare in Wikipedia's voice what the reader does and doesn't consider worth noting. On art history articles—particularly regarding someone like Etty who was known for experimental techniques and for pastiching the styles of other artists—many readers are going to be interested purely in the execution of the work, with no particular interest in the actual subject, and I don't consider it appropriate to be telling the reader what they should and shouldn't consider important. ‑ iridescent 10:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The exact wording (e.g., "noteworthy") of the sentence is meant as a scratch placeholder. However, I believe there's a need for an organizing sentence with roughly the same content. The point here is to let the reader initialize two mental spaces for the presence of two discussions in the section: "naked guys" and "black and white together".Also, the identity of the wrestlers shouldn't be in the Composition section, should it? [After thought: It doesn't really fit in that section, but looks even worse in others, so perhaps let it be...]  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "lower classes" might conceivably be offensive to some. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone finds the term "lower classes" offensive, they probably shouldn't be reading an article on Victorian England (or on England at any time, come to that, since it remains the main faultline of English society). There is no synonym, without using awkward (and even more jarring to the modern eye) constructions like "proletarians and peasants"; in the language of the time, "artisans", "the working class", "the poor" and "labourers" were four discrete groupings. (The term generally in use at the time for "all those who work with their hands" was "the men", but for obvious reasons that's not a term one really wants to be using shorn of context. The modern term in British English is C2DE, but the ABC1/C2DE distinction will be incomprehensible to readers outside the UK, as well as looking out of place in an article about the 1840s.) ‑ iridescent 23:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I defer to your judgment, of course. It doesn't offend me personally, but thin-skinnedness has become a popular career option, at least among Americans.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iridescent: [See two retractions above.] Predictable versus surprising. You may think I'm going overboard, but that's what I have been pondering. Predictability aids the reader's comprehension, but a dash of surprise helps jar those neuron synapses into alertness. Forex, the whole bit about the subjects' identity does not logically belong in the Composition section, but it does add an unexpected chunk of interesting info there. After experimenting, I think overall the latter offers more benefit than the former, so I left it alone. Now I have taken the caption from the Benaiah image and used it as an organizing sentence for the Subject section. It doesn't mention black/white, but eases the transition from Composition to "naked guys". Not sure if it's better there or not. I defer again to your opinion. &nbsp Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've held back until now merely to give Iridescent space to alter any gross mistakes in anything I have changed.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • "millboard" (x2): links to an article that doesn't mention millboards.
    • "emphasising the curves and musculature of the wrestlers' bodies": just something to consider: "curves" might mean different things to different readers (also in the second sentence in the lead).
    • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Millboard is just a particular type of stiff paperboard—most people nowadays know it as the stuff hardback book covers are made of, while those of a certain age will remember it as the stuff protestors' placards were made of before the invention of cheap printing on plastic. Artists like it because it's light and easy to carry, it has no grain (so if it's nicked, the sheet doesn't rip), and is sturdy enough to hold thick paints without wrinkling. I considered not linking it at all, but I figured that at least this way, it makes it clear to readers that it's a type of paperboard. Regarding "curves", there's no obvious synonym I can think of—Etty's use of bright light (unusual for this period—no lightbulbs yet) was to make the curves appear exaggerated without actually exaggerating them. The only obvious alternative is "contour", which to me sounds like a reference to skin texture rather than body shape. ‑ iridescent 21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • muscles == shape, tone, shape and tone, definition, lines?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd incline against "tone", since in the context of this article that sounds like a reference to skin colour rather that muscle tone, while "definition" isn't quite right—in the context of body shape, that means "parts are distinctly visible". The point here is that the lighting makes their torsos, legs and buttocks appear slightly over-inflated, but when you look more closely they're actually normally-proportioned. "Emphasise their musculature and body shape", perhaps—I'll have a think. ‑ iridescent 21:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support No issues with the standard of writing, sourcing or coverage, all of the usual quality. Major issues with the horrible painting. Nominator should be blocked. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks—Etty was capable of remarkably striking 50-years-ahead-of-his-time works, but his nude studies have dated very badly by modern standards. (This is by no means the tackiest; that would be The Dawn of Love.) ‑ iridescent 10:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I've watched this article since it was first created and have followed the various tweaks made. The sources have been validated previously so no problems but I do have a very minor query: the link to "About the artist" on the Manchester Art Gallery site (currently ref #8) is taking me to the Gallery home page and no matter how much I try to search I cannot get to the relevant page. Is it a temporary site problem or the probably much more likely scenario of my "operator error"? SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Good writing style, quite accessible to the reader, meticulously cited, high quality article, most educational and encyclopedic. At the moment looks like some coding error -- no categories at the bottom of the page. Cirt (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re categories: Oops that was me, when I subbed in the text from my sandbox. Sorry. Another editor repaired my error.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks much better now. I've had opportunity today to re-read through the article one more time, and I reiterate my Support. The article is quite high quality and most encyclopedic. Educational on multiple levels. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2015 [57].

    Rod Steiger edit

    Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld and Ssven2 14:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about Rod Steiger, one of Hollywood's greatest and most beloved character actors... After watching several of his films I felt compelled to "give something back" for the entertainment he has provided me with his acting. His performance in The Pawnbroker (1964) I think was the real motivator, an Oscar nominated one as a disgruntled Jew working as a pawnbroker in New York City which even he took for granted that he'd won. It has been researched extensively and I was able to get a copy of the one decent biography which exists on him. Biographical info is a lot more sketchy than it is for most of the top Hollywood film stars, but I'm certain it's about as comprehensive as it's going to reasonably get. User:Ssven2 and User:Rationalobserver helped greatly during the peer review and have made further copyedits. I think it's now ready to run here, hope you enjoy it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – I peer reviewed the article, and my comments were dealt with satisfactorily. The article is comprehensive but not overlong; the prose is – as far as I am any judge – good AmEng; the referencing is wide and thorough; the treatment of the subject is balanced; the pictures are many and excellent. There is, to my mind, too much about awards, but the Doctor knows my views on that point: we agree to differ, and I certainly don't regard it as affecting suitability for promotion to FA. The article plainly meets the criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 08:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tim riley: Thanks, Tim riley. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers Tim, as above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Loeba and Susie edit

    I will look at this more closely in the coming days; my initial impression is that it looks very promising. One quick comment in the mean time though: almost every paragraph in the "Career" section starts with "In 19XX..." I definitely recommend varying the prose. It's particularly good, I think, when new paragraphs give a sense of "story" and development, you know? Also, maybe move the "Acting style" section to come after "Personal life"? --Loeba (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I definitely think it's FA-level, but I did notice a couple of things which I think could be improved. I might be a bit too nitpicky at times, and it should be noted that my knowledge about Steiger or his career was pretty limited before reading this article. I'm sorry if this is a bit long, this is my first time doing this! I just don't know how to summarize all of these points in a paragraph without being really vague.

    • Early life:
      • "During the last 11 years of his mother's life, she stayed sober and regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings..." Maybe "During the last 11 years of her life, Steiger's mother..." would be clearer?
      • The last para – Maybe move this to the next section, as it seems that the 1946 stage role was the point when his career began?
    Done. Your comments for this section have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Career
      • In general, I agree with Loeba about how the writing style could be improved. I think the opening sentence of each section should give some indication of what that section will discuss, even though you of course indicate this in the title as well. Same goes for many paragraphs. At the moment, the article reads a bit too much like a list at times, and I was left hoping for more context explaining what stage in his career each section represents. You provide a lot of interesting information about Steiger's opinions on his roles as well as the critics' views of his work, but I'm often left wondering what the importance of a certain film was for his career in general. For example, in Early roles, you begin the paragraph with "On May 24, 1953, Steiger played the title role of Paddy Chayefsky's "Marty" episode of the Goodyear Television Playhouse."; it's only in the fourth sentence that you mention that "Marty" was his breakthrough role. I think the section could be improved by beginning the paragraph with something like "Steiger's breakthrough role was in..." Also, if you are discussing several films made in the same year, maybe start the paragraph with "Steiger apperared in three films released in 1957..." etc. In other words, the opening sentence of each paragraph should clearly indicate what will be discussed in that para.
      • I would also definitely add years after each subsection title, that way the reader knows from the beginning what time period will be discussed.
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would try to 'link' paragraphs better. Often, a new paragraph begins a bit 'abruptly', e.g. after discussing Al Capone, you begin the next paragraph with "Steiger played sophisticated thief Paul Mason..." I think it would improve readability if you tried to link paragraphs by re-wording them a bit, e.g. "Steiger's next role was as..." or "Following the success of Al Capone, Steiger played..."
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is in general really good in describing Steiger's roles in each film, but I'm often left wondering whether the role was a starring, major supporting or minor one.
    Re:"Steiger played sophisticated thief Paul Mason" Again I don't think I wrote that originally, I usually avoid that sort of thing, it looks altered in looking at it.. I've added Following as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally "major supporting". Often he was not the highest billed "star" in a film, but neither were his roles usually minor ones, particularly pre 1980. He was a steady character actor, with a fair number of starring roles but generally overall a major supporting player. Similar I suppose to Philip Seymour Hoffman in that respect. It's difficult to often classify him as either lead or minor role at times. I do believe that post 80s I've implied some of his roles were often more minor and his career had declined though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early career:
      • I'm not sure I would include the information about James Dean, or the long quote about Bogart.
    I think it's valuable to include it, and what a lot of readers will happily read. I did actually remove the Dean mention during one copyedit but I thought it a valuable insight into Steiger and old Hollywood and worth mentioning. It felt like a wrong move after I'd removed it. I think many readers will find the info about Bogart equally engrossing and will enjoy it. Those are the sorts of things I find most interesting when I read actor biographies. I think in places we can afford to include a few anecdotes for variety and to improve reading interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How were The Big Knife and The Harder They Fall received?
    I don't think we need to know how every film fared, in fact I removed a few ones during an earlier trim to try to improve the readability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, but then I think it could be worth to mention in each section whether his films in a given period were overall negatively or positively received. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    If you view the pre peer review version I believe I did mention how those films were received and those below. He had a mixed bag really, though generally late 1950s he didn't do well, which is echoed later by the depression comment. I think he was actually blacklisted from US films in the late 50s, though I can't find a source to confirm the period he was blacklisted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should definitely be mentioned that he was blacklisted if that was the case. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    I did mention it before but a peer reviewer told me to remove it as I couldn't be more specific about the actual dates or find anything more on it. It was one source which said he was blacklisted for a period, I think related to his comments on Kazan and McCarthyism. Roughly I think it was in 1956-1962 period as virtually all were British or Italian productions I think, many of them involving British studios in which he could have evaded it a blacklisting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struggling actor
      • How were The Unholy Wife and Run of the Arrow received? Again, you move from Wife to his next film without 'linking' them; it seems they were both made in the same year, but it would again improve readability to state this earlier.
      • "The film established Steiger as a serious lead actor, following his earlier supporting role success in On the Waterfront." – a bit confusing, since Waterfront is discussed in the earlier section. Do you mean that his roles between the two films were not well-received?
    Yes, his late 50s weren't weren't well received in general, note also I say serious lead actor, as despite his success in On the Waterfront he wasn't a lead actor in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was his role in Rashomon?
    Done. It was the bandit originally played by Toshiro Mifune.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • How was Seven Thieves received?
    Done. Written Crowther's review.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Steiger based his role as a destroyer commander in the large ensemble cast of The Longest Day, which included John Wayne, Richard Todd, Robert Mitchum, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Henry Fonda and his own father." Confusing sentence, I suggest rewording! Do you mean he based his role on his father?
    Yes, it should be "on" rather than "and", the error crept in during a copyedit the other day!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did Steiger speak Italian since he was able to act in Italian films?
    His voice was dubbed but I presume by late 70s he'd acquired a good basic understanding of the language.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mainstream film acclaim
      • Why was Pawnbroker considered anti-semitic by some? Due to Steiger's performance or the script or something else?
    Done. The source doesn't say anything about it hence removed.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that bit was from TCM, though I felt sure I saw it somewhere in his biography but can't find it. I disagree with Ssven's removal as I think it was quite controversial and worthy of mentioning. I've added a footnote explaining.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the footnote, Doc. I couldn't find anything actually, hence removed it. You certainly have sharp eyes.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you replace "namby-pamby" with another, more common word. This might just be because I'm not a native speaker, but I had to actually google this as I had not heard it before.
    It's a quote, and I think the perfect description of his character. I can link the article on Namby Pamby if you like?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts I'll change the word as the article on it is more on the poetry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
      • Did Steiger say why he liked his role in Doctor Zhivago?
    I don't believe he did, unless there is an interview somewhere where he spoke about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You describe his character as schizoid in No Way to Treat a Lady; is it actually stated in the film that he suffers from schizoid personality disorder? Or do you mean his character is mentally ill and takes on various personas? I'm being nitpicky about this because the terms schizoid or schizophrenic are often erroneously used in describing fictional serial killers when people actually mean mentally ill/disturbed or has multiple personalities.
    Yes, mentally ill and takes on various personas, but I believe sources describe him as "schizoid". I don't know the exact traits, but I'm just going by what the sources describe him as.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If 'schizoid' is not mentioned in the film, but only in sources writing about it, I would instead use "mentally ill" or "disturbed". I've never heard of people with schizoid pd having multiple personalities, so my hunch is that the writers who describe the character this way are using the adjective in the same way as "schizophrenic" is often used by laypeople, i.e. to indicate 'has multiple personalities'. My issue with this is that neither schizophrenia or schizoid pd actually have anything to do with multiple personalities or serial killers, and using these terms in the wrong way perpetuates stigma about mental illness. Therefore I think it would be safer to use a more general term like "mentally disturbed" rather than to link the character to any specific mental illness, unless it's specifically stated in the film that this is the disorder he has. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is though Susie, he doesn't uncontrollably act a certain way or display a certain personality. In the film he is in control of his personalities, and impersonates different people for kicks, though all based on mental illness and obsession with his mother. I don't think it's really a case of Dissociative identity disorder, because he is consciously deciding who he impersonates from killing to killing. He is basically schizoid or an outcast who assumes different personalities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    IDC-10 states SPD is a "Personality disorder characterized by withdrawal from affectional, social and other contacts with preference for fantasy, solitary activities, and introspection. There is a limited capacity to express feelings and to experience pleasure." The way this character behaves seems to be the opposite of SPD, since by playing these 'personas', he is engaging with people, even if it is in a very destructive way. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well... basically, is the character described as specifically suffering from this personality disorder (regardless of whether his behaviour in the film matches the actual disorder), or are the writers using "schizoid" as shorthand for "mentally disturbed"? If it's the latter, then I think "mentally disturbed" or a similar vague term would be preferable. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    I checked the sources for the film, and it does seem that the NY Times writer is just using schizoid to mean mentally ill; it's not mentioned in the two other sources at all. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    It could even work without an adjective ("Steiger played a serial killer"), since you have explained in the next sentence that he assumes various guises.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    I've changed to "deranged".♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • B-movies...
      • I would begin the paragraph by discussing his health issues, including the fact that he had heart surgery. Right now, it's not quite clear why he was considered a liability; I take it was because of his heart issues, given that his depression didn't seem to affect his work ethic, but since you begin the para by mentioning his depression and only mention open-heart surgery after stating he was considered a liability, the reader is left a bit confused.
    I agree with you, I think somebody changed it during the peer review/copyedit. I've moved up the surgery part♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specify "Yorkshire Television", right now it links to Yorkshire the county.
    Linked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later films
      • What was his role in Poolhall Junkies?
    Done. It was as a billiard hall manager named Nick.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personal life
      • Maybe link Claire Bloom again, as some readers might only be interested in this section.
    OK, I like Claire so will do so ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Steiger was married five times but only the Bloom marriage is actually discussed. It would be interesting to know more about his other marriages if your sources mention them, e.g. the wives' professions, how Steiger met them, reasons for divorce, etc.
    Steiger liked to keep a low profile on his personal life. Even his biography from somebody who knew him very well only discusses Claire. I don't think anything much is known about the others. Perhaps We hope can find some mention of their professions and something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I presumed this might be the case; I wouldn't stress about it to be honest! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
      • First para: maybe switch the order of the two last sentences, as Steiger and Bloom divorced before he had to sell their flat.
    Done. By Dr. Blofeld.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acting style (really enjoyed this section!)
      • Maybe mention the year On the Waterfront was made, as although it is a famous classic, some readers might not be aware that it was made in the 1950s.
    It was mentioned earlier but I've added a reminder in brackets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Again I have to stress that overall, the article is really good, you just need to improve its general readability a bit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

    Thanks for your comments User:TrueHeartSusie3. I think you have a point on some of the sentences of the opening paragraphs to avoid saying In xxx, all of the time. Overall though I think the general readability is sufficient and I've had positive comments towards that from respected editors during the PR. In places it does read a bit differently than when I last looked at though. I'll try to give it a read tomorrow and see if I can tweak and improve in places for variation and add some extra polish. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! I'm happy with the changes made, so definitely support this article being given FA status. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    @TrueHeartSusie3: Thanks, Gracias and Merci Beaucoup, TrueHeartSusie3. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks TrueHeartSusie3, some excellent points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review edit

    - spotchecks not done

    • Don't put works in the publisher parameter - as a general rule, if it needs to be italicized it's a work title
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For things in book cites that aren't pages (eg. FN1), use the loc= parameter
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN42 title needs spaces
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Movie titles should be italicized even in references
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes culturecourt.com a high-quality reliable source? Ozus' World Movie Reviews?
    Dennis Schwartz often has reviews for films in which often don't have reviews elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Removed culturecourt.com but kept Schwartz's reviews as Doc says, he has reviews for films in which often don't have reviews elsewhere.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use a consistent date format
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN126 and similar: you're citing this as a book, but it's a magazine - needs article title (and author when present), does not need publisher. There are several of these
    Ssven2 changed quite a lot of them from what was originally there, I'll let him deal with all the source issues.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Done. I have found out the names of the article titles and authors for those articles having author names.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN103: formatting doesn't match other refs
    Done. Tweaked formatting.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN144: author?
    Done. Added author's name.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN181 is someone's thesis - a) should be cited as such and b) how does it meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    Done. Removed the source.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate the names of university presses
    Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Removed the source.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review Nikkmaria, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I am currently third on the list of contributors, after Dr. Blofeld and Ssven, but since my work on the article was deemed not significant enough to claim it for the Wikicup, I assume I must be uninvolved enough to support. I think it's well-written, comprehensive, and neutral, and I'm impressed with the quality of the prose overall. This is a terrific contribution to Wikipedia. Great work, Dr. B and Ssven! RO(talk) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks RO for your support and assistance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rationalobserver: Thanks, RO. Your thoughts, comments and contributions to the article are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support per my comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers Wehwalt, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: Thanks, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: My chief concern at peer review was length. This had been admirably addressed, and is no longer an issue. The article looks really thoroughly researched, and is generally a pleasure to read. I first saw Steiger when I was an adolescent, in a reissue of Oklahoma!, and his performance as poor Jud Fry was about the only thing I remembered about the film (except for a couple of sailor-girl dancers who unsettled me for weeks afterwards). I'm not a great film watcher, but I never saw Steiger in anything where his performance didn't have some impact. I've nothing significant to add to my earlier review, except to say that the De Niro image in the final section should ideally be cropped to match the Al Capone image above it – it looks out out of scale as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (PS: the early part of this review could do with some subheadings, since after Tim's contribution it's not immediately clear who's saying what. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Brian, much appreciated. Your review did much to improve it before coming here for which I'm grateful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brianboulton: Thanks, Brianboulton. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from SchroCat edit

    Great article, nicely put together. I've got a couple of minor comments:

    • The caption "Steiger in 1978 for the premiere of F. I. S. T." breaks the film title after the F., which isn't good – best to force the break before the F.
    • Lubeski is listed in the sources but isn't used - probably best to remove it

    Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Schro. An ip added that FIST break in good faith only a few hours ago. I've changed it back, not sure what he was thinking!. Removed Lubeski source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for citing it as good faith, Dr. Blofeld. I read SchroCat's note on the caption and put the break to solve a problem he noted. That's what I was thinking. I'm sure you wouldn't refer to a user in such a rude manner, so I please request that you treat me with respect and just let me know that I made a mistake without using comments such as "not sure what he was thinking". Good job on the page, though! Cheers. 186.204.89.90 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how that was rude, I tried to be as polite as possible in stating it was in good faith. I genuinely didn't know what you were thinking. I could have (quite fairly) said that an ip address "made a complete hash of it and I've reverted the clumsy fool". I might have done that in fact if I hadn't have checked your contributions first and seen that you were the ip who asked for more images. We get vandalism all of the time from ips on wikipedia, so it's often difficult to know the thinking behind edits like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, ok, I understand. Sorry for the trouble, I just see the expression "what was he thinking" in a disrespectful manner all the time, but now I'm sure that wasn't the case. I apologize again, I was just trying to contribute. And thanks for the images and the article, I'm a big fan of Steiger. Cheers 186.204.89.90 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I know, thanks for your positive words. You can always create an account and start editing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Dr. Blofeld, I've been editing infrequently for a while, but never really created an account. Might just do that. I just don't understand what's the problem with the line break, but thanks anyway. Cheers ;). 186.204.89.90 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All good (and await the usual bile-spewing nonsense from the Wikipediocracy clique!) – SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Cheers Schro, and yeah, exactly ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: Thanks, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Yeah, we best be prepared. ;-)  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – I had my say at the article's peer review, and all of 'em were resolved. Coming to FA criteria, it certainly meets each criterion of FA. Looks pretty comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written. Images are nice (I wish we could have more images on Steiger). Will use this article to watch a few films of him, but to watch films of his era are not available everywhere, especially in a country like Germany, where everything is restricted. -- Frankie talk 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I, too, had my say at PR; the only thing I have to add right now is that the lead image seems like an odd choice. If there's not a particular reason for that image that I may have missed, I'd recommend switching it with a higher-quality photo from elsewhere in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the comments and support Frankie and Josh. Well, I was toying with the idea of adding one of the black and white ones that We hope uploaded but I thought the coloured one of Steiger in his prime, even if slightly blurry is a better overall representation of him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @FrB.TG and J Milburn: Thanks, Frank and Josh. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review from SNUGGUMS edit

    Here's my assessment of the pics used:

    I'll be back with more later, but will say now that the hyphens (-) for year ranges should be medium dashes (–) per WP:DASH. Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason this doesn't have an infobox or why a screenshot is used in the lead as opposed to something outside of Steiger's works (such as him attending events)? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @SNUGGUMS: Regarding the infobox, there has been a discussion on the article's talk page with the RFC going in favour of those who didn't want an infobox. As for the image in the lead, it's been replaced. I feel "dynamic" is necessary as it reflects his acting style.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I liked this at peer review, and it's nicely polished now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jimfbleak: Thanks, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I reviewed this at GAN and say that this meets the FA criteria without a doubt. Well done on all the work put into this! JAGUAR  12:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jaguar: Thanks, Jaguar. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Definitely high quality, just way too much use of quotes, throughout practically the entire page. And I've found that pull-quote boxes are generally frowned upon in FAs, as well. Please try to trim down and/or paraphrase the liberal use of quotes, and remove the quote boxes. At that point I think I could switch. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: I've trimmed down the content in the quote boxes. Can you show me some instances/examples of the quotes so as to make it easier for me to fix them. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I still see three large blue quote boxes that should be removed. One big block quote, and lots of other quoted text in the article. Really no need for quotes, at all, but ideally please trim aggressively and paraphrase, and of course remove all the blue pull quote boxes, as I've found those are frowned upon. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: Is it alright if the quotes are something along the lines of Laurence Olivier's article?  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice example but that one also shouldn't have pull quote boxes and also has way way way too many quotes throughout the page. So unfortunately it's also an example of some problems with quotes. Really no strong reason to have so much quote usage, get rid of it (or paraphrase) and I can support. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no pull quotes in the Olivier article or in this one. Cirt is getting muddled between pull quotes and quote boxes. A pull quote is "the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page". As to quote boxes, perhaps, Cirt, you could point us to the section of the MoS that discourages their use? Tim riley talk 16:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: How do you suggest I make use of the quoted material in the three quote boxes then? Completely remove whatever is said in the quotes? I feel whatever Steiger said in those quotes they are necessary as it depicts his inspirations and influences in acting. If you're talking about the critics' quotes, those too are necessary as it shows their opinion of Steiger's performance in that particular film, but the large quotes (if any) can be trimmed though, which I'll certainly do so.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to think like you, too, I really did. That whatever quotes I used in articles were so necessary and could not be removed because of their value. But really, once you get down to it, and actually try to paraphrase and/or remove them, you will see in the future that articles you work on are better for it. They'll be more concise, succinct, and less reliant on looking like strung-together-quotes from others and more like a summarized representation of paraphrasing what secondary sources have said. It's not easy, but it's worth it. And yeah, completely no need for the pull quote boxes. — Cirt (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: I have trimmed and paraphrased the quotes from both the boxes and the big block quote and made some trims to other quotes as well.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Much, much better! My supreme thanks to nominator Ssven2 for being so quick and responsive to my FAC comments, and also for being so kind and polite in the manner in which responses were given! Well done! Wholeheartedly switch to Support. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cirt: Thanks, Cirt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly disagree with the removal of the blue boxes. They add depth to the article. Ssven we don't need to respond to every point a reviewer makes. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Olivier and numerous other articles have them and successfully passed FAC. Who says they "shouldn't" have quote boxes? You might have a point on the Bogart one, but the independent film and acting style quotes. Those were valuable. Pinging Tim riley, @SchroCat: and @Loeba:.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thought as much. I felt the third quote and the blockquote were necessary like you did, coincidentally. I thought of maybe trimming the content inside but Cirt said "completely no need for the pull quote boxes." and he seemed firm in his decision.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Bogart one wasn't essential, even if interesting, but the WWII one and how it impacted upon his acting and the independent film one, which formed the bulk of his career IMO were quite relevant to his career and valuable quotes. Quotes cited in the prose from critics and biographers are also a staple of writing actor articles, what's all this about them not being acceptable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cirt said the quotes were "frowned upon" in FACs. So far in this review, no one has "frowned upon" quotes in the boxes.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Quote boxes can enhance the aesthetics of a page (they're especially useful when you don't have many image options, so that readers aren't faced with a wall of text) and can supply important information. To suggest they should never be used on FAs seems pretty bogus, and indeed I see them on FAs all the time. As for quotes in general, they definitely shouldn't be used too much but I absolutely support their inclusion when used well: they bring the subject to life and often give insight from important authority figures. Most things should be paraphrased, sure, but some things are definitely best in their original words. --Loeba (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I paraphrase most quotes anyway to fit the text and improve readability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I think quote boxes serve the same function as images; the casual reader can first look through them to get an overview before reading the entire article. I do agree that it was good to lose the Bogart quote, but otherwise I think the quoteboxes were fine, and the article is a lot less easy to 'take in' without them. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

    I've moved the Bogart quote to the film article. too valuable to lose from here, but strongly suggest that we restore the other two quote boxes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Wholly concur. As explained above, the initial objection to the boxes was based on an unfortunate failure to understand the difference between pull quotes and quote boxes, but errare humanum est and haven't we all! There have never been any pull quotes in the article and I agree with Dr B's proposal in re the quote boxes. TrueHeartSusie3 seems to me to hit the nail on the head. Tim riley talk 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2015 [58].

    Russian battleship Oslyabya edit

    Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Buggie111 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Oslyabya had a very brief career before she became the first ship sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. She took about eight years to build and had only about two years of service before she was sunk. The ship was one of three Russian second-class battleships built to support their strategy of commerce raiding if war had broken out against the British. While not intended to stand in the line of battle, the Russians had no choice to use them that way once the Russo-Japanese War began. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous phrasings and any jargon that needs to be explained. The article had a MilHist A-class review, that included an image review, several months ago and should be in pretty good shape, but y'all know how that goes. This is a joint nomination between Buggie111 and myself. He's in Russia, last I had contact with him, but hopefully he'll be able to comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Well written. I only have a couple of things.

    Career
    • " at the cost of 11,340,000 rubles. " I would say "at a cost ..."
    • "after the Russo-Japanese War began three days earlier." hm. Maybe "following the start of the Russo-Japanese War three days previously"--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent suggestions both. Thanks for reviewing this so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - I reviewed the article at the Milhist ACR and my concerns were addressed there. Great work, as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • "This epic 18,000-mile (29,000 km) journey was the longest voyage of a coal-powered battleship fleet in history.": Needs attribution per WP:INTEXT.
      • Um, howzabout the the cite immediately following the quote?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per INTEXT, "in addition to an inline citation after the sentence". I don't write this stuff, I just quote it :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry for snapping, done, although I don't really think that it adds much in this case.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review - spotchecks not done

    • Draft differs between infobox and text - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Succinct composition and concise writing style make this article accessible to the reader. High quality article about a ship whose crew had an unfortunate ending, at least half of them at least. — Cirt (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015 [59].

    Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant edit

    Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a theme restaurant at Disney's Hollywood Studios where guests sit in convertibles and watch campy 1950s sci-fi clips while they eat. The article received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, was promoted to good status, and subsequently received a peer review. Neelix (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Epicgenius edit

    Funnily enough, while dining at ABC Commissary last week on my trip to Disney World, I took a peek at the actual Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. I was quite disappointed as it only served fries and burgers (when I went, anyway. The source in the article refutes this, but...).

    Anyway...

    • Most of the first paragraph in the "Location" section "Only Disney's Hollywood Studios ... plus Hollywood & Vine" should probably be placed into its own paragraph. "Location" could then be changed to "Context".
    • There are alt texts, and that is good. However, they don't really present a clear connection to the actual images. For example, the lead image has the alt text "A group of people sitting in mock cars facing slightly to the left of the viewer all inside a room with a black ceiling and walls painted to look like a landscape". The caption is "The interior of the Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater". If one were to read the alt text alone, they would not know that the picture was taken in the restaurant.
    • Do you have the exact day that the restaurant opened, by any chance?
    • The section header "Influence" could probably be changed to "Spin-offs" or something.
    • Could the footnote "Hollywood & Vine had resumed its Minnie Mouse character meals by 2005." be somehow integrated in the text?
    • Per WP:CITELEAD, and since the quote is mentioned later anyway, the sole citation in the lead could be removed, but I'm not sure if it should.
    • In the "Location" section, the sentence "The Sci-Fi Dine-In is located on Commissary Lane across from Star Tours and next to the ABC Commissary, a restaurant that, contrary to the Sci-Fi Dine-In, is easy to get into without reservations but is not themed." should probably be split into two sentences: "The Sci-Fi Dine-In is located on Commissary Lane across from Star Tours. It is also next to the ABC Commissary restaurant, which, by contrast, is easy to get into without reservations but is not themed." (N.B.: Actually, the two restaurants share a bathroom.)

    More to come... Epic Genius (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the review, Epic Genius! I have split the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Location" section in two as you suggested. I have also renamed the "Influence" section to "Imitation", which I hope addresses your concern; the EGV Drive-in Cafe and Bayliner Diner are not really spin-offs because they aren't owned by Disney. I haven't split off the portion of the first paragraph of the "Location" section because doing so would leave the first sentence of that paragraph to be its own paragraph, and the guidelines recommend against single-sentence paragraphs; the paragraph is fairly short as it is. Thank you for recommending that I reword the alt text; I had not previously been familiar with the currently prescribed alt text standards and I believe that I had been following an outdated set of standards in this area. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the exact date of the restaurant's opening in a reputable source. I would prefer not to integrate the footnote into the main text as this is exactly the kind of content for which footnotes exist; it has nothing to do with the subject of the article, but is included in the periphery to clarify some statement within the article. I would also prefer to leave the citation at the end of the quotation in the lead as this is standard practice despite not being explicitly required. I hope these changes and comments address your concerns! Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of the above further or if you have any more concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In regards to your first concern that the influenced restaurants aren't really spinoffs, @Neelix, I suppose the section could also be called "Imitations", as it is now. Regarding your other concern about the citation remaining in the lead, I guess it's fine, even though the same quote is cited later in the article.
    I'm going to keep looking over this later for more areas of improvement. So far, though, the article looks good. (The food, less so.) Epic Genius (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you like the article! Most of the reviewers agree with you about the food, which I hope comes out in the article. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and the decor is awesome. I just don't like the food that much. :-(
    Speaking of which, in the "Reception" section, you should more distinctly combine the positive and the negative reviews. Right now, the paragraph order is a little murky. Epic Genius (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify how you would like the "Reception" section to be reorganized? During the article's peer review, I reordered the "Reception" section in response to a suggestion made by Rational Observer so that the first paragraph is about the restaurant in general, the second paragraph is about the consensus that the restaurant works wonderfully as an attraction but not as a food destination, the third paragraph is about positive reception of the food, and the fourth paragraph is about the film clips and other niche reasons for appreciating the restaurant. Do you have concerns regarding this order? Neelix (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize if I didn't see this in the peer review. However, I saw that some of these comments were critical of the restaurant, e.g. Paul Schultz of the Daily News writes, "Anyone who is a fan of trashy sci-fi movies of the 1950s should check [the Sci-Fi Dine-In] out." In his book Sci-Fi Movie Freak, Robert Ring calls the Sci-Fi Dine-In film clips "hokey", while David Steele of The Rotarian calls them "classically awful",and Rick Ramseyer of Restaurant Business Magazine calls them "campy".
    @Neelix: you said above, The first paragraph is about the restaurant in general, the second paragraph is about the consensus that the restaurant works wonderfully as an attraction but not as a food destination, the third paragraph is about positive reception of the food, and the fourth paragraph is about the film clips and other niche reasons for appreciating the restaurant. Maybe some transition phrases would make this clear. For instance, in paragraph 1, you can say, In general, the restaurant has received mixed reviews. Jack Hayes of Nation's Restaurant News calls the Sci-Fi Dine-In "wacky" and "on the cutting edge of sheer dining fun". (emphasis on the transition phrase, which I added and which you can modify at your discretion.) Epic Genius (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added topic sentences to three of the four paragraphs in the "Reception" section; one of the paragraphs already had a topic sentence. I hope these additions make the structure of the section easier to follow. My impression of the quotations you mention about the film clips is that these reviews are actually positive; B films often become cult films because fans appreciate the classical awfulness/hokiness/campiness, and the tone of the reviews seems in line with this type of thinking. Are you pleased with the "Reception" section as it currently stands? Neelix (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Suggest scaling up the lead image size; also, that file is tagged as lacking a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Independent of the above comment, I suggest upright ratios or something. Epic Genius (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the image review, Nikki! I have increased the size of the lead image as you recommended, and I think it makes the article look better. Epic Genius: Which images do you feel should make use of the upright function? Normally, this function is used on images that are narrower than they are tall, and there aren't any such images in this article. Neelix (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neelix: Nah, I didn't mean that type of upright. :)
    I meant the "upright ratio". Putting |upright| creates a ratio that is 0.75 times the user's or computer's image-scaling preferences (for me, the default is 220 px, so the upright would be 165 px since it is 75% of 220). By comparison, |upright=1.0| will scale the image on my computer to 220 px, and |upright=1.1| will scale the image on my computer to 242 px. Currently, the lead image is 300 px. For me, a comparable upright is 135% of the original image, or 299 px.
    Unfortunately, you can't add upright without cheating. You'd have to change the code to | image = Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater interior by hyku.jpg|upright=1.35. :( Epic Genius (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, great! Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article? Neelix (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not right now, no. I'd say it's all good. +1 Epic Genius (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Jaguar edit

    • "For a period of time, the menu listed items with themed names" - this could be more specific, was it like a "limited edition" menu?
    • I think that the year it opened should be mentioned in the infobox and the first paragraph in the lead (but the latter is optional)
    • The reception paragraph in the lead needs to summarise that it "received mixed reviews from critics"
    • "The restaurant is one of only five restaurants in the park that recommend that guests make advance reservations" - no need for extra "that"
    • "which was considered at the time to be in keeping with the science fiction theme because the technology was so new" - 'was so new' sounds a bit informal, how about recently developed pr advanced
    • "The license plates are dated 1955" - dated from 1955
    • "In 2003, EGV Entertainment, a movie theater operator in Thailand" overlink movie theater
    • " Peggy Katalinich of the Tampa Bay Times writes that, although the food is only okay, "Who cares? Food is besides the point."" - 'okay' sounds unencyclopedic if it's not part of the quote
    • "specifically singling out the restaurant's roast beef sandwich as a ripoff, despite calling it delicious" - this is identical to the phrase in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaguar (talk • contribs)
    Thank you very much for the review, Jaguar! I have implemented all of your recommended changes. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions or if I have not sufficiently addressed any of the concerns you have already raised. Neelix (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking through the article again I will conclude my review with a support. It is broad, well written and the references (the ones I could access) all check out fine. I couldn't find any other prose issues with the article, although I would be slightly cautious over some tight-squeeze of text (where two images on opposite sides create format issues), but it doesn't seem to be much of a problem for this article anyway. Well done on writing another piece of quality work, Neelix! JAGUAR  22:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – The restaurant is plainly my idea of Hell, but the article is unsparing in its meticulous description of its horrors, there is no sign of bias, the prose is admirable, the sourcing is widespread and has every appearance of being excellent. I'm very happy to support – from the safe distance of more than 4,000 miles away. – Tim riley talk 20:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – The article looks like it is in good shape; it is well researched, written and referenced. I checked the references which have internet links and all of them work. Great work! Z105space (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Nice work. This fits all the FA criteria as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015 [60].

    Perovskia atriplicifolia edit

    Nominator(s): RO and Squeamish Ossifrage

    This article is about one of the all time great gardening plants, Perovskia atriplicifolia. Following a premature nom last month, Squeamish Ossifrage has collaborated with me on the article, which is now leaps and bounds better than it was at FAC1, thanks to their wonderful work with the clades and phytochemistry stuff, among many others things. We believe it meets the criteria, and we look forward to comments and suggestions from the community. RO(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am pleased and honored to co-nom this article. There's a scattering of animal FAs (especially dinosaurs), and no shortage of fungus article with the bronze star (even I did one!), but there are very, very few plant articles that have been written to this quality level. Doubly so for plants in widespread cultivation, where there's generally less (if any) written about their natural habitat and distribution. I think what Rationalobserver and I have put together is the best summary of the natural history, horticulture, and hard botanical science that exists anywhere on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak and Burklemore1: Making the other major contributors to the first FAC aware that it's back. I believe we've satisfied all the outstanding concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Very satisfied with the new changes, especially with the taxonomy and phylogeny section. Well done guys, I hope to see the article promoted this time! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Sasata edit

    Some comments following a quick read-through. Will probably have more to add later after a literature search. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I am satisified that this article meets the FAC criteria. Good job! Sasata (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • what cultivar is shown in the taxobox image?
    In isolation, impossible to say with certainty, as the distinguishing characteristics of the various cultivars are exclusively related to leaf shape and overall plant height. RO may have more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 'Blue Spire' (added). RO(talk) 14:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”blue-to-violet blossoms” why the hyphenation?
    No reason. Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”widely-planted”; “deeply-incised” no hyphen required for adjectives ending in -ly
    Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”has been considered favorably by experts.” construction sound odd to my ears
    Copyedited. RO(talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”P. atriplicifolia was the Perennial Plant Association's 1995 Plant of the Year” Is this particular association notable enough that their choice for favourite plant should be given such prominence (2nd paragraph of lead) in this article?
    Arguably. It's a fairly influential trade organization in the United States. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”Its flowers have also been” Why “also”? The previous sentence wasn’t referring specifically to the flowers
    Relic of early text arrangement. Removed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”and the plant itself used for phytoremediation of contaminated soil.” I read the paper that is is cited for this statement in the “Uses” section and it did not seem to me that the plant was actually used for this purpose, rather, it had the ‘’potential’’ to be used for bioremediation.
    Fixed. RO(talk) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That one was my fault, sloppy lead-writing from my chicken-scratch notes rather than what I'd actually written in the body. Mea culpa. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • the taxobox synonym ‘’Perovskia pamirica’ is not mentioned in the article text
    Added, although there's not much to say there; the original paper was pretty much the only time anyone thought P. pamirica was actually a separate species. Accordingly, I've moved the citation for synonymy out of the taxobox, as it is now cited in text, and I find reference tags in the taxobox unsightly when they can be avoided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • are the redlinked subfamily, tribe, and sub tribe really needed in the taxobox?
    Well, my thought here was that the tribe is a significant topic of discussion in the taxonomy and phylogeny section. If I'm in contravention of current taxobox best practices, I'll snip them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking the relevant guidelines for taxobox use: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article"; however, only one of the three redlinked subtaxa are mentioned in the article. There's also the argument that some/most of this info about the relationship of Perovskia to the Lamiaceae would be better placed in the genus article. Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll cut Nepetoideae and Salviinae from the taxobox, then. As for content going here vs. Perovskia, I tried to stick to material that actually sampled P. atriplicifolia, along with enough background context to make the section sensible (there's a reason why people bothered to sequence this species). There's quite a bit more available to expand the genus article if I get ambitious enough to do so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”demonstrated that Salvia was not monophyletic” ->is not monophyletic?
    Yep, fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • link Notcutts
    Hey, they've got an article...! Done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • oblate, lanceolate -> undefined jargon
    Does a link to leaf shape introducing these terms suffice? If not, I'm happy to wikt-link them, as I had to do with pinnatipartite. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    A link to leaf shape would be fine; consider also using an anchor so that a click will take the reader right to the defined term. Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, upon further review, our leaf shape article is a travesty. I've linked to it, out of a sense of kindness, but rather than dropping anchors into an ugly, incomplete, bullet-point list, I've glossed the shape jargon in text. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”0.8–2 cm (0.31–0.79 in)” make sure sig figs in convert output don’t exceed input
    Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ensure short-form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks
    Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • link Ontario, Quebec, hardiness, shoot
    Done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”both a deer resistant and rabbit resistant plant.” I think the compound adjectives need hyphenation here
    Agreed, and done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ”Derivatives of P. atriplicifolia have displayed antimicrobial properties in vitro;” what does “derivatives” mean here?
    It means I wrote a sloppy sentence. Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it was awarded the Perennial Plant Association's Plant of the Year award." It was awarded ... the award. Can a plant species be given an award? Would it be better to say something like "it was selected as the Perennial Plant Association's Plant of the Year"?
    Sure! They have a little ceremony and everything, and the media gushes on how elegantly all the herbaceous plants dress up for the occasion! Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the insect species Tropidion castaneum and Camponotus maculatus." perhaps say what kind of insects these are, e.g. "the beetle Tropidion castaneum and the carpenter ant Camponotus maculatus."
    Fixed, hopefully, albeit with a slightly different construction than proposed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but is distinguished by its bipinnate leaves." The second citation uses the term "bi-pinnatipartite", which I assume is different than "bipinnate" (although I'm not sure). Does the first cited source use the term "bipinnate"?
    Grant does call them "bipinnate", yes. Fundamentally, they're the same thing. Bi-pinnatipartite more specifically describes the depth of the margin incisions, but the important part here isn't margin depth, but that P. abrotanoides has secondary pinnation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed in part. To partition it off from the more plain-language uses, I've dropped the phytochemistry material to its own subsection. Included the excellent Pharmaceutical Biology article that I had entirely overlooked, and cited that second anti-Hep B paper in passing. I don't want to push the Hep B material too much on MEDRS grounds (it's all from the same research group), although I don't think there's a problem pointing at two papers showing they're playing around with a bunch of extracted compounds. The first part of that section, dealing with the lists of assayed compounds in general, is probably still subject to some revision. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's a good thing you pinged on this section, because upon further review, no two studies have gotten the same answer on the essential oil constituent compound list or ratios. I've focused on papers that surveyed the topic (while adding their own answer to the mix...) and have tried to present a fairly orderly summary of this big organic chemistry mess while remaining readable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is more information available on the nutritional composition of the plant (as forage) here that could help flesh out the second paragraph of "Distribution, habitat, and ecology"
    I'm not sure there's much to say here that we don't already say in the summary of the previous paper by the same authors. I had this article in my potential-sources bin while helping with the expansion, but I never pulled anything from it. I'll give it a second pass to see if there's something useful; I don't think it's particularly in-scope to go into excessive detail about the nutritive content of this species relative to other Harboi rangeland plants. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Went ahead and tweaked this structure a little bit. It turns out we've got an article (sort of) for neutral detergent fiber, so that provided a useful excuse to cite both Hussain and Durrani papers. I don't think the article is well-served by digging more deeply into that 2009 paper, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • this source says: "... it is often difficult to maintain in greenhouses and nurseries. Excessive growth can lead to blow-over in nurseries, plants out-growing their pots, reduced plant quality, and increased shipping costs ...", which looks like it might be useful information appropriate for this article
    Really, really nice source that I'd totally overlooked during my literature survey. Summarized and added. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • First round of corrections handled. I'll get back to this momentarily. Also, thanks for the assistance, Sasata! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Working on a solution to the problems with the article's treatment of phytochemistry. I think most of the other concerns have been resolved at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sasata: I think most of this is in a much better place now. I'd like your opinion about the amount of linking necessary to address the leaf shape jargon, as well as the minor taxa. But otherwise, I think RO and I have addressed all these concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the quick fixes and additions. I have responded to a couple of points above, and will be back later (perhaps with more comments). Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, thank you for the observations. I have a lot of respect for your mycology work, and I'm happy to have your eyes on this adventure into botany and horticulture. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cited Dumitraşcu (2008), mostly just because he provided a different ratio of peat/inert material for optimal growth than we had from Squire (2007), so I generalized the claim and referenced them both. I'm a little hesitant to do much with Perveen et al. (2014). Their claim is that a couple of extremely minor components of the essential oil have BChE inhibitory effects in vitro. That's interesting, and all, and I wish them luck with further research. But I think we need that further research; as far as I can tell, no subsequent work has cited this paper. And unlike with anti-inflammatory experiments, Perveen's lab seems to be the only one researching potential cholinesterase inhibition. I just don't think WP:MEDRS gives us much room here until this gets at least a little more coverage in the literature. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last sentence of the lead ("... the plant has been considered for potential use in the phytoremediation of contaminated soil.") still doesn't quite align with what is given in relevant subsection ("This species is also capable of phytoremediation of arid soil contaminated with toxic heavy metals.") Perhaps give a bit of explanation as to why the plant has potential for bioremediation (e.g., from Zamfirache 2011: high rates of growth (even in highly polluted, dry areas), pest resistance, good germination, and heavy metal and radioactivity resistance), and the monoterpenes in the oils improve ambient air quality. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded the phytoremediation sentence in the body. Hopefully there's less of a disconnect there. I'm constrained by the source to being somewhat vague; Zamfirache calls Perovskia atriplicifolia a hyperaccumulator, but that's a term of art with specific concentration ratios required, and she cites her own unpublished analysis to make that claim. I've avoided doing so because I don't think we can conisder that description verifiable. Likewise, I've explicitly avoided her claim that monoterpene emission improves air quality. Other air-quality researchers consider plants with substantial monoterpene emissions to be a net decrease in air quality (even if they smell nice...); for example, this from Atmospheric Environment. On the scope of this article, I think the best way to handle that disagreement is to simply avoid it! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Eric Corbett edit

    • "... and five other compounts" What's a "compount"?
    It's a typo. Fixed. RO(talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching that one, Eric. I had fixed it in my draft text, then somehow managed to paste the misspelled version in anyway. I have reverted your change of "an herbal", though; we're doing this one in American English, where that's actually correct because we pronounce "herb" funny. Consequently, I've fixed all the "grey" to "gray", which is (I think) the last of the ENGVAR issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's unlikely that I'll be supporting any article that persists in using "an herbal", but your choice. "Successful over a wide range of climate and soil conditions ..." "Climate" isn't an adjective. Eric Corbett 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    "Climate conditions" is an acceptable phrase in the US: ([61]). RO(talk) 19:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eric Corbett: You'll be pleased to know that "an herbal" no longer appears in this article. "Climate conditions", I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with; although I recognize that "climatic conditions" would be correct from a purely grammatical perspective, the former phrase is in very common use in American English sources, including government and scientific publications. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Its flowers have been eaten in salads or crushed for dyemaking ..." So not both, just one or the other?
    Fixed. RO(talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Tim Riley edit

    Comment – A couple of spelling points: I can't find "activately" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in BrEng "horticultural" (as in the Royal H. Society) has two "u"s. – Tim riley talk 20:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed and fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A few comments on prose:

    • Cultivars
      • "United Kingdom-based" – troubles with hyphens! This is in what Fowler characterises as "superfluous hair-remover" territory. "UK-based", or better, just "British", will get you out of the fix. (Although it is at least arguable that the location of the nursery is irrelevant in any case.)
    • Now "British". I think it's location is somewhat important, since the cultivar wasn't selected there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Description
      • "The inflorescence is a showy panicle" – I don't doubt it, but isn't "showy" rather a disparaging word? (In the lead section, also.)
    • Something of a term of art in floral botany, if informally so. Several of the sources use it. Although I concede that it may not strike the appropriate tone for a lay reader. Let me consider what to do here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Planting and care
      • "Reasonably tolerant" – "reasonably" seems an odd adverb here. Somehow "reason" and plants don't sit well together. A less judgemental word such as "quite" might look more natural.
    • Cut the adverb entirely. With cited claims that people grow this thing all the way into Zone 3, I don't think it needs a qualifier. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Third para – I have noticed at PRs and FACs an insistence that the first mention of the subject in each paragraph must be a noun rather than a pronoun. This has always seemed dotty to me, is not the practice of other major works of reference, and I can't find it stipulated in the MoS. Nevertheless, I simply mention it here, for your consideration.
    • If our MOS actually says this, or someone specifically objects, I'll... cry. And then see about fixing it. But I'm inclined to consider that a hypercorrection. Additionally, a quick survey shows that paragraphs starting with a personal pronoun are present in many of our FA-level biography articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good! I might start pushing my luck on this point at future FACs I take articles to. Tim riley talk 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Third para – if, as seems from the earlier text, the plant is grown on several continents, it seems anomalous to single out a solitary American example for mention.
    • It is grown in many places, but its use in xeriscaping, at least in the literature, is indeed centered in the American Intermountain West. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Landscaping
      • Second para – as above in re opening pronoun.
    • Propagation
      • in order to germinate – "in order to" is almost always an unnecessarily woolly way of saying "to", and I think probably is so here.
    • Nope. From the latter MOS link: "When archaic spelling is used in the title of a work, modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passim
      • To my mind there are more links than is ideal, and the reader is rather overwhelmed by the sea of blue. As a wise editor put it recently, linking "depends on the context … how likely it is that someone will want to go read that article." I concur, and on that basis would question the desirability of linking to traditional medicine, species description, aromatic, range (biology), shoot, greenhouse, plant nursery, traditional medicine, colorant and textile dye. I shan't press the point, if you feel strongly that these links are likely to prove helpful to a reader at some time.

    That's all from me. A most informative article, well sourced and comprehensible even by a layman like me. – Tim riley talk 12:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delinked aromatic, colorant, greenhouse, and plant nursery as either "everyday words understood by most readers in context" or insufficiently specific to the topic (per WP:MOSLINK). Retained links to species description and range (biology) (the latter glossing "distributed") because they are senses of the terms that may not be immediately familiar to lay readers. I would prefer to retain the links to traditional medicine and dyeing as "relevant connections to the subject of another article". The link to shoot was requested by Sasata earlier in this FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support – My few quibbles having been satisfactorily addressed, and finding nothing that fails to meet the FA criteria, I am happy to support the promotion of this admirable article to FA. Tim riley talk 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support I didn't think there was much wrong with this first time around, well formed now. I don't like the two left-aligned pics breaking up the text though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOSIM suggests that images be staggered. Strictly speaking, that means that the position of the last three images should be reversed, but I'm unconvinced that doing so results in a more appealing layout. I'm self-avowedly a poor judge of aesthetics; would you prefer that we shuffle the images in some specific way? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from JM edit

    This strikes me as a very strong article, so I'm happy to support straight away. Just a few very small comments:

    • "stellate" is not a term that the majority of readers will know. I may be wrong, but I'm inclined to say that a link, explanation or rephrase would be good.
    • "It is most commonly planted as an accent feature,[47] but is also used as filler,[51] or in island beds and naturalized areas." Is this a bit jargon-heavy? I confess that I'm only really guessing what any of this means.
    • "has been discouraged by some gardening guides out of concern for its potential to spread,[71]" Tiny little thing, but you claim that "some" books say this, while only citing one. Does your source specify that other books (also) recommend this?
    • "Several terpenoid alcohols—borneol, cedrol, and menthol—[82] have" This strikes me as very unnatural reference placement, not least because it messes up your dash spacing. I'd treat those dashes like brackets: "Several terpenoid alcohols—borneol, cedrol, and menthol[82]—have". Is there anything in the MOS about this?
    • I'll confess that this is beyond the limits of my MOS mastery, but I agree it looks funny. MOS experts, is this an exception to "references are always outside the punctuation"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is indeed an exception; one might almost say the exception. See WP:REFPUNC: "Exceptions: ref tags are placed before dashes, not after; and where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." Tim riley talk 07:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then. You learn something new about the MOS every time you come to FAC, I think. Corrected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you particularly attached to "an herbal"? I know some do not consider it non-standard, but it's very ugly to my British eyes.
    • Cut "herbal". I'm sad about this, but since there are two editors who are strongly opposed to it... Over on the American side of the pond, that construction is very widely used because we pronounce it "erbal". But I'll grant that it must look largely illiterate to an international audience, so I'll do without. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't looked at the sources in detail, but what I saw looked fine- if a source review comes back clean/any problems are resolved I'm happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Chiswick Chap edit

    It looks a very nice article.

    • I'd suggest adding "Italy" to the image caption "Used as a border in the Trauttmansdorff Castle Gardens" as the country is not obvious.
    • On the cladogram, why the odd formatting and capitalisation of "Other Clade I Salvia"? It looks as if "Clade I" needs some explanation in the text; why is one clade getting a name but not the other two (and is that a 1 or a capital letter i)? I'd suggest that the upper branch of the clade (all the mentioned Salvias) should be labelled to make clear what is being talked about; further, I suggest it would be worth including a wider branch to "Other Salvia" to show the polyphyly.
    • Clade I (it's a capital I, as in the Roman numeral) is mentioned in text, somewhat. Let me sandbox some options here; I don't want to dive too deeply into Salvia cladistics in this non-Salvia species-level article, but I'll see if there's an option that doesn't burn too much page real estate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sold on the appearance, but I've widened the cladogram to show Salvia Clades II and III. Thoughts? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Know what you mean, but thanks, it's a lot clearer.
    • Lamiaceae remains a little unfamiliar to many readers; perhaps gloss it with "(the labiates)" or "(formerly Labiatae)" to help people along.
    • Glossed it as a family on first appearance. I'd prefer to avoid giving older synonyms for Lamiaceae in this article, as they're somewhat out of scope here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok.
    • In Uses, you mention the essential oil in Phytochemistry but not whether people use that essential oil for massage, folk medicine, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not insofar as reliable sources report. Traditional uses were prepared differently, and the massage oil / aromatherapy industry largely sticks to Salvia sclarea (clary sage). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As there seems very little wrong here, if this sails through its source checks as I expect, I'm happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I especially like the Uses sect. Conditional support pending someone uploading a sound file free-use licensed to Wikimedia Commons of them saying pronunciation of the title of this article, and then another one of them saying it five times fast. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2015 [62].

    Romney Literary Society edit

    Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a literary society that shaped the cultural development of a rural region of Virginia (and later West Virginia) during the 19th century. This is the most comprehensive article in existence illustrating the society's activities and history. Any guidance and feedback that would allow me to further improve this article to FA status would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments and questions. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Ssven2 edit

    • "The nine men at the society's first meeting were Thomas Blair, David Gibson, James P. Jack, Samuel Kercheval, Jr., Nathaniel Kuykendall, Charles T. Magill, James M. Stephens, John Temple, and William C. Wodrow" — A small question: Isn't there any link to any of them?
    • I will be working on forthcoming articles for David Gibson (a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and builder of Sycamore Dale), Samuel Kercheval, Jr. (the son of noted historian Samuel Kercheval), and Nathaniel Kuykendall (affiliated with the Nathaniel and Isaac Kuykendall House). In the meantime, however, I've left them un-linked until their articles are completed, although I am not opposed to red-linking them if need be. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the remaining funds were to be used for the purchase of books for the library" — "the remaining funds were to be used in purchasing books for the library".
    • This is a much better reconstruction of the sentence for flow, and I have incorporated in this form. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "According to historian Hu Maxwell, these men elected Kuykendall as chairman and Magill as secretary" and "The society's first elected officers were Charles T. Magill as president, William C. Wodrow as secretary, and John Temple as treasurer" — Just a clartification on who was secretary of the committee.
    • I've changed the sentence to read as: "According to historian Hu Maxwell, these men elected Kuykendall as chairman and Magill as secretary of a committee which was charged with the drafting of a constitution for the society." Magill was secretary of the constitutional committee, but following its organization, Wodrow was named the secretary of the society. Let me know if this needs to be made clearer in the prose. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The affirmative won the debate" — Can you clearly specify as to which side won it? Maybe try "The debate ended under the decision that a system of banking was advantageous."
    • Thank you for the suggestion! I've incorporated "The debate ended under the decision that a system of banking was advantageous" into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's pretty much all from me. Excellent work on the article, West Virginian. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ssven2, thank you for taking the time to provide your suggestions and guidance. I've responded to your first comment and I've incorporated your other suggestions. Please take another look and let me know if I need to address any further issues. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    West Virginian, thank you for resolving my comments. I now hereby give my support. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • File:Plutarch.gif needs a US PD tag
    • File:Confederate_Memorial_Romney_WV_2015_06_08_01.jpg: since the US does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a licensing tag for the work itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria, thank you for engaging in an image review for this article. I've removed the periods from the image captions, and I've gone a step further by adding alt captions without periods as well. I've also added the "PD-US" template to the image of Plutarch and added the "FoP-US" template to the image of the Confederate Memorial. The memorial was completed in 1867, and is therefore not covered under the under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that architectural works completed after December 1, 1990 are protected. Thank you again for the image review, and please let me know if you find anything else that needs to be corrected or adjusted in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FoP-US is an appropriate tag for architectural works like buildings - I think this particular work is much closer in character to a sculptural work, and thus a different tag would be more appropriate. Given the dates, probably the pre-1923 tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria, as there is no "FoP-1923" template or license, I've kept the "FoP-US" and added "PD-1923." I couldn't find any other licenses or templates that would apply outside of those two. Please let me know if this works. If not, I will remove this image from the template until a resolution can be found. Thanks again for the image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I wasn't clear: FoP-US does not apply to this image and should not be used - PD-1923 is fine for the monument along with the licensing tag for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Neutralhomer edit

    Excellent work. No issues with Checklinks, great use of sources and the almost sole use of print sources (which I love). Prose and grammar is excellent, no run-ons or any other kind of problem. Nice use of current and historic photos as well.

    There was one image that I moved from the "West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind" section to the "Final years" section as it was squishing the text in the middle. This isn't a big issue, but I know some editors frown on squished text.

    Other than that, you have done a great job. Well done. This article has my full support. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough review of this article and for relocating the image! Your suggestions and guidance are always appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Crisco comments edit

    Lede edit
    • was a 19th-century literary society in existence from January 30, 1819, to February 15, 1886, in Romney, West Virginia. - Having the span stated twice in the same sentence is redundant.
    • Established in 1819 - You just said it existed from January 30, 1819, to February 15, 1886, so "In 1819" isn't necessary
    • religious, political, and social topics, and often violated its own constitution's rules banning religious and political subjects. - should probably rework to avoid having "political" and "religious" mentioned twice
    • The society's library began in 1819 with the acquisition of two books; by 1861, the society's library - repetition (The society's library ... the society's library)
    • Between 1869 and 1870, the society completed construction of Literary Hall, where it held meetings and reassembled its library. In 1870, - best to avoid repeating "1870"
    • Interest in the society waned during its final years, and its final meeting was held on February 15, 1886. - you mention date the society ended above — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chris Woodrich, thank you for the review of the lede. I've made the necessary modifications per all the above comments and suggestions. Thank you tremendously for the review. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Cas Liber edit

    Okay taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are alot of "society"s in the lead.... better
    • it had grown to contain approximately 3,000 volumes, consisting of books on literature, science, history, and art. - 2 "book"s in this sentence. Could trim/rejig to, "it had grown to contain approximately 3,000 volumes on (subjects such as) literature, science, history, and art." (maybe even do without my addition either...)
    • ..Romney community in the office of Dr. John Temple. - do we know what Temple was? A physician/pastor/etc. - be good to put in....
    • With its establishment in 1819, - redundant. (you've explained when it was founded just beforehand)
    • Cas Liber, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I've tried to remove some of the instances of "society" in the lede so please take a look and let me know if I need to remove a few more. I also modified the sentence on the library's volumes per your suggestion and removed "1819" per your fourth comment. I haven't been able to find evidence of Temple's profession, as most mentions of him in available sources just refer to him as "Dr." Should I just remove the prefix of "Dr."? Thank you again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, I think I'd leave it in. I suspect he is a medico, and I think any extra information helps paint a picture/context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, upon searching for "Dr. Temple" versus "John Temple," I was able to find a source confirming him as a reputable local physician in Romney. Let me know if this added detail to the end of the existing sentence works. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    *Any mention anywhere why it was going to have "Polemic" in the title?

    • The available sources do not mention the intention behind adding "Polemic" to the title, but I would assume that it was added since the society was also a debating society, in addition to being a literary one. Do you have any recommendations for how to state this assessment, without it being classified as "original research"? Or, should I just wiki-link "Polemic" to wiktionary? -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'd just leave it unlinked as we are unaware of what was meant - that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd link 'tariff' and "incorporating"
    • The society members that returned home to Romney were too war-weary and discouraged - I reckon we could lose "discouraged" - sits oddly there anyway.
    • I've reviewed your edits and rephrasings, and I find that they improve the article's flow, and make the sentences less cluttered than they were before. I'm very appreciative of your efforts! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Overall a charming little article and is looking good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cas Liber, thank you tremendously for your review, and for taking the time to engage in a copyedit as well. I appreciate your guidance and suggestions. Please let me know if you have any outstanding issues with the article, or suggestions, and thank you for the kind words. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok - tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose (as it is not an area I am familiar with). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas Liber, thank you tremendously for your review and for your support. Your guidance is always valued and appreciated. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Short comment from Brianboulton edit

    Sorry to join the party so late, but I saw this while surfing the page, and thought it looked interesting. Not time, I'm afraid, for a full review, but here are a few suggestions on tightening up the lead prose:

    • At present, the words "literary society" occur three times in the opening line. The third mention is unnecessary; you could easily say: "The Romney Literary Society (also known as the Literary Society of Romney) existed from..." etc
    • "founded by nine prominent men in Romney" → "founded by nine prominent Romney men"
    • "with the purpose of" → "with the objectives of" (the nplural is importsnt here)
    • "The society debated an extensive range of subjects including scientific and social topics, and often violated its own constitution's rules banning religious and political subjects." Suggest rephrase: "The society debated an extensive range of scientific and social topics, often violating its own rules which banned religious and political subjects."
    • The words "on subjects such as literature, science, history, and art" are not really necessary – they are the subjects you's expect a literary society's library to contain.
    • The wording "commenced a movement to establish" is a bit clunky – why not e.g. "sought to establish"?
    • "In 1846, the society constructed a new building..." Delete "new" (tautologous)
    • "...and offered its former Romney Classical Institute campus to the state for the institution." Suggest rephrase: "and offered the school its former Romney Classical Institute campus."
    • Delete "their bid was successful – you've covered this with "The organization used its influence to secure..."

    I believe that these tweaks will enhance the article's readability. I wish I had time for a more detailed review, but I do wish you sucess with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Brianboulton, I've incorporated all your suggestions into the lede section. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for further improvement and readability. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Johanna edit

    Hi West Virginian!

    • Probably should be that existed" not "in existence"
    • This has been modified per an above mentioned suggestion.
    • "Even though the its membership" remove the
    • Done!
    • Should be "a leading role"
    • Done!
    • Is there any material from "academic patronage" in the lead?
    • "academic patronage" is covered in the third paragraph of the lede.
    • Are there any files that could work in the first two sections?
    • Unfortunately not, but should I find any images of the men mentioned, I will include them in the future.
    • The establishment section is a bit underlinked--are there any more hyperlinks that you could add?
    • At the present, there are no articles for the individuals involved. In the future, when I have time, I do plan to write an article for David Gibson.
    • Why does it say "present-day West Virginia?" It wasn't already WV then?
    • West Virginia did not become a state until June 20, 1863 during the American Civil War. It was Virginia then.
    • "Resolved: That a representative should be governed by instructions from his constituents." Do we have any idea what this title means or what the debate was about?
    • The sources do not say, but I speculate that the debate was over whether representatives should vote based on their personal beliefs or the consensus of their constituents.
    • You use the phrase "debated the question" twice in one paragraph
    • Thank you for the catch; I've changed the second instance to "argued"
    • Do we have any numbers on this growth in membership?
    • Unfortunately, records are not extant or available to quantify this growth.
    • "On July 2, 1819, the balance of available funds…" How much was "sufficient funds"?
    • The references do not quantify the sufficient funds.
    • "The society's humble library" the word "humble" is slightly POV—"small library" would be better.
    • Done!
    • "By resolutions of the society, the use of the library was extended to the society's members" This part of the sentence is confusing—if it wasn't for use of the society before, what exactly was it used for?
    • Re-rendered this as "By resolutions of the society, the use of the library was for the society's members, and was further extended to "ministers of the gospel of all denominations gratis.""
    • "continued to grow in importance and influence" How?
    • The references stipulate this but do not go into specifics. I have ideas as to how but I wanted to avoid original research.
    • Considering that the next section is called "Revival", use a different word than "irreparable." :)
    • I've changed this to extensive.
    • Thank you for the suggestion! I've been toying with this possibility as well.
    • "This period of revival was short-lived" which period of revival? You just mentioned a probable hiatus for six years in the previous sentence.
    • I've changed the sentence to "The post-war period of revival" as the period of revival is the entire period after the war. The six years of records are missing, but there were activities during that time.
    • Back to the earlier point about files--some images of members might be nice.
    • As stated above, I hope to acquire images of some of the earlier members so that the intro paragraphs are not so sparse. Thank you for the suggestion!

    @West Virginian: Just a few comments! I love this article, and it's very interesting. I wouldn't have any worries about it passing. Just a few comments, mostly prose tweaks, and then I can support. It's amazing that it's pretty much all offline sources! By the way, when you get a chance, could you look at my first ever FAC? I would really appreciate it. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Johanna, thank you so incredibly much for your comprehensive and thoughtful review of this article. Unfortunately, the available sources at my disposal do not offer further elaboration or detail, but as I come across additional images and information, I will incorporate them into this article. Thank you again for this review, and for all your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia! - -West Virginian (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinator note: Requested a source review at WT:FAC. Please let me know if there's been one I didn't see. --Laser brain (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Nice work on the Legacy section, and good work with the sourcing and citation style used. I wonder if there are any descendants of the original society still around the area. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cirt, thank you so incredibly much for the review and for your kind words. There are many descendants of the original society's members in the region. As time allows, I will be writing articles for additional members, and notable descendants. Thanks again for taking the time to review. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, sounds promising, you're most welcome! Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review edit

    • All of the sources are fine and the citation style seems to be in order. I fixed one problem of the named ref not matching up with the short cite. The only other issue is that you have Atkinson and Gibbens in the bibliography, but do not cite to it. I'd say either remove it or shift it to a "further reading" section. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coemgenus, thank you for engaging in the source review for the article; and thank you for fixing the short cite. I've removed Atkinson and Gibbens from the Bibliography, since I didn't end up sourcing content from that reference. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2015 [63].

    Yugoslav monitor Vardar edit

    Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was an Austro-Hungarian river monitor that served under two names in the Danube Flotilla during World War I, during which she fought the the Serbian Army, the Romanian Navy and Army, and the French Army. After the war she was transferred to the the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and renamed. During the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, she laid mines in the Danube near the Romanian border, and fought off several attacks by the Luftwaffe, but was forced to withdraw to Belgrade. Due to high river levels and low bridges, her navigation was difficult, and she was scuttled by her crew on 11 April. Passed Milhist A-Class review in March this year, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Yugoslav_monitor_Vardar.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the given source was the first then the tags would be incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Nikki, I completely forgot to add that JFSOWW2 is a reprint of the 1946/47 Jane's. The pic was in the original, have added that detail to the image description. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but this still presents an issue with regards to licensing - the current tagging requires that the image be first published in Yugoslavia, but Jane's is British. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming that was indeed the first publication, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I reckon it was in an earlier edition of Jane's too. I'll check at the library. I'll ping you when I have checked. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily...if the 1942 Jane's was the first publication, this would be PD in the UK and fine for Commons. However, if this was published at any point before that outside of the UK, we'd need to re-evaluate and might only be able to host locally. Either way you'll need to include a licensing tag to indicate why it's free in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found it as early as 1933, but it still doesn't seem to have been published in the US, and I can't see any applicable PD-US tag. It seems to me that I'll need to re-upload it on WP with the UK-unknown tag and a NFR. Does the fact that it appears to have been an official Yugoslav photo help in any way, Nikkimaria? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe Yugoslavia had any provision to make government works PD automatically, so not unless it was published there. UK first publication would have UK law apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I believe that the law on succession issues means that official governmental works (such as official photographs of naval vessels) are PD, and that a {{PD-Yugoslavia}} and {{PD-SerbiaGov}} will cover it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry this has dragged on so much, Nikkimaria, but I think I have adequately covered the licensing of this image now using the Yugoslav laws of succession and PD-SerbiaGov. Could you have another look? Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll need a US PD tag of some sort as well. With that this could work, although I'm not entirely sure "1933 Photo Official" is enough to determine that SerbiaGov applies...Chris, care to weigh in? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Short of evidence otherwise, it strikes me as a reasonable assumption, as a Navy photograph would still be created by the government. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then SerbiaGov + a US tag should be good. Nikkimaria (talk)
    Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments: Overall, this looks quite polished. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "support of the resulting bridgehead, Temes provided close support" (seems a bit repetitious). Perhaps substitute the first instance of "support"
    • in the interwar period, there appears to be a gap of about 21 years in terms of coverage. While I understand that the sources probably don't go into too much detail about this, is it possible to include maybe even just a short sentence about what the ship did over this period?
    • "larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo by 14 April when they were obliged to surrender..." (is it possible to say why? I assume it was because of encirclement by German and or Italian troops, or something similar). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day AustralianRupert. Thanks for the review! First and third points addressed. Re: second point, there is a general observation by the British naval attache in 1932 about lack of training and exercises due to budgetary constraints (which I've added), but there is nothing else I have been able to find, even in Yugoslav sources. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Ceradon edit

    • I'll jot some notes below. Hope to support. --ceradon 01:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    World War I
    • "The position of Romania was uncertain" -- could you clarify what position you mean. When I saw that, I immediately thought that you were referring to the geographical position of Romania, which I don't think makes any sense. Thus, judging by the rest of the sentence, I suppose you mean "geopolitical situation"?

    That's the only quibble I have. Happy to support promotion. Thank you, --ceradon 04:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks ready, @FAC coordinators: . Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Good writing style, readable and yet concise in nature. Most educational and a nice example of encyclopedic content. Thanks for improving this article and making it available at such high quality for our readers. — Cirt (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Mike Christie edit

    • "the monitors' navigation was difficult, and she was scuttled by her crew on 11 April": suggest "Vardar was scuttled", since the last reference to Vardar, rather than the pair of monitors, is a couple of sentences earlier.
      • Great pick-up. Fixed.
    • You have "Bosna/Temes/Bosna" in the name field in the infobox; any reason not to include "Varda"? Similarly you give details of the renaming from Temes to Bosna in the notes, but not of the renaming to Varda.
      • Yes, she was never called Vardar in A-H service.
    • "In November 1915, the other monitors were assembled at Rustschuk, Bulgaria": meaning that Bosna was not there? In which case where was it? You don't mention any movement of Bosna to join the other monitors in the next couple of sentences, but it appears that Bosna was at Rustschuk during the later engagement.
      • At that time, she was called Temes and was being repaired at Budapest. She wasn't renamed Bosna until 9 May 1917. It is confusing, as the name was used for two different vessels.
        OK; yes, it's confusing! I think the issue for me is you don't really make it clear when she re-enters the narrative. Is she still being repaired during the action of 27 August 1916? If so, I think the five sentences leading that paragraph could be compressed a little, as Temes was not involved in any of that action. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, she was back in service at that point, I have added a bit to clarify. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Flottenabteilung Wulff" is treated as singular ("was sent" and "it spent") and then plural ("they returned"). In British English I think this would be singular; I assume this is in Australian English?
      • No, my mistake, should be a formation and treated as singular. Fixed.
    • "On 16 October, she": suggest making this "On 16 October, Bosna" since the last specific mention is some time earlier.
      • It now says what you're suggesting.
    • In the lead it's not apparent that some of the men were killed in the accidental explosion. If the source doesn't make it specific enough to be sure that men from Vardar in particular were killed, I think some phrasing such as you use in the body of the article would work.
      • I think I've clarified this?
    • The lead says the men were captured by the Italians, but in the body it says they were captured by German troops.
      • Actually there were two teams from the combined group, some captured by the Germans at Sarajevo, the smaller one by the Italians at Kotor. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let me know if I've misunderstood your comments? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

    Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Mike! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2015&oldid=688336529"