Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)Edit

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Alexandra Stan's second studio album, Unlocked (2014), released after her highly-mediatized violent event with former manager Marcel Prodan. I have nominated Unlocked for FAC several times in the past, but the last time it did attract almost no comments, although I had worked extensively on the article's prose. For reasons why I feel like this should become a FA, please see the last FAC here. Thank you as always for comments! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Æthelbald, King of WessexEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Æthelbald was the first of four brothers who were successively Kings of Wessex, the youngest of whom was Alfred the Great. This is a short article as very little is known about Æthelbald, but still the fullest account of him anywhere so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike ChristieEdit

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • There's some repetitious phrasing at the end of the first paragraph of the lead: we have "kept Wessex", "kept Kent", and "keeping the west" five times in two sentences.
  • Revised taking account of the conflicting views on the division of Wessex. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Are the sources unambiguous in taking Æthelbald's genealogical connection to Cerdic at face value? I know Cerdic is generally thought to be real, and not a legendary figure, but I'm sure I recall discussions in Yorke or Kirby about how kings of Wessex might have manufactured connections to Cerdic.
  • I too remember reading about doubts about Cerdic. Historians do not qualify when talking about descent from him being required for æthelings, but added "believed to be". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After Æthelwulf's death, you say Æthelbald then became the king of Wessex, which is confusing because Æthelbald was already king of Wessex -- "Most historians state that Æthelbald kept Wessex" is a couple of sentences above. I think some qualification is needed.
  • Done. (I am thinking of writing an off-Wiki article defending the minority view). Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Æthelwulf left a bequest to Æthelbald, Æthelred and Alfred, with the provision that whoever lived the longest was to inherit the whole: I think this could be expanded with more of the details that Keynes and Lapidge give in their long footnote on p. 314 -- the mention of Æthelwulf's bookland, and his probable desire that the land be undivided. I see from "it may have been intended to provide for the younger sons" that this is not undisputed, but the details are interesting and relate directly to Æthelbald.
  • The views in the p. 314 footnote are contested - in my opinion rightly - by other historians. I went in to a little more detail in the Æthelwulf article but I did not think I needed to repeat the discussion here. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • With two reliable sources noting suspicions of S 1274, it might be worth adding a parenthetical "(possibly forged)" or something similar, despite Keynes.
  • I am doubtful. Looking at the comments on charters listed in Sawyer there are plenty that are agreed to be fakes but very few which are agreed by all reliable sources to be genuine. The comments by Nelson and Dumville were passing remarks which pre-date Keynes's detailed study of a set of mid 9C charters, including the two of Æthelbald, arguing that they were products of a royal writing office. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The articles by Lawrence on the forged coins, cited in Grierson and Blackburn, are available on Google Books; it might be worth adding a citation directly to those sources, since Lawrence goes into more detail than G&B do.
  • Done. (I could not find the first in Google books but I found it in Jstor.)
  • if so Æthelbald's early death allowed Æthelberht reverse the intention: looks like a word has been omitted?

Looks good; just the minor issues above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    All the above looks good. Before I support, there are some inconsistencies in location usage in the sources -- some have locations and some don't. There are also some hyphens in the page ranges. This script flags both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mike. I have run the script and added the missing locations. I am getting error messages because ODNB sources do not have page numbers. Do you know how I fix this? Also I have run the script for fixing hyphens but I am still getting errors messages for hyphens in pg ranges. If you do not know the answers to these queries I can raise them with Lingzhi. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    I think Lingzhi has retired, or at least is not currently active. As far as I'm aware the script will still show errors in some cases that probably don't apply, so it's a bit annoying; I leave it enabled all the time since I just ignore the errors once I've looked at them, but you could also comment the script out once you've used it. The dashes script is also not working for me; I don't know who maintains that. I've been having problems with the nominations viewer too so I thought it was just me but perhaps it's actually broken at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Mike. What does "comment the script out" mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    If you edit your commons.js to have a "//" in front of the script line, it will turn it into a comment, which means it won't run -- it's just inactive text sitting in that file. When you want to use it, you can delete the "//" again and it will become active. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just a few things.

  • "three kindreds" I'm not sure what this means. Families? Clans?
  • It means something a bit wider than family and much narrower than clan - maybe extended family and its ancestors or branch of Cerdic's descendants. I cannot think of a good word to replace kindred - unless kin group is better?
  • "to the family of royal and princely allies which Charles was creating.[19]" consider something like "coalition" for "family".
  • Coalition is too strong as they never acted together. I have changed to "network".
  • "S 1274 is the first surviving West Saxon charter to require a contribution to fortification work, " I might say "oldest" for "first".
  • Changed to "earliest".
  • Has anything been said about his reputation in the past 1100 years?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • William of Malmesbury condemned him but his comments were copied from Asser. R. H. Hodgkin also adopted Asser's views in 1935, but modern historians do not given an opinion, I assume because the only source is Asser and he was obviously biassed against Æthelbald. It is difficult to say anything without POV, but I will have a think about it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

James Wood BushEdit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about James Wood Bush a Civil War soldier who saw service in the US Navy and suffered injuries because of it. He was uniquely recognized in later life for his service in the war with a US governmental pension when Hawaii transitioned into a US territory. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman, J. R. Kealoha and Prince Romerson. It has been an A-list quality article for a while following the same trajectory of GA than A-class review. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. Copyedit was done recently. I’m gonna ping all the reviewers (non-closers) who have looked at this article or the previous three articles for an opinion. Comment if you have time... KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wb, Kavebear. FWIW, pings don't work unless you sign in the same edit that you ping. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Iry-Hor, Coemgenus, Wehwalt, Casliber, Maile66, Dank, Dudley Miles, Hchc2009, AustralianRupert, ErrantX, Sainsf, Nick-D, and Maury Markowitz:, thanks for letting me know, did that work? KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It worked, but I've retired from the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USS_Vandalia_(1828)_sketch.jpg: if the source is Harper's, why is this believed to be a US Navy work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: It was a holdover from the original upload. Changed it. Image was published in 1861.KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any obvious prose issues that need fixing and I suspect it is about as comprehensive as it can be (however I know little of the subject and context). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Lonsdale BeltEdit

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article explains the origins of the oldest boxing championship belt in the UK and arguably the world. It also details the rules for holding the belt and how they have changed, the inaugural winners at each weight, and lists every single outright winner. Information about thefts and sales are also featured. I have enjoyed expanding and improving this article over the past few months. i believe it is now in a good state and would love for more people to learn about this prestigious prize, and it's winners. Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Support, a beautiful article which is detailed in the long history of the belt - you should be proud! Coventryy (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

John GlennEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7, Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Six Distinguished Flying Crosses, eighteen Air Medals. First American to orbit the Earth. Four-time Ohio senator. Oldest person to fly in space.

This article covers the good and the bad of his life. The article failed an A-class review, failed a FAC, passed an A-class review, and is back at FAC. I have greatly expanded his Senate career, got some images from the Senate Historical Office, and used a larger variety of sources. If you took a look at it last time or not, I would love for you to take a look at it this time! Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Aldus ManutiusEdit

Nominator(s): Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Aldus Manutius was the first printer to use a standardized Greek font for publication. Greek type was unheard of before Manutius. Currently, scholars consider his contribution to have saved many rare manuscripts that would not have been published otherwise. He is integral in the preservation of Greek manuscripts and also promoted contemporary humanists authors as well as Latin classics with more accurate translations. Manutius also promoted a smaller, portable book that is the predecessor of the modern paperback. Gandhi (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Aldus_Manutius.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Virgil_1501_Aldus_Manutius.jpg
  • File:Bust_of_Aldo_Manuzio._Panteon_Veneto;_Istituto_Veneto_di_Scienze,_Lettere_ed_Arti.jpg needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Aldo_Manuzio_Aristotele.jpg has the wrong tag - under US law reproducing a 2D work garners no new copyright, and this definitely isn't own work
  • File:Manutius.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The CloistersEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Museum in New York City specialising in European medieval architecture, sculpture and decorative arts, especially on the Romanesque and Gothic periods. The Cloisters building and early collection was funded by John D. Rockefeller, and is today governed by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. There was a very useful and rewarding peer review a few months ago, which can be found here. Note the Metropolitan's engagement with Wikipedia has been exemplary, and they were kind enough to release all their image content last year. Lingzhi was very helpful in sorting out all the refs, no small job. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


I participated in the peer review. My comments were addressed, but on re-reading, I'd add the following:

  • "and relocated in New York." I would say "to" for "in".
  • "he had amassed enough quality artifacts to open a gallery in Manhattan, New York.[8]" Generally, Manhattan does not take a New York, unless you were saying "Manhattan, New York City" which would be unusual. I think the name "Manhattan" is enough by itself.
  • " Its most well known" probably "Its best known" is better.
  • "about one million US dollars" since this is a US article, the "US" is probably unneeded.
  • "The collections' pot-metal works (that is containing colorants from the High Gothic period highlight the effects of light,[34] especially the transitions between darkness, shadow and illumination.[35] " You open a parens and do not close it.
    "Each of these book are of exceptional quality," should book be books?
  • "the consensus was that the Cloisters should focus on architectural elements and sculpture and decorative arts to enhance the environmental quality of the institution, " and ... and
  • "with the intention that it was donated to the Metropolitan.[45]" Whose intent?
  • "Thus it had been rarely studied or widely appreciated, and was until that point also attributed to Jean Pucelle. " I might say "misattributed" for "attributed also". In any event, I'd at least get rid of the "also"
  • "until rediscovered by Barnard who organized for the entrances' transfer to New York. " I would say "arranged" for "organized".
  • "and are baldly damaged; most have been decapitated." should "baldly" be "badly"? (although decapitaton is the ultimate baldness, I suppose.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for these, and for edits also. All corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help and final support.Ceoil (talk)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:John_D._Rockefeller_Jr..jpg: when/where was this first published?
Swapped out, with a PD. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • File:The_Hunt_of_the_Unicorn_Tapestry_4.jpg: source link is dead
Replaced file. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Because the US doesn't have freedom of panorama for sculptural works, these will need explicit tags for the original works
  • File:4_Jean_Pucelle._Hours_of_Jeanne_d'Evreux._1325-28,_Metropolitan_Museum,_New-York.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Psalter_of_Bonne_de_Luxembourg.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You've also got some harverrors in your references that will need fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Have updated the references. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Spotchecks of style and proseEdit

As an acquaintance I will "recuse" (which I suppose means this technically carries no weight without a stick!), but can you look at these:

  • The infobox says the collection size is "1854" (very specific!) while the text says "approximately five thousand individual pieces". I'm going to guess the box is wrong, but is there a reference you can add here.
  • Removed claim from infobox. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noticed the journal citations don't include page numbers. I'm not sure if this is an "allowable" citation variation or an oversight.
  • Working through; these had all been there at one stage; didn't realise they were mandatory. Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Capitalization: "Cuxa Cloisters" vs "Saint-Guilhem cloisters", etc. Do the texts capitalize the latter word here. In any event those four sections should be consistent in this regard.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Repeat the above with respect to the chapels: "Gothic Chapel [heading]: The Gothic chapel...".
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I have to ask the same of pluralization of "Cloister(s)". Should individual cloisters be termed "cloister" in headings and elsewhere? I wonder how the sources refer to them. I bring this up because the text has "Cuxa Cloisters" and "Cuxa Cloister" currently, for example.
  • ok done now. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • While I don't know what MOS:ELLIPSIS says until I look, you have spaced and unspaced: " ... " and "...".
  • Yes point, but done. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You have "compromising of", where you mean "comprising of", where you mean "comprised of", where you could probably do away with the word altogether: "through a doorway compromising of a of large, elaborate French Gothic stone entrance" perhaps? Doorway and entrance redundant.
  • Have more or less gone with your wording, which is much better. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not a sentence: "The current chairman of the board, when the businessman and art collector Daniel Brodsky was elected in 2011,[133] having previously served on its Real Estate Council (1984), as a trustee of the museum and Vice Chairman of the Buildings Committee."
  • This has been turned into a sentence now. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The article has "art work", "artwork" and "art-work" or plurals of same. I believe "wikt:artwork" is best.
  • Yes, now all "artwork". Ceoil (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Two "reflect"s in one sentence: "With secular pieces, it typically favors those that reflect the range of artistic production in the medieval period, and according to art historian Timothy Husband, "reflect ..."
  • The names of two plays at the end should be in italics.
  • ok, Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Three captions in "Illuminated manuscripts" have italicized names for particular images within the manuscripts, while putting the manuscript name in quotes. I would argue for the opposite treatment, as the manuscript articles use italics for their titles; e.g. "The Arrest of Christ" and "The Annunciation to Mary" [two pages, two images]. Jean Pucelle, Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux
No, I think Ceoil is right here. MS names like "Hours of Jeanne d'Evreux" are the names of objects, not the titles of works. With the miniatures it is the opposite. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm used to seeing them italicized here. Outriggr (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the paragraph about film locations would go well with the very short final section, where the building is noted as an interesting location for plays.
  • Not clear about acquisition date mentioned in this sentence, if she began in 1969: "Jane Hayward, a curator at the museum from 1969 ...... She bought c. 1500 heraldic windows from the Rhineland, now in the Campin room with the Mérode Altarpiece, acquired in 1950."

Outriggr (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Outriggr, as we are long term collaborators, yes fine, of course, on you not voting either way. Working through your helpful suggestions, and txs. Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from GerdaEdit

I remember that the peer review was a pleasure, with many suggestions taken. Looking again, only minor concerns:


  • I could imagine a few lines about today, instead of ending in 1938.
  • More added here. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Do we have a parameter to mention Metropolitain Museum of Art?
  • Dont know, dont care. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Today, I see an empty section as #1, two sections called collection on different levels, - that could be improved.
  • I wonder why it's Langon Chapel but Romanesque hall, instead of Romanesque Hall, etc.
  • Both sorted. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


  • I understand the wish to illustrate the extraordinary treasures, but feel that in some sections, less might be more. How about a few galleries, instead of text squeezed between images right and left? I prefer to start with an image "right" in a new section, and no overlap of sections, but that may just be me.
  • Improvement. Its been hard though, as have spent the last few years writing the daughter articles. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


  • Deuchler is defined twice, both 1971, - probably one should be 1974, probably the second, but I am not sure enough to just change it.
  • Both are 1971, but sorted.
  • Three refs look unused, and if intentionally, should go to further reading.
  • Please be less obtuse, so can address. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I plan to read the article again, but not tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Working through these. Am inclined to agree with re images, but don't have a solution just yet. A few were cut today. I'm not particularly bothered if you plan to read the article again. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Political Animals and Animal PoliticsEdit

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Political Animals and Animal Politics is a 2014 book about animals in political theory. According to one of the leading names in the subdiscipline, it was the first ever edited collection on the topic (at least two others have been published since), and the first book-length effort to map the shape of the field. Whether it is successful in that regard or not, it's going to retain a place in the bibliographies of scholars of "animal politics" (myself included!) for its trailblazing nature. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from PlanespotterA320Edit

While certainly a topic worthy of a featured article, there are some areas in need of improvement. For example, the sections ""Slaughter and Animal Welfarism in Sweden 1900–1944", Per-Anders Svärd" and ""The Rights of Nature: Theory and Practice", Mihnea Tanasescu" ought to be re-written to reduce bias among other areas.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look; could you expand on the bias that you're seeing? I'm of course keen to make sure that the article is written from the NPOV, but I'm not sure I understand the concern! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MidnightblueowlEdit

Great work, Josh; glad to see that you've brought this to FAC.

  • "edited collection published by Palgrave Macmillan and edited " - we end up with "edited" being used twice in quick succession. I'm not totally sure of how to get around this but it looks a tad clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Let me think on this one. I don't really want to say just "collection" or "volume" as I think some readers will already be puzzled by the phrase "edited collection". I'm open to suggestions... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "by the green political theorists Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg." - I would give the nationalities of the two editors here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. It's perhaps a little clunky for my tastes, but I'll see what other reviewers think.
  • "The volume addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy (as opposed to moral philosophy), and was the first edited collection to be published on the topic, as well as the first book-length attempt to explore the limits of the literature." I think that this sentence might be improved by being carved in two, or at least reworded in some way. The current "and was... as well as" is a tad clunky. How about "The volume addresses the emergence of academic animal ethics informed by political philosophy, as opposed to moral philosophy. It was the first edited collection to be published on the topic and the first book-length attempt to explore the limits of the literature." I'm also not totally sure what is meant by "the limits of the literature" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, good suggestion. I've quoted Garner directly (with a reference); he uses the word "contours". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Per-Anders Svärd and Mihnea Tanasescu." - dear lord, where is the Oxford comma! (A personal preference of mine, admittedly, but one you might like to consider). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, done. I'm a reluctant and recent convert. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • arose from a workshop Wissenburg and Schlosberg" - I'd stick a "that" in after "workshop". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • " and illustrations of the party's public reception." - I think that a word other than "illustrations" might be better here given the word's multiple meanings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Hooley, similarly, argued" - we can cut the number of pauses here by switching to "Similarly, Hooley argued". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "to the literature in animals and politics" - "to the literature on animals and politics"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That's all I can see. Happy to support this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from CasliberEdit

Taking a look now....

It was the first edited collection to be published on the topic, and the first book-length attempt to explore the "contours" of the literature. - agree with preceding reviewer that (a) slightly repetitive, but (b) can't think of a way around without repeating.... - also, I think we can use a word for "contours" without quotation marks - "limits/boundaries" for contours, or alternately "explore breadth and boundaries" of literature - or somesuch.
It was the first edited collection on the topic (there had previously been monographs!) but it was the first book to explore the literature as a whole. This might be a technical distinction, but it's an important one, as it identifies two ways in which this was "the first" - and it's as "the first" that this book is, I think, most significant. I like "breadth and boundaries", though, so I've gone with that. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
between 10–15 April 2012 hmm, can have "over 10–15 April 2012" or " between 10 and 15 April 2012" or "from/to" etc.
Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the Production and release section needs some more context (or a background section) - you mention the occupations of the two editors in the lead but not in the body (unless I am missing something?). I don't get a sense of why/how these people are important/instrumental in this - it needs something about their backgrounds (not much but a bit) at the beginning of the section.
This is tricky. The reality is that the editors are really outsiders to the literature; that's something that Garner points towards in his review (and I put his comments front-and-centre in the academic reception section). I tried to include a little background by talking about what the political turn is all about, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree - in an ideal world, we'd have some more to shoehorn at the front, but as is, it'd be odd to move Garner's comments up to background. So this looks the best way at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
These aims are the analysis of three key "innovations" that the editors identify in the book's introduction. - can we come up with another way of saying without quotes?
Done, but I have added "putative" to retain a NPOV. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that edit got saved...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
... human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of human exceptionalism and human domination.... - "appropriately" suggests that the human primacy is correct and...ummm...undermines his position...?
"Arias-Maldonado argues that [x] and that, instead, human/nonhuman relationships are appropriately grounded upon the ideas of human exceptionalism and human domination." I'm just reporting what he says! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The prose is good overall. No other obvious fixes I can see. In reading it, it is only with the chapter summaries (which are a fair way through the article) that we get any idea of specific bits in the book (as there are none in the lead at all). I wonder if some notable segments from the book in the lead might give a better impression (e.g. the polar bear advocacy comments come to mind). I just wonder if there needs to be a bit more concrete stuff for a lay reader to get more of a picture about what it's all about....
Yes, that's a good thought. I have added a sentence to the lead, based on the things that Bendik-Keymer says in his review, and detailed what the three sections concern. Hopefully that'll be a nice way to show what the book actually contains. I'm reluctant to pick out the contents of particular chapters in the lead, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas, for taking the time to look at this. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem -an intriguing area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)Edit

Nominator(s): Constantine 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. A seminal event, as it heralded the fall of Constantinople, and showed the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large and determined land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review. first nomination earlier in the year failed due to me not having enough time to devote to the review, but the comments on prose and other issues made there have been addressed since, along with some minor additions. Any and all suggestions for further improvement are naturally welcome. Constantine 13:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note -- Hi, Constantine, am I right in assuming you've launched a second solo nom because Battle of Halmyros looks close to promotion? Well, yes it does, so go ahead, but per FAC instructions pls run it past a coord first next time. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Ian, that's exactly the case. I wanted to have this up and running ASAP, so that I have time to respond to comments before September. I will definitely run it by a coord if the need should occur again in the future. Constantine 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the image in the infobox really the best we have to offer of the walls? It is unsharp, badly lit, and seems to have specks of snow all over. Seems Commons[1] has many superior images, Flickr probably too.
  • You are right, but there are not many good pictures in Commons (in terms of composition, i.e. showing the walls rather than simply a small section fronted by people, tourist buses, trash cans, etc). I don't really have time to look around Flickr, but I have replaced the photo with one that is somewhat better.
I think the new photo looks much more dramatic, with the perspective and the view to the sea. Maybe you can use the old photo under "Fall of the city" or similar? The article isn't exactly image heavy. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You give dates for some image captions and not for others, could be nice with dates for all.
  • Good point, fixed.
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this up, and looking forward to your comments. Constantine 11:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "along with Christopolis (modern Kavala)" You don't mention the modern name of other cities listed, why this one?
  • You don't link figures and places in many of the captions.
  • "maintained good relations with the Byzantines, who had supported him" Any details on how they supported him?
  • "But you are Latins" I am not sure if if the ancient meaning you have linked, Latins (Italic tribe), is the right choice. Perhaps the wider Italic peoples (which covers Romance peoples and Latin peoples) is more appropriate.
  • You could clarify that the Aydınids and Karamanids were also Turks.
  • Not sure if this is UK or US English, but you mix ise and ize spellings.
  • "launched a μαξορ attack" Why Greek all of a sudden?
  • "by a coalition of Ottoman and Christian ships" What is a Christian ship here?
  • "ambitions of Timur's son" No link or presentation. In fact, you use the version "Tamerlane" earlier, this should of course be consistent.
  • "and anti-Latin prelate who had opposed the handover of the city to the Venetians, fearing their "corrupting" influence" I guess this relates to Orthodoxy versus Catholicism? If it was a big deal, perhaps state it outright somewhere (you only mention aversion towards Latins, not Catholics, thouh I assume it is meant somewhat synonymously here)?
  • "that the Venetians preparing to abandon them" Were.
  • "As the civilian population was being massacred" Were they massacred? The later text seems to indicate the sultan wanted the to stay.
  • "when it was captured by the Kingdom of Greece" Maybe add a setnence on what happened to the Turkish population there? I assume it was part of the population interchange between Greece and Turkey?
  • The article body says "down from a reported population of 20,000–25,000." The intro says "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants".

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVOEdit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an aviation regiment of the Soviet Air Defense Forces and later the Russian Air Force that had a 68-year career. The article passed GA and a Milhist A-Class review before I nominated it. Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Biblical criticismEdit

Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the critical reason-based study of the Bible, its history, its major methods, controversies, and achievements, and its contemporary evolution. I believe this is an important topic in the area of religion, philosophy and history. This should be a 'flagship' article for Wikiproject: Biblical criticism, as well as being important to other Wikipedia projects, and since this is a controversial area that is often researched by the public, it needs to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. That's a very high standard, I know, but I am committed to doing whatever I need to do to get this article to measure up to Wikipedia's best. I am cooperative and willing to work hard and will deeply appreciate anyone who cares about making this article great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
This article was taken through a thorough Good article review, which it obtained, then it went through the FA mentoring program where it was capably corrected and polished by one of the wonderful volunteers there, 'then' it went through a peer review where great people had great ideas, and finally, it was nominated here. This article owes many people, and is an exemplar of Wikipedia working together doing what it does best. This is a complex, detailed, analytical topic, but hopefully, anyone can follow what is said in this article. It is as non-technical a technical discussion as possible. Please don't feel "unqualified" to review it. Anyone should be able to do so. If not, we need to know that too. Thank you for any and all efforts! Jenhawk777 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support by KatolophyromaiEdit

Hello! I just noticed this article was up for "Featured Article" nomination and was disheartened to see that no one had commented on it already. I think this is an exceptional, well-written article that covers the subject quite thoroughly. I do have a few comments, though:

  1. In the 1970s, the New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders did work on Judaism that has pervasively influenced Pauline studies. I think it would be a good idea to link and briefly explain the New Perspective on Paul here, which represents a major shift in scholarly understanding of Paul's epistles, as well as Paul's relationship with Judaism. I think something should also be mentioned about the fact the E. P. Sanders is credited with having greatly advanced the analysis of the historical Jesus within the context of first-century Galilean Judaism. One or two sentences total ought to be sufficient. I have several sources I can provide to support the statement about him advancing understanding of Jesus as a first-century Galilean Jew. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This is a really good idea! I would love those sources--and is that one or two sentences on the new perspective and one or two more on the historical Jesus or one or two in total? Do you think Sander's contribution to the historical Jesus should be down in that section or stay in history?Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

::::@Jenhawk777: It should stay in the "Twentieth century" section because the "Historical Jesus" section seems to deal with current methods and techniques used for extracting historical material from the gospels; whereas the "Twentieth century" section seems to be dealing with the historical development of our understanding of the Bible. I have added note of Sanders's work on the historical Jesus to the section, along with a citation to a reliable source, and inserted a link to the article New Perspective on Paul in the preceding sentence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sound reasoning and I agree with it. And thank you again. (If I say thank you too much and get to irritating you with it, please just understand I am too truly grateful for both the input and the help not to say something.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I like it. In one of my earlier versions I had used "paradigm shift" to describe Sander's impact, but one of the reviewers hated that, saying how can you know that? But we do know that! I didn't argue, I just took it out, very sad to see it go. I am over the moon that someone else who recognizes paradigm shift has indeed occurred is now reading this and wanted to put it back! I am trying not to crow--but I am very happy about it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. "The New Testament synoptic problem" section includes only a diagram illustrating the four document hypothesis. While the four-source hypothesis includes the two-source hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis is independently more widely accepted, a fact which even the text of this section itself seems to indicate. I think it would be better to have diagrams illustrating both the two-source hypothesis on its own and the four-source hypothesis which incorporates it in order to avoid lending undue emphasis on the four-source hypothesis. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I actually did have a diagram of two-source theory, but I had a peer review before putting this up for FA and one of the reviewers said images should not interfere with the headings below them, so I took it out. There was no way to prevent that interference with two diagrams next to text that is smaller than the space required for the diagrams. I tried everything. So I picked the diagram less discussed in the text and made it slightly larger. How do you feel about images interfering with headings? I am happy to put a diagram of two-source theory back in if it is not a problem for you that it disarranges things a little. Alternatively, I can make them fit if I remove the text beneath them. How do you feel about images with no captions? Or very limited captions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: It does not look like you tried using the "multiple image" parameter, which allows you to display two images side-by-side so that neither of them interfere with the next section. I have instated it with this edit. It now displays perfectly on my screen, but every screen is different, so it may look different on yours. If that does not work, feel free to revert my edit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This is totally and completely wonderful of you! Thank you! I am an image novice and had not even heard of this before and was trying to figure it out from Nikkimaria's comment below when it showed up that you had gone ahead and fixed it for me. I am so grateful. Thank you. I really like including the diagrams as an alternative to more pictures. If you are happy with the look, then I am happy too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I am truly grateful that you have put so much time and effort into improving this very important and article. This is definitely a subject for which our quality needs to be up to Featured Article standards. I am glad to say that, as far as I can tell, this article meets those standards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I am so grateful and glad to see you here! I will do my best to address each of your concerns. They are all good and reasonable comments and I will do something about each one I promise. Thank you so much!Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I noticed a few more things I thought I would give suggestions on:

  1. You sometimes spell out the name of the century and sometimes write it using numbers. You should either always write out the name of the century in words or always write it using numbers. Regardless of which way you choose to designate the century, it is important that you use that form consistently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a little book of grammar called the Brief English Handbook--awesome book. It tells me I should "use a combination of figures and words when such a combination will keep your writing clear." It says I should spell out the number when it begins a sentence--regardless of how it is used elsewhere. I figured that also applies to headings. Otherwise I should use figures. Of course, rules of grammar change constantly and mine is an old book. I looked for a Wikipedia policy on this and couldn't find one. I will go through and create consistency if you wish--just so you know it could impact clarity, and be problematic down the road for other reviewers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: That is really weird... I have never heard a rule like that. It sounds silly to me. My English teachers always said to write out numbers with less than three digits using words, but to use numerals for all numbers that have three digits or more. The sole exceptions to this rule are years (ie. "1 AD," not "one AD") and days of the month ("5 May," not "fifth May"). Wikipedia does not seem to share that rule, though. I do know that MOS:YEAR states that all years should always be written in numerals on Wikipedia as a matter of policy ("2001," not "two thousand and one"). MOS:CENTURY states that it is acceptable to write out names of centuries longhand or to use numerals. I personally prefer to write out names of centuries using words. I do maintain that it is important to pick a style and use it consistently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
It is "The Brief English Handbook" by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, second edition, isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 39. Yeah, my husband and I are always having arguments over commas! He is older than I am and was taught differently than I was--so I am always pulling out my handy dandy little book--which usually just makes him leave the room. :-) I don't personally feel strongly about it one way or the other, and so I will attempt to cooperate because you do. I don't have the ability to find and replace, so I will be doing it manually--so it will take a while. I have company this weekend--and people have this weird idea that if they come to see you, you should talk to them. :-) I will start tomorrow evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: Pressing Ctrl F opens up a search tool you can use to search for terms. I did not know about this until another editor told me, but it has saved me so much time trying to find words and phrases in articles. You probably already know about it, but I thought I would tell you just in case you did not. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't get it to work on my Apple! I have tried and tried--it sounds like a wonderful option! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
On an Apple, you'll want to press the "command button", and while you're holding it down press "F". Then a little search bar will appear near the top right of your browser window. Alephb (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Katolophyromai: I don't know if you noticed but this has been changed so the numbers are all written consistently now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Excellent! I am glad to hear that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. Scholars such as Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), Arthur Drews (1865–1935), and G. A. Wells (1926–2017) have long argued that the gospels are fictional in nature, and, therefore, the historical existence of Jesus is impossible to verify. Bauer and Drews both died over eighty years ago and their ideas are not accepted today. G. A. Wells was a professor of German language, not of Biblical studies or even ancient history, and he actually later repudiated his Mythicist views, accepting that there was a historical Jesus, but still insisting that we know very little about him, a position basically similar to Bultmann. In fact, both of the sources that are cited to support the mention of Bauer, Drews, and Wells are sources which explicitly reject their position as unfounded and extreme. It hardly, then, makes any sense to list them here alongside figures such as Bultmann, Mack, Crossan, Meier, Wright, and Boyd, all of whom still have strong currency within the field of New Testament scholarship. I think it would be better to move the mentions of Bauer, Drews, and Wells to the "Twentieth century" section, since their position is really just a historical one that lacks present-day following. It is certainly misleading to mention them at the very beginning of the "New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus," which almost makes it sound as though their position is the most prominent among present-day Biblical scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  2. The third "quest for the historical Jesus" was taken up by the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar was undoubtedly an important event which needs to be mentioned here, but it is also regarded by the vast majority of New Testament scholars as an embarrassment and a mistake. Most of the supposed "experts" who attended the Seminar had highly questionable credentials and many of them lacked any kind of measurable expertise in the area of New Testament studies whatsoever. (Paul Verhoeven, a movie director with no background whatsoever in the New Testament, is just one of the more questionable "experts" who attended the Seminar.) Furthermore, the Seminar rejected or accepted material from the gospels based on whether or not it suited their preconceived view of him as a Hellenistic Cynic philosopher. Most Biblical scholars, however, view Jesus as a Galilean Jewish apocalyptic prophet whose message was primarily concerned with the immanent coming of the Kingdom of God, an image which far better matches our surviving sources than the (frankly ridiculous) notion of him as a wandering Cynic. I think at least something ought to be mentioned about the Seminar's overwhelming methodological problems. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I am aware and in total in agreement on all you say here in #2 and #3. First, on #2. They are dead, and what they said has been repudiated, yes, but that actually applies to almost everything discussed in this article including Wellhausen and most of form criticism. So that is not a disqualifier by itself. Most of this is historical since biblical criticism as practiced by these critics ended in the late twentieth century. So that's not a disqualifier either. Most of the people discussed in this article are dead too. None of that matters though. Mythicists make me crazy too--I did consider putting a qualifier that this is a fringe view, but I was trying hard to stay neutral and since I didn't evaluate the other views, it seemed wrong to only evaluate the one I disagreed with. But you are mistaken in saying they lack a present-day following. They have a large present-day following, and those folks would have a just complaint about NPOV at their view not being listed here if I remove it. I can reverse the order if you think putting them first makes it look like they are pre-eminent, and I would be happy to do that, but I can't agree to removing them completely since that would make this section--which is doomed to be controversial--less NPOV and even more controversial.
You should also know I desperately wanted to include an evaluation of these views. I looked and looked for a source that indicated what the majority view is, and what percentage of scholars hold which views just so I could use one of the many, many sources that say mythicists are fringe. I spent a couple days looking and could not find it. If you can come up with a way to source that, I will include it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
I had to mention the Jesus Seminar as an aspect of NPOV. I make no claims about their conclusions or methods or membership or anything else, and I did that on purpose. I would love to have an article on nothing but N.T.Wright's acerbic, shredding evaluation of them--but it would have been off topic here in this article. This isn't an article about the Seminar, or their methods, or the quality of their work, or anything else about them specifically. They are only significant here if their input into Biblical criticism is significant--and since they made no significant contributions of any kind--a mere mention in history is sufficient. I had to mention them--but I didn't have to say more! Because I think that's all they will get as history goes by--a mention. Please don't be too upset, but your response indicates I did a good job of presenting both sides of this difficult subject in enough of a neutral manner, it actually bothered someone whose POV I share.
Katolophyromai I have found a resource that may allow me to rewrite the introductory section to the historical Jesus. It doesn't have numbers of how many scholars think what, but it does discuss --some-- consensus. I might be able to do something with that and still remain neutral. I will try.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
However, I did go and remove the bit you added about the Jesus seminar. There are supporters out there, and neutrality would require including that as well, and that would be too much on that topic imho. If I say anything about the Seminar, I will have to say they made a positive contribution to Jesus' studies by focusing on Jesus' Jewishness--(that is on page 48 of "The Historical Jesus: Five Views")--as well as saying the negative stuff. I don't think that would improve the article. If you think it's important enough to include in an article about criticism--since they made no contributions to criticism--that you agree the positive and the negative needs to be there no matter what, I will do my best to accommodate the strength of your conviction--even if I disagree. But I can't put one side in without including the other. You tell me how important you think that is, and I will adapt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I apologize for my late response. I was writing a response and then you responded and I had to change it and then I ran out of time and had to go do something. I was going to argue that something needs to be said about Jesus Seminar and Christ Myth theory running counter to accepted scholarship in order to prevent WP:FALSEBALANCE, but, you know what, just forget I said anything about numbers two and three. I looked back at the article and those parts are probably fine the way they are. I do not want to mess them up. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, now I am all 'het up' over it too! I did have the same thought--that it creates the impression they are equal, and I want to fix that--but I need a source!! My kingdom for a source!! At times like this I always misquote Shakespeare. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Everyone went to bed and I stayed up and did something on the section in historical Jesus that you didn't like. If you don't think it's an actual improvement--and still neutral--just revert it back to what it was. I am going to bed too--big day tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: That turned out really good. I think that is much better than it was before. Thank you for working on that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Well...I thought you were right. I'm glad you like it. I think it's more accurate as well. And see? I have stopped misquoting Shakespeare... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Katolophyromai: I went to strike through my comments that were no longer pertinent and for some reason at the bottom, it struck your two comments as well. I don't know why. I have tried moving the prompts, but it didn't work, so I have removed them completely in hopes that will work. Sorry. It was unintentional. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Images are appropriately licensed; full review moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 16:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from OutriggrEdit

Oppose [comments were addressed—no further review] on areas of prose. First, I'd like to say that this article has plenty of excellent passages, and that researching and bringing a topic of this breadth to FAC is a very impressive feat. I believe it could become a featured article. There are a number of spots where I found that the writing was of less than professional quality, re FAC criterion 1a. I am going to jumble various examples into one paragraph...

extended resolved discussion
From the first sentence there is "uses multiple different methods", an ungainly, redundant, and vague construction; "concerning how the Jesus of the Bible and how the Jesus of history are or are not the same" can be streamlined considerably; "already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts"—avoid these -ing words, in general, by easier-to-read constructions like "already used to investigate Greek and Roman texts"; the second "for" doesn't seem idiomatic in "Camerarius advocated for knowledge of context for interpreting Bible texts"; "Lessing made a contribution to the field" -> "contributed to" (concision; occurs again later); "The late nineteenth century saw the second 'quest for the historical Jesus.'"—an odd use of quotes, or scare quotes, in a topic sentence, and without attribution, if it is a quote!; "Nineteen eighty-five", a year spelled out?; "multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities..."—again with the "multiple" and "different"; "Near Eastern studies, globalization and other academic fields" calls globalization an academic field (the study of it is, as with everything); two sentences of "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..."; why not "many" instead of "variety of different"; is "data" the best word for textual records in "in terms of the sheer amount of data it addresses"; "most influential work, Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologue to the History of Israel, 1878) that sought..." needs ", which sought"; "represented by Rudof Bultmann its most influential proponent" needs a comma or an "as"?. I am not mentioning the very easily fixed deviations from the style guide ("'50s", "--", etc.)

Sidebar: The writing consistently fails to use "that" as a conjunction/complementizer, meaning [+that] phrases such as "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. In simpler cases this English dilemma seems to be a matter of taste, or dialect, or formality, or something :-D – but in formal writing I do find it very awkward, to the point of objective complaint, in cases like "Parry and Lord in 1978 demonstrated [+that] oral tradition does not develop...". The more complex the construction, and the more commonly the verb might taken an object, the more of a problem it is. The same happens in this article with the verbs "said", "argued", "asserted", "agree[d]", "believed", "demonstrated". (As an aside, the repeated use of "said" is kind of informal if what the person did was "write", IMO.) It also happens in a slightly different form, e.g. "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The article itself proves my point when it writes "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units" rather than "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units", and "scholar Paul R. House says that the discipline of linguistics..."—a-ha!

I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder.

Thank you for taking these comments in good... faith. Outriggr (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now made as many of these changes as possible; each is addressed individually below. All the changes, but two, have been done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It is now all the changes but one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I do absolutely take them in good faith as intended to make the article better, which is what I want, so I am grateful. Thank you--not just for reading and commenting--but for genuinely thinking about what would improve this article. (In the meantime I get help becoming a better writer.) So definitely thank you. I will attempt to incorporate all your comments. I have no problem with most of them. So please understand that, when I do question some of this, I am not being uncooperative. I am just trying to understand those comments that, seem to me, to go against my education.
  • First, I agree multiple methods is a slightly awkward phrase. This is problematic, however, because I was extremely careful to get a definition from multiple sources. I needed to be able to put what the sources said into common English--with no theological or philosophical jargon--and I had to break it down into parts. Biblical criticism is an umbrella phrase. It really does incorporate multiple methodologies, yet it also has two basic ontological premises that provide a similar focus to all the different methods. If you could help me think of a better way to phrase that complex idea in a simple yet less awkward manner, I would be deeply and genuinely grateful. I struggled with it repeatedly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I tried redoing that first sentence--for the umpteenth time now--see if you think it's any better. Biblical criticism is an umbrella term for studying the Bible that embraces multiple methodologies which all have two distinctive philosophical approaches in common. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Outriggr: I have now redone that beginning sentence yet again. I took out the word philosophical and I think that actually helped. Also, I wanted to say, I agree the way my citations have the page numbers outside does clutter things up. Some time ago, I went on Teahouse and asked what I should do about different page numbers for references used multiple times, because it was freaking out at me going red, saying - error - reference referred to twice with different info. This method is how they told me to deal with that. If you can tell me a different, neater, less obtrusive way to use a reference more than once with different page numbers, I am volunteering to go through the entire article and change every one--all 170 of them. It would make it a lot neater and much, much easier to read. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Next, streamlining the sentence about the historic Jesus without effecting neutrality will be difficult, but I will take a stab at it.
I was unable to 'streamline' this without completely occluding all meaning--so I went for clearer instead. See if you like this better: The Enlightenment age and its skepticism of biblical and ecclesiastical authority ignited questions concerning the historical basis for the man Jesus separately from traditional theological views concerning him. This 'quest' for the Jesus of history began in biblical criticism's earliest stages, reappearing in the nineteenth century and again in the twentieth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Substituting used to investigate for my phrase in use investigating shifts that sentence from active to passive voice. I was taught passive voice is the number one sin of poor writing. This one goes against all my instruction. I don't understand the comment about -ing verbs either. I've never heard of such a thing. Active voice--often involving -ing verbs--is almost always better than the passive voiced-"to do" anything.
Don't think I can legitimately do this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "for" can go, "contributed to" is better, you're right. I will change those
removed 'for'--then it seemed awkward, so did this: Camerarius advocated for using context to interpret Bible texts. See if you like it better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Lessing contributed to the field is now changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • the quotes around the "quest for the historical Jesus" are there because they turn up as copied text on the copyvio. It is the appropriate "Title phrase" found in the sources--everywhere--hence the reason the copyvio detector detects it--repeatedly. I thought including the phrase in quotes would give an indication it was not my phrase, while not actually being a quote as such. I can remove them if you think it's best.
There were only two uses of this (the third use is a chapter title in a book) and I rephrased them both to eliminate the phrase turning up on copyvio and eliminate the quotation marks. See if it reads okay to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nineteen eighty five is spelled out because numbers at the beginnings of sentences must be spelled out. (The Brief English Handbook, by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, Boston: Little, Brown and Co. isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 198, section 39e)
This one's correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: That "rule" seems to be completely specific to that one grammar handbook. I have never heard of such a rule and it is directly contrary to everything I was ever taught in school. Furthermore, WP:YEAR, which is part of the official Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically lists writing out the year in words as an unacceptable practice and states "Years and days of the month are not normally written in words." For our purposes here on Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy always trumps external grammar guides, especially ones that recommend obscure (and frankly rather bizarre) practices that do not seem to be known or advocated for anywhere else. Nonetheless, I think that this is a minor issue that should be very easy to fix. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Katolophyromai Okay then. I will make the change--but I wish there was some support for it beyond "Wikipedia says so." I suppose it's that "normally" that's bothering me. The beginning of a sentence is an exception to the other rules for writing numbers, so it doesn't fit the "normally" criteria. It is not just my grammar book that says this. This is a requirement of the Chicago Manual of Style, AP, MLA, and all other citation guides out there. There is no reference--other than Wikipedia apparently--that says otherwise. Check online--every site says the same thing: [2] says "Rule 1. Spell out all numbers beginning a sentence." This one [3] says "You cannot begin a sentence with a numeral." [4] has a list of "numbers that are spelled out" and second on that list is "Numbers at the Beginning of a Sentence." here is the CMS: [5] with "Numbers at the beginning of a sentence listed at 9.5. You have to sign up to access it, but it says the same thing all the rest of these say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Rather than having to pick between ignoring your concerns and breaking one of the rules of grammar--which does not look professional--I rewrote the sentence with the year inside the sentence where it can be appropriately numerical. It now says "The third period of focused study on the historical Jesus began in 1985 with the Jesus Seminar." If this is acceptable to both of you, it is okay with me as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
All four of these are in one paragraph I have now rewritten.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities The source for this phrase takes two entire pages to say what this sentence says, and that source is already a synopsis of what's out there. (Handbook of Biblical Criticism, by Richard and Kendall Soulen, Third Edition, isbn 978-0-664-22314-4. page 21-22) It is a watered down statement, absolutely, I agree, but this whole article is an exercise in taking complex ideas and watering them down into simple English without using any of the jargon from the field. The only way to avoid "multiple different" is to list them separately.
  • "Variety of different" communicates something slightly "different" than the word "many" communicates. It's about the change more than the number. Biblical criticism was an almost exclusively white, male, Protestant enterprise for almost 200 years--then it wasn't. The "different" is what matters.
  • "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..." This isn't verbed, it's a pronoun in this case that references what came before in order to avoid repetition. I could use a semi-colon between the sentences if it would make that clearer.
  • globalization should be separated from "other academic studies" you're right.
Okay, I took a stab at these which are all the same paragraph; see if you think it's improved. It now reads: By the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, new perspectives from different ethnicities, feminist theology, Catholicism and Judaism revealed an "untapped world" previously overlooked by the majority of white male Protestants who had dominated biblical criticism from its beginnings. Globalization, and other academic fields such as Near Eastern studies, became active in biblical criticism. These changes created awareness the Bible can be rationally interpreted from many different perspectives. In turn, this awareness then changed biblical criticism's central concept from the criteria of neutral judgment to that of beginning from a recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the texts. By 1990, biblical criticism was no longer primarily a historical discipline but was instead a field of disciplines with often conflicting interests. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The "other" used in front of academic disciplines is still appropriate since biblical criticism is the academic discipline the others were added to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • data--would you prefer information?
Changed it to informationJenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • that should be which, you're right, I will fix it.
That's done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The Bultmann phrase can go either way with the comma thing, but if you want one, I will put one there.
I added a comma.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I will fix my numbers to follow the style guide--
I believe this is done now, and the use of "twentieth century" is consistent throughout, and "50s" now says the 1950's as it always should have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Now, my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that." It is, as you say, personal taste to some degree, but there are some rules that do apply to the use of "that," and I want to point out that I do generally follow them. "That" is sometimes a conjunction, you're right, but it's also sometimes a definite article, and sometimes a pronoun, an adverb, or an adjective, and it tends to be overused in all its forms. "Thats" are occasionally necessary, say, when attaching a dependent and an independent clause. For example, "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". "That" was necessary. But it is a general rule that it's best to leave "that" out if the sentence is intelligible without it. For example, "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The meaning of the sentence is not affected by the absence of "that" nor is its meaning made any clearer with its addition. So no "that" is the preferred default. This one too: "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. But it is. The "Gospels" are the object of revealed. You got exactly what the sentence meant. That indicates the sentence is intelligible without "that" in it. So no "that" is the better more professional writing style. If "that" follows "say" or "says" (Richard Soulen says that...), I was taught, it is not good writing. "That" should also be omitted if it precedes a simple relative clause. I often catch myself falling into lazy habits, adding "thats" where they are not needed, so I usually go back and take them out--but I occasionally overlook one here and there. You caught one. "scholar Paul R. House says that is a mistake on my part. I will fix it. And though you don't like my writing style, and you are certainly allowed your personal taste, it is incorrect to say it is unprofessional.
Last but not least, I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder. As far as I am concerned, you have the right to criticize whatever you like. I just ask that, in fairness, you take into consideration some facts on the ground. This is a highly controversial topic. Some aspects of this will be even more controversial than others. Being sure that anyone who ever accesses this article has the ability to find multiple reliable sources seems to require including those multiple sources where needed. It does clutter up the reading, you're right about that, but sourcing seemed like a more important issue. I hope that when you have had time to consider, you will agree.
I will go and redo everything I possibly can to accommodate all of your comments the best I can. Tomorrow. Again, thank you, and I genuinely mean that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I have now done as many of these as possible--only two weren't doable--and I do think the other changes you commented on have improved the article. However, I was unable to make every change. Please understand changes that violate rules of English (Nineteen eighty five) or principles of good writing (that) can't legitimately be made simply for personal preference. Please see my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that," and "Last but not least" above for my reasoning. I hope after reading, you will agree.
If there are any more objections to the prose, I am grateful to be given the opportunity to fix them, so please don't hesitate to tell me every and any problem you find. I want this article to be the best it can be. Your comments are helping me do that. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr I have now changed the sentence that began with Nineteen eighty-five so the number is inside the sentence in numerical form. I have done everything else--except add in 'that' where the sentence is intelligible without it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi Jenhawk777... In most of the examples I offered where I thought the writing could be improved, it now has been, even if I wasn't clear enough about the problem. (In one case, what I wanted to say was that two sentences in a row started with "This"—always a sign that the flow could be better—and they are better now.) Also, I was only referring to the citation style, not the need for citation, because the superscripts include page numbers and if there are a bunch of them in a row, it doesn't look good. But I believe that I am not allowed to criticize citation style at FAC, as long as it is consistent, so we can let that go. On the talk page where you pinged me, you included some links about the use of "that", and I felt that the first one supported my position.[6] Using "that" in complex formal writing lifts a burden for the reader, in cases especially where the verb could take a simple object. Looking at the verb 'demonstrate' in the article, we have:

  • Comparing what is common to Matthew and Luke, yet absent in Mark, the critical scholar Heinrich Julius Holtzmann demonstrated (in 1863) the probable existence of Q—perfect
  • linguists Milman Parry and Albert Bates Lord in 1978 demonstrated oral tradition does not develop in the same manner as written texts—no! This is different. They did not demonstrate oral tradition, full stop. This is a complex construction that needs syntax clarification through the use of "that", in formal writing. If "that" were in the sentence, my "grammatical module" would not have to go back and establish that the words that follow the verb are not simple objects of the verb. (P.S. You wrote For example, ""theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units"". "That" was necessary--no, you are comparing exactly parallel constructions here and saying that one needs "that" and one doesn't. In your preferred writing style, what you want here is "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". Exactly the same as the "demonstrated" example I'm criticizing. You aren't on consistent ground when you say that the green sentence needs "that" but the others don't.)

I don't want to belabor certain things, as I said above, but I will say in good faith that I personally can't support an article with sentences like the one above. (I don't claim that I want every possible "that" inserted, such as "said that". The external link gives examples of verbs much in line with the ones I mentioned in my first comment, and says to err on the side of caution. There are probably five or ten that I would want to "fix" in this article.) You will have to believe me that my brain interprets these shortcut sentences as "slang" because they imply a familiarity with the reader's ability to parse the speaker's voice that cannot be assumed in this medium. OK, I'm done with this topic!

  • My concern about the sentence Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts and applied them to the Bible. I devoted a bunch of text to this but it's not worth it. You were worried about the passive in "used to investigate" but "investigating" is already passive because it belongs to no actor in the sentence. The reader can only parse "investigating" with assurance after the whole sentence is read. It's not hard to imagine a poorly constructed sentence missing a comma that says something quite different: Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use, investigating Greek and Roman texts ...[now it's Astruc investigating] The reader is on shaky ground with respect to the meaning of "investigating" in the original until he arrives at "and applied them". Anyway...
  • In summary... thank you for addressing most of the items I pointed out. I will take a look at the article again in due course with the hope of striking the oppose. Until then! Outriggr (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
This is awesome, and I won't argue about "that." Double-meaning intended. I think you have proven your point sufficiently that I now think I am in the wrong here. I got sloppy. I have no excuse for those errors. You have my apologies and will have my humble compliance. If you can point me in the general direction of those sentences I will fix every one. I also apologize for pinging you unintentionally from J.'s talk page. I did not realize--I still do things like that on Wikipedia--things I don't fully understand that I am doing. I know--as my friends here will tell you--I have mostly learned here by falling on my face and deciding to figure out how not to do it again. It makes life entertaining. You're being really nice about all of this, and I am still grateful for your comments. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! (Pinging is ok, as it lets third parties know they're being mentioned somewhere they don't know about.) I was actually going to delete the last paragraph above as being way too fussy, but you got here first. I'll talk to you later, or perhaps leave room for others to review first... Outriggr (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I have reworked what was mentioned here--whether or not it's improved--I will leave to you to decide. The Jean Astruc sentence has been a burr under my saddle from the beginning. I have not felt 100% about it, ever, so I decided to take a different approach this time. I hope it worked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Before you go away, I don't suppose you could point me toward those sentences? Is it part of my restitution that I have to find them myself? (humor) :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Outriggr Would you mind please taking a look at the first sentence again? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I put in some thats... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Iveta MukuchyanEdit

Iveta Mukuchyan is a German-Armenian singer-songwriter, model, and actress. Any comments on the article will be greatly appreciated. Harut111 (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Tetricus IEdit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the last emperor of the Gallic Empire, which split off from the Roman Empire in 260 and lasted until 274; when Tetricus was defeated by Aurelian, and the Gallic Empire was reintegrated into the Roman Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from Argento SurferEdit

I looked at this for a GA review in January of this year. All of my concerns were addressed at the time, and the edits since then have mostly been minor grammatical updates. I have no additional concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from KatolophyromaiEdit

The article is quite short, but its subject is a fairly obscure emperor who only ruled in Gaul for around just over three years, so I think the length is reasonable. The coverage seems to be comprehensive and the article is well-cited. I think this article is up to Featured Article standards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment from WoebegoneEdit

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)Edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava river. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. This article had an abortive FAC back in 2015 where its structure was questioned, but since then it has been expanded and restructured, and its sister 7th Army, which is structured the same way, passed FAC in 2016. This article is part of a good topic that I hope to get to a featured topic eventually. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from DankEdit

  • "subsequently": Search throughout, and make sure it's the word you want.
  • "The 8th Bomber Regiment at Rovine was even warned to receive orders": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Dan, thanks for the c/e (as always). Have varied the use of subsequently, and reworded the second point, with a link. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Brilliant, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Do the colours in the second location map mean the same thing as the ones in the first? If no, what do the colours represent in the second map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nope, licensing looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Mississippi's 4th congressional district special election, 1981Edit

Nominator(s): Nomader (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a somewhat bizarre U.S. Congressional special election back in 1981 in Mississippi before the Republican shift had fully finished in the South. It involves a sex scandal, an upset victory, Ronald Reagan, and the Voting Rights Act (the perfect U.S. 1980's election). The format is heavily inspired by both New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009 and California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, but it's slightly different due to the format of the campaign.

This is my first FAC, and I'm indebted to the incredibly thorough comments from Spirit of Eagle both before this FAC and at GAN. I solicited advice from a couple of FAC mentors but didn't receive anything back, and I've decided to ahead with this nomination. Looking forward to your comments and questions. Nomader (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Missouri Centennial half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the early commemorative coin issues, which was intended as a major fundraiser and as usual that didn't work too well. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from MoiseEdit

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you're well. I'm reading through the article, and here are some comments:


  • "The hired sculptor could, Moore suggested, choose among these, as to which could be used to best effect, with Montgomery's approval and that of the Fine Arts Commission." I found this sentence a little confusing. I think I know what it is supposed to mean, but could you possibly rewrite it to be a little more straightforward? Moisejp (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, well enough, hope you are too. I have made the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "This was apparently not communicated to the Missouri commission as on May 17, James Earle Fraser, a member of the Fine Arts Commission, told Moore that he had heard that someone associated with the Missouri Centennial had made inquiries with the Medallic Art Company of New York, aimed at hiring a sculptor." I also found this a little confusing, and it seems to be more of a side note than part of the main narrative (if I've understood it correctly?). Could this sentence be removed to keep the flow of main narrative tighter?
  • "The Missouri committee was informed that I would work along these lines, though I was given full latitude for any change I might advise." Is it clear enough what "these lines" refers to, or would it be better to replace it with something like "[the guidelines set by...]"? It seems like the context of "these lines" would have been explained earlier in the letter but that this context is not included in the quotation. Moisejp (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


  • "apparently dramatizing Montgomery's desire to show the white man supplanting the Indian in Missouri "as though this was something to brag about"." Earlier in the article I assumed Montgomery was sympathetic of the Native Americans' plight in having been supplanted, but from this sentence I can't tell whether Montgomery was criticizing other people's arrogant attitude, or whether Swiatek and Breen are saying that Montgomery had the arrogant attitude (i.e., he was not sympathetic towards the Native Americans)—but I think it seems to be the latter scenario? Moisejp (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I just randomly looked at the Eisenhower commemorative dollar article and it appears his likeness appears twice on the obverse, and his home is on the reverse. So it doesn't seem exactly true that it's a case of "the same individual depicted on both sides". Moisejp (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, I've seen your changes and they make the article clearer. The article is well written and engaging. I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry bout the Eisenhower, I even think I have one somewhere, but that is what the source said.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Crown Jewels of the United KingdomEdit

Nominator(s): Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It all started in 2015, when I stumbled upon a neglected article and remembered that I had a Crown Jewels tourist guide which I could use to improve it. At first, it seemed like an easy enough subject – how wrong I was! There is more to the Jewels than I could have ever thought possible. And so began a 2½-year mission to distill everything there is to know about the Crown Jewels into a Featured Article on Wikipedia. One source led to another, my desk filled up with books, and at times I felt like walking away, but I persevered; slowly but surely, the Jewels gave up their secrets. The end result is a comprehensive, demystifying, and unpretentious article that is both factual and engaging whilst conforming to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Discerning use has been made of journals, books, websites, news articles, and podcasts. All images are in the public domain. I will be happy to answer queries and make any amendments as necessary to satisfy the Featured Article criteria. Firebrace (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Having finished the first half of a preliminary read-through I quite expect to be supporting the promotion of this article, but for now there are a few points needing attention. Most of them could have been avoided if the nominator had taken the advice given at the failed FAC two years ago to take the article to peer review. Better to have such nitpicking as follows done and dusted before presenting an article for FAC.

I'll need at least two goes at this with more than 9,000 words to check. These comments cover the text down to the end of the Crowns section.

  • General
    • metric/imperial measures: better to be consistent about which comes first: at present we have, e.g., 79.5 ounces (2.25 kg) but 187 kilograms (412 lb) and so on.
    • Links to main articles: I was surprised not to find "Main article: so-and-so" at the start of e.g. the St Edward's Crown section, but if you feel that a blue-link within the text suffices, I shall not press the point.
      • Yes, a main article template would serve no purpose at all. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • "the coronation regalia is" - but "regalia" is (rightly) treated as a plural noun after this point.
    • Capitalisation: unclear why the job title Head of State needs capitals; likewise head of the armed forces.
    • Kings – not sure why Edward the Confessor is just Edward the Confessor and Edward VII is just Edward VII but Charles II is King Charles II.
      • "King" was added by someone else; other featured articles omit 'king' and 'queen' unless there has been only one monarch with that name (e.g., Queen Victoria). Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Early history
    • We don't want both BCE/CE and BC/AD: the MoS bids us use one or the other but not both. (The first always strikes me as a touch precious: if, as you evidently feel, it needs explaining, why use it rather than sticking to the familiar BC/AD?)
      • I thought it would be fine since they're roughly equivalent to imperial and metric units, but I agree and have deleted BCE and CE. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Middle Ages
    • "By the 5th century, the Romans had withdrawn from Britain" – needs a tweak, I think. The date usually given for the end of Roman rule in Britain is 410, and so this probably ought to read "By the early 5th century". Similarly, the Anglo-Saxons had not begun to settle in Britain by the 5th century, but rather during it.
      • OK; again, that was added by someone else. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Edward the Confessor
    • "holy communion"– could do with a blue link, and I'm not sure "chalice" couldn't as well. And, particularly in an article so liberally capitalised, it seems a touch disrespectful to deprive Holy Communion of its capitals.
    • "The Abbots were" – probably not right to capitalise the A when referring to more than one specific abbot.
    • "it comprised the monarch's state regalia that was kept separate" – "regalia" has suddenly gone singular again.
  • Late Middle Ages
    • "were moved … due to a series…" – I follow Fowler's dictum that "due to" – unlike "owing to" – has not won a prescriptive right to be treated as though it had become a compound pronoun. That use is acceptable in American English, I believe, but is better avoided in English articles.
  • Tudor and early Stuart periods
    • "they fetched a mere £70,000" – better to avoid editorialising, and leave it to the reader to conclude that £70,000 is mere.
    • "Just two years later, Parliament gave in to temptation" – ditto, twice.
      • OK, I've made it less engaging... Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Restoration to present day
    • "the Dutch ambassador organised for extant jewels pawned in Holland to be brought back" – this reads rather oddly. Does it mean that he arranged for them to be brought back?
    • "During World War II, as in the First World War" – very strange wording; the American form "World War I/II" or the English form "the First/Second World War" are both acceptable, but banging one next to the other like this looks weird.
      • On reflection I have deleted all mention of the First World War because the source implies (by saying the boxes were damp and mouldy on their return to the Jewel House), but does not expressly state, that they were stored in the basement. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Non-coronation crowns
    • "the British constitution prohibits the removal of Crown Jewels from the United Kingdom" – we could do with a citation for this statement; the article on the crown says that such a removal was prohibited by law, which is not at all the same as the constitution.
      • It does have a citation at the end of that paragraph. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

More to follow. – Tim riley talk 11:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


I seem to be in less carping mood today – perhaps it's the heat – but I found little to complain about in the second half of the article.

  • Ampulla
    • "The same oil was used to anoint all kings and queens" implies recycling. I assume you mean oil from the same batch.
  • Sceptres
    • Unless they have been remade subsequently, I think "two sceptres originally made for Mary of Modena" should ,for clarity, lose the adverb.
  • Banqueting plate
    • The statement and the date don't square with each other in "It was made in 1829 for George IV but completed after his death": as he died in 1830 it cannot have been made the year before and completed in 1830 or later. Perhaps "commissioned" rather than "made"?
  • Ownership, management and value
    • He or she also accompanies… the Crown Jeweller, presumably, but we've had experts from the BM since the last mention of the Crown Jeweller.
  • Duplicate links
Across the whole piece there's a helluva lot of WP:OVERLINKing. There are duplicate links within the main body of the text to:
  • amethyst
  • ampulla
  • Buckingham Palace
  • chalice
  • Commonwealth
  • dalmatic
  • Elizabeth I
  • English Reformation
  • fleur-de-lis
  • foot washing
  • Fred, Prince of Wales
  • garnets
  • George VI
  • globus cruciger
  • Henry IV
  • Herny V
  • Honours of Scotland
  • House of Lords
  • James I
  • James II
  • Keeper of the Jewel House
  • knighthood
  • Koh-i-Noor
  • Mary of Modena
  • Oliver Cromwell
  • paten
  • Richard III
  • Royal Collection
  • St Edward's Crown
  • St George
  • The Queen Mother
  • Tudor rose
  • Windsor Castle
There are three links apiece to
  • Charles II
  • Edward VII
  • Mary II
  • Westminster Hall
  • William III
And Queen Victoria weighs in at four links.
  • Alt text
    • Mostly in place, but missing for the 1631 picture of Charles I and the head of Sovereign's Sceptre with Cross.

These few points conclude my comments. I have enjoyed this article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. – Tim riley talk 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Tim, I have addressed all your comments, but I think some link repetition is fine; 99.9% of people aren't going to read a 9,500-word article in its entirety, and a person reading the altar plate section may not have seen 'chalice' in the section about Edward the Confessor, for example. Firebrace (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Just so, and whatever the MoS says, I am with you on providing links where they seem likely to be useful, rather than rigidly rationing them. I do a lot of "Life and Works" biographical articles, and I have so far got away at FAC with having identical links from both the Life and the Works sections.
I much enjoyed this article, which I was surprised to see is 9,000 words long. It didn't seem like it, and is an easy and pleasurable read. I support on prose: clear, to the point, evidently comprehensive, and broadly and fully cited. (I'll be happy to do a source review if nobody else does one in the next week or so.) Just the sort of article people look for in Wikipedia, I think. Bravo! – Tim riley talk 15:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Coronation_Chair_and_Stone_of_Scone._Anonymous_Engraver._Published_in_A_History_of_England_(1855).jpg: the UK tag used requires that you detail steps taken to try to ascertain authorship
  • File:Queen_Victoria_in_Her_Coronation_Robes.jpg needs a more specific source
  • File:Crowning_of_George_VI.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Coronation_of_George_V_1911_2_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Done; File:Crowning_of_George_VI.jpg has been replaced with an image published before 1923. Firebrace (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now.... and the collection is the most historically complete of any regalia in the world. - oh yes? I am dubious about this sentence meaning anything much at all. A 2-piece set with the 2 original piences would be ....more complete?? (Actually it probably isn't that complete as almost all teh original pieces were melted down!) I'd remove it as it sounds puffy and vague. Cas Liber (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right, the originals were melted down in 1649; but they were remade in 1660–61. Firebrace (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes, but the point is that the phrase is puffy and doesn't mean anything much and should be removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
"Most complete" refers to the whole 140-piece collection known as the Crown Jewels. For example, there are 250 years' worth of consort crowns and the sceptres used by English and British queens consort since the Restoration (which are replicas of those lost in the Interregnum). By comparison, the crown and sceptre presented to wives of kings at Scottish coronations are missing from the regalia of Scotland, as are the sovereign's robes and spurs. Firebrace (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I still think the phrase adds very little, if anything, but will defer to consensus. If other folks think it's ok I won't view it as a deal-breaker. 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
  • ....thereby establishing the first known set of hereditary coronation regalia in Europe - a primary source supporting this. Pretty bold claim which needs a better source.
  • At some point in the 14th century, all of the state regalia were moved to the White Tower at the Tower of London owing to a series of successful and attempted thefts in a part of Westminster Abbey that housed state regalia - there are two "state regalia s here. Can we just say "their location in Westminster Abbey" or "the part of Westminster Abbey that housed them"...

I should add that the prose so far is good - all I am saying is that it is good to let the facts speak for themselves (and the reader be duly impressed) without adding puffy (and possibly incorrect) interpretations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Rose (1992) is a secondary source. Per the book, "The Author of this book alone is responsible for the statements made and the views expressed, which are not necessarily those endorsed by the Historic Royal Palaces or HMSO". Firebrace (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I had a look through google scholar - nothing much around so will let it slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Mullum MalarumEdit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an artistic milestone in the career of Rajinikanth, who most people see as a mere star. The last FAC failed because two dominantly used books were found to be a case of WP:MIRROR; in removing them the article was extensively reworked, and I think it is more FAC worthy now. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from PavanjandhyalaEdit

Welcome back, sir. Good to see you take up this; better late than never.

  • I don't know Tamil language at all. However, being familiar with its cinema's poster designs, i do believe that the poster being used here isn't a Theatrical release poster. Correct me if i am wrong, or else, change the caption please.
Done: Since it doesn't show the release date, one should not assume it is the theatrical release poster. But it is still an official poster, as it is from the NFAI archives. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The title has two translations. But please opt for that one which suits the story really. Agreed Kali is a thorn and his sister is blossoming into a flower i.e. she is coming of age. That is what the film wants to convey. But, the way Kali's character graph changes towards the end, i think the second translation would be optimal.
It is Baradwaj Rangan who pointed out these two translations. But I'll ask anyone else how to include two translations, since I considered the first one accurate for years. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
What Mr. Rangan had stated was more of a thematic analysis and needs to be mentioned in the Themes section (where it was already written). When you are using the {{lit|}} template, it is better to use the literal translation. So, yes, i take my previous comment back. The first translation is a better choice. Pavanjandhyala 14:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The film, starring Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, was Mahendran's directorial debut and is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name." -- In the previous line, you have mentioned that it was Mahendran's directorial debut. Why again?
Done. Maybe it's a mistake by the GOCE editor. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "capitulated" sounds too GRE-ish. Why not something like "yielded into" or "reluctantly agreed"?
Done: Put "reluctantly agreed". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Since Mahendran had no previous directing experience, cinematographer Balu Mahendra (also a director) assisted Mahendran with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing." -- Mahendran repeated twice in the same line.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Rajinikanth's performance as Kali received unanimous praise, and it is widely considered the best performance of his career." -- Correct me if i am wrong (poor English language skills) but, i don't think we use "it" there. And why not simply career best performance?
  • "Mullum Malarum, a breakthrough for Rajinikanth and a milestone of Tamil cinema..." -- breakthrough as? a supporting actor? a lead actor? a supporting actor playing positive roles? Please be clear.
Done. I've written it as a milestone for him as an actor (as opposed to being a star). Kailash29792 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "dereliction of duty" -- i think negligence alone suffices. i say it because, abandoned the winch is wikilinked to desertion.
  • Murugesa (a philandering grocer) -- Why the brackets?
Done: Replaced with a comma. Blame it on the GOCE editor's penchant for adding brackets. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The last line of the plot is somewhat abrupt. There is no hint about Kali's change of heart and why. You wrote it better in the Themes section, but people would not go there to know the plot, will they?
Done: I've written that he is relieved that Valli still respects him before letting her marry Kumaran. Do you find it consistent with the line in "Themes"? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Pavanjandhyala 04:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "novel of the same name by Umachandran" -- "written by" or "authored by"
  • "...for the magazine's 1966 silver jubilee" -- Sounds as if the magazine celebrated its silver jubilee annually. Rephrase it as "silver jubilee in 1966".
Done as asked. The magazine was founded in 1941, and silver jubilee means 25th anniversary. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Why always mention Kamal Haasan's name fully? Is there any other actor or technician working for the film with the same last name?
Done: I've simply described him as "Haasan" in subsequent mentions. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "typecasting as a villain" -- is that about typecasting in his previous films like Gayathri and Moondru Mudichu?
I guess so; he was primarily known for his villainous roles at that time. Apoorva Raagangal, 16 Vayathinile, Aadu Puli Attam, Katha Sangama, Avargal, Anthuleni Katha... all these came before MM. But I'm not saying Rajinikanth only played villains before this film, just that he was best known for such roles, an exception being Bhuvana Oru Kelvi Kuri (1977). So nothing should be confusing.
  • Reluctant agreement implies still being unhappy. Why mention it again in the next line? Any reason behind it?
The source says, "Ridiculous! Preposterous! You say there is no romantic lead for the hero and you also say a villain plays the main role," mumbled Chettiar audibly whenever he went to the location. This was after Chettiar conceded to Mahendran's wish to cast Rajini. Part of the quote is incorrect (blame it on the editor) since Rajinikanth did have a romantic lead: Jayalakshmi. But I think it answers your question. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Understandable. Pavanjandhyala 09:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Themes section, up to this point, is perhaps the best written section of this article.
  • Soundtrack is also fine, given there is nothing much to write really there.
  • Is a film passed or cleared for viewing by the censor board?
I think it is the latter, so I've gone with it. Either way, the censor certificate is dated 4 August. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Chettiar, who despaired of its success and thought he was "doomed", refused to underwrite any more publicity -- underwrite? i think it is not the right word in the given context.
The source says he refused to "give" more publicity to the film. I've written accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Mahendran's quote, does it add any real value? All what he said has been detailed above in the appropriate sections. Would you like to explain? If there is a justifiable reason, i shall be very happy.
On second thoughts, yes it adds little value; also, Mahendran says the producer "never turned up on the sets", while the "development" section says he did. I'll try merging tomorrow. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Done: Removed the quote altogether as it adds nothing new. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "After he saw the film Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander, wrote a letter of appreciation" -- a comma is missing.
Done: Replaced the colon (:) with a comma. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Praised for his performance in what was seen as an experimental film, during the 1990s he stopped acting in similar films because he had become a "larger-than-life" hero" -- a comma is missing.
Done: I've put the comma after 1990s. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see any real comment on Rajinikanth's performance in the retrospective reviews, like the one this offers. (I personally tried and didn't find much. So i take back my comment.)

Support -- I have no further issues to be answered at the moment and i do support the article's promotion to FA. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 04:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Pavan. Nevertheless, I've added the IE article where the writer praises his "vulnerability and rawness". Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from VedantEdit

Reading through. Sorry that it took me a while to get here. VedantTalk 17:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Is music an integral part of the film? The mention of the composer in the opening line is a little odd.
Done: transferred to second paragraph. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Production was tumultuous" - The problem with such a claim is that it is too vague in itself. Maybe, connect with an "as".
Done: I put an "as". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Without context, this: "Chettiar was surprised that the finished film had less dialogue than visuals, which he did not expect from Mahendran." makes little sense in the lead.
Done: Removed as it didn't seem to fit there. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ""during India's Independence Day"" - during?
Would this be better? MM was released on 15 August 1978, the same day as India's Independence Day.? The word "co-inciding" is often discouraged as it implies unintentionality. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
That would be an improvement.
  • It was also dubbed in...
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "a milestone of Tamil cinema" - is that a direct quote? VedantTalk 17:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd go with "milestone in Tamil cinema" as I consider that grammatically correct. I don't know why the GOCE editor did that. Are you fine with my suggestion? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, i think that should do it.

I apologize again Kailash, I haven't really had any time on wiki whatsoever. I'll jump to the release and reception section as that takes the longest to review (will get to the rest too).

Here are the comments:

  • "there were problems with its release" - do we know what they were?
It appears it was this incident, listed under filming: "Chettiar held up production by not financing a scene set before the song "Senthazham Poovil", but Haasan funded the scene". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Chettiar, who despaired of its success and thought he was "doomed", refused to give any more publicity" - the entire bit is a little problematic. One and too many; give any more publicity isn't proper either.
  • "Chettiar apologised to Mahendran and offered him a blank cheque, which he politely refused." - Interesting, but not really​ encyclopediac. It's a little, idk, melodramatic?
Perhaps it is important to mention that they reconciled, isn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The director isn't the best choice.
  • "After he saw the film, Rajinikanth's mentor, director K. Balachander, wrote in a letter of appreciation: "I'm proud".
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Mullum Malarum received positive reviews when it was released. The Name is Rajinikanth (2008) by Gayathri Sreekanth says that critics said, "Finally" - Again, one attribution too many. In fact, why not remove them altogether. and rephrase as "Mullum Malarum was well received at the times of its initial release, with commentators describing it as the coming of age of Tamil cinema."
Done as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Hindu's quote is huge, you might have paraphrase it.
Yes, it has to be paraphrased. But I wasn't the one who added it. I'll find a way to paraphrase it in a day or two. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The retrospective reviews could use a little variety, with two sentences beginning in the same manner.
  • "The fact that Mahendran and Balachander entered the world of cinema as writers shows in the strong storylines and dialogues of their films such as Mahendran's Mullum Malarum (1978) and Balachander's Apoorva Raagangal (1975) and Thanneer Thanneer (1981)." - the entire quote can be paraphrased very easily.
  • Is the TOI review only a rating?
Yes it is. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A lot of the section is focussed on Rajnikanth so why don't give a brief statement at the beginning of the second paragraph, one similar to the one in the lead?
  • Also shift all non-Rajnikanth buts to the first paragraph and all Rajnikanth bits to the second and third.
  • "The actor won the Arima Sangam" - again, The actor.
I've written, "He also won the Arima Sangam Award for Best Actor". --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the rest. VedantTalk 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Vedant, please see if your comments have been resolved. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Give me another day or two Kailash. VedantTalk 20:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • For the ALT text for the infobox image, I would specify the type of musical instrument that the character is holding.
  • For the infobox image caption, I would specify what type of poster it is. Is it a theatrical release poster?
  • For this part (the dispute costs him his left arm and his job), I am not sure if “dispute” is the right word choice here as it sounds rather tame. After reading through the plot summary, it sounds like he lost his arm after getting drunk so I am not sure about the connection between the dispute and the loss of his left arm.
  • Yes I agree with you, it was his own drunkedness that cost him the arm. I earlier wanted the lead to be comprehensive, but now I prefer conciseness, hence I removed. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the edit and clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part “(also a director) assisted him with the screenplay, dialogue, camera angles, casting and editing.), I would do think that the “(also a director)” part is necessary.
I think Balu Mahendra assisted J. Mahendran since the former was already an established director. That is why (also a director) was written. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is because I am an American, but I have never heard the word “lorry” before. I would wikilink it in this sentence (a lorry runs over his left arm, which is later amputated.).
I think lorry is British for truck. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense; do you think a wikilink there would be helpful? Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the wording of the sentence (His relationship with Kali is difficult, worsening after he sees Kali's negative side in a series of incidents (including allowing people to ride the winch, in violation of power-plant rules).) can be improved, specifically the phrase “Kali’s negative side” to be quite vague. I would revise that part. I have never seen this film, but from my understanding from this article, Kumaran does not like Kali as he does not follow the rules.
Now I have replaced "negative" with "unruly". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that is a better word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a comment about this part (because of his strict application of the rules.). I think that (because of his strict adherence to the rules) would be better as it sounds like the character is trying to follow the rules that have already been set out rather creating his own rules.
  • I would revise this sentence (Although Manga becomes fond of Kali, he is repelled by her fondness for food.) to avoid the repetition of the word “fond”.
  • I am probably missing something really obvious, but I am not sure what this part (her fondness for food) means? Could you specify this point further?
Page 80 of this book says, "Manga takes a shine to Kaali but he is disgusted with her gluttonous ways as her main focus in life is food." Can I write that, although she develops a liking for Kaali, he is disgusted with her gluttonous nature? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I think that the current word is fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (In his absence, an emergency arises at the plant.), could you clarify what kind of emergency occurred at the power plant as it is pretty vague right now?
Page 81 does not mention what the emergency was. I too don't remember what it was, but the important point is, he took off from duty when he was not supposed to, hence he was suspended. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Understandable. It is not really necessary to know the exact nature of the accident to understand the basic plot of the film. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village with no assets and no one to assist them, Valli helps them set up a home in the village.), I am not sure that the (with no assets and no one to assist them) part is really necessary.
Now I have written "When a poor wanderer, Manga, and her aged mother arrive in the village, Valli helps them set up a home. Although Manga develops a liking for Kali, he is repelled by her fondness for food." Kailash29792 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Unemployed, Kali directs his anger and frustration at Kumaran and Manga feels guilty because she is responsible for Kali's plight.), I would add a comma after “Kumaran” to fully separate the two ideas in the sentence.
  • I would avoid the repetition of the word “impressed” in these two sentences (Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali's affection for his sister and the loss of his arm.[5] He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed.[6]).
  • I would revise this part (and did not expect such a visually-rich film) to (and did not expect a film focused on visuals). Something about “visually-rich” sounds too much like praise for a section that should be objective.
  • For this part (metaphorically liken the sibling relationship to flowers), I am assuming you mean “the siblings’ relationship).
Yes, the relationship between siblings, in that Kali is the thorn and Valli is the flower. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It is currently missing the "s'" at the end of the word. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of great information in the “Themes” section, but I am confused the overall structure of the section. It seems to bounce around between ideas without a cohesive narrative. For instance, the first paragraph goes from a comparison between the siblings and flowers to a discussion on the film’s treatment of poverty. I would work on the flow/transitions between the ideas within the paragraphs.
All info here is sorted according to writers. I hope that clarifies. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As in this part (The 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini by P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan describes), I would avoid saying that a book making an analysis on the film as it is really the author doing that.
Now I've written, In their 2012 book Grand Brand Rajini, P. C. Balasubramanian and Ram N. Ramakrishnan describe Kali as "the loving brother, the angry worker and despondent physically challenged person rolled into one." Is it fine? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason that this is not added to the main FAC page? I would imagine it would get more commentary if put up there.
Am I the only one who can put it there? If so, how? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I will put it up there for you. Aoba47 (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Hopefully, my comments will help you. I will look through the article again once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Just wondering if you will resolve the rest of my comments? Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for the delay. I thought Ssven2 solved them. Please see if they are solved. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you go point-by-point to address which comments were resolved? I still see a few of suggestions were not addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Saving LightEdit

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 02:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 trance song "Saving Light" by English electronic music producers Gareth Emery and Standerwick. I believe that the article meets the Featured Article criteria when compared to featured articles of around the same length such as "All You Need Is Love". The article was previously nominated for featured article status, but it failed only because it only had one vote, which was to support the promotion. I had addressed and fixed all comments and concerns the one voter had addressed, which, they eventually chose to support the promotion. The following statement written below was originally from the first featured article nomination, though I have edited it to keep it up to date.

  1. Well written. During the articles good article review and first featured article review, it was almost completely rewritten to make sure that the article is the best it could possibly be, making sure that everything has been supported by reliable and third-party reference and that the article was completely unbiased. The article had undergone a copy edit that I had requested from the Guild of Copy Editors where it is now very well written in my own opinion.
  2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. The article has around 30 references, all of which being proven to be reliable in the articles good article review. The article did contain some unreliable sources, though all of which had been removed during the good article review. The number of references may be considered quite low for a featured article or even a good article, though this is because it isn't a very well known song, being released by a relatively small indie record label.
  3. Stable. The article had received only a few edits since it's first article nomination, as there is really nothing more to add or fix. My last edit (as of writing this) was on the 22nd of July, though there have only been 4 minor edits since my last contribution to the article, the last of which was on the 29th of July.
  4. Appropriate length. The article is of adequate length, being around 26,300 bytes in size and having 1,233 words (according to XTools). The article is not too long, containing only how much the article should have without it dragging on.

The article had previously undergone a peer review, with it being reviewed as a B-class article before it had passed it's first good article review shortly after. The article was then nominated for a featured article promotion, though it failed because of the lack of voters and because of so, I was allowed by a FAC Coordinator to re-nominate it only a few days after the first nomination was archived. The article contains only one fair use image, being the official cover art for the song. Micro (Talk) 02:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Support for FA nomination, completed article fits all mentioned criteria for FA status while its MOS looks fine overall. aNode (discuss) 14:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Support nomination, no major problems that oppose the criteria for a featured article Lazz_R 14:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Support as all my comments were already resolved in the previous FAC attempt (here). Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

The lead image, File:Saving Light Gareth Emery Standerwick Cover.jpeg, is a single cover with appropriate ALT text. However the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box for it is incomplete; please fill in the n.a. areas. I would look to how other song FAs do it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Fixed, replaced with a Non-free use rationale template for album covers. Micro (Talk) 20:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me; it passes the image review. Good luck with the review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Based just on the critical reception section, which is the only section I have read. It's just a list of quotes, attributed to critics. It should be a coherent narrative of the critical commentary, with quotes used to illustrate. See WP:RECEPTION for some relevant advice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: The critical reception section is based off of Habits (Stay High) and S&M (song), both of which have similar sections to Saving Light. The section could be edited into two review parts, one for the emotional parts of the song and the other for composition, though it might need further improvements:

Micro (Talk) 02:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This version of the critical reception has been scrapped. The main page's section has been replaced with a better one, which might be satisfactory to the opposer's standards. Micro (Talk) 06:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Algorithmic biasEdit

Nominator(s): Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about bias in computer systems, extremely relevant to topics such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data. There has been an enormous amount of interest in this topic in the media and in academia, so having a good, reliable reference on Wikipedia seems valuable. The article has gone through two *very thorough* GA reviews (see here and here) so I wanted to try to take it all the way to FA status. Owlsmcgee (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead image
  • File:02-Sandvig-Seeing-the-Sort-2014-WEB.png: do you have a link to support the CC0 designation?
  • File:A_computer_program_for_evaluating_forestry_opportunities_under_three_investment_criteria_(1969)_(20385500690).jpg: per the Flickr tag, is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I just have a few observations following a read-through:

  • "The term algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable errors that create unfair outcomes"; what is the targeted meaning of "unfair" in this context? Is it legal, cultural, societal, economic, perceived, or all of these? There's a couple of examples given but it isn't specifically defined.
  • The History section jumps from "early example of algorithmic bias" (1986) to "cases of still occur" (2018). What happened in between?
  • Other than a mention of machine learning in the Complexity section, I see almost no mention of AI, of which there have been some notable recent instances.
  • Shouldn't there be a section on testing and remediation of algorithmic bias, particularly in the context of AI?

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name (film)Edit

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Call Me by Your Name is a coming-of-age film directed by Luca Guadagnino and written by James Ivory, starring Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer. It is based on André Aciman's novel of the same name. I have been working on the article since October 2017; it underwent a copy-edit in May 2018 and has passed for GA two months later. I believe that it is ready for FA now. Any additional help would be greatly appreciated! Damian Vo (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (his professor father's 24-year-old graduate-student assistant), I have never seen “graduate student” with a hyphen before. I have always seen it spell out as two separate words. I am American though so that could be why.
It's already gone when I revised the article. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a comment/concern about this sentence (James Ivory was initially set to co-direct the film but became the screenwriter and co-producer.). It could read that Ivory was set to co-direct the film, and then he wrote the screenplay and became a co-producer only after he dropped out as a co-director. I would assume that his decision to not direct the film is not directly connection to his role as a screenwriter and a co-producer, which the current wording in the lead suggests.
I gave it a little tweak. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (At the 90th Academy Awards it received four nominations), there should be a comma after “Academy Awards”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In response to a note from Elio, Oliver leaves a note on Elio's desk telling Elio to meet him at midnight.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “note”.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be a personal preference, but in the “Cast” section, I would place the note (Credits are adapted from Fandango.[6]) before the cast listing.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For the note, I am assuming that you want the Fandango wikilink to go somewhere else.
Oops. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Call Me by Your Name is the final installment in Guadagnino's thematic Desire trilogy), please use the director’s full name and wikilink him as it is the first time that you mention him in the body of the article.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The film is a departure from his previous work because he took a simple, "non-aggressive" approach; he said this is the calmest movie he has made), could you clarify what he meant by “non-aggressive” and “calmest” as it sounds rather vague?
Those are the words he refered to during interviews. I added another opinion in paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless. "Words are part of what's going on, but it's not necessarily what's going on underneath. I think this film celebrates the underneath", he said.) as it has an underlying assumption that all literary adaptations rely on words (or I am assuming in this sense dialogue). I would instead include a part on how Guadagnino removed dialogue during the adaptation of scenes from the book to the film. This may seem picky, but I do not think that such a bold assumption/claim (Despite being a literary adaptation, many scenes are wordless.) should be made.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (As someone who considers sex in film a representation of the characters' behavior and identity,[17] Guadagnino was not interested in including explicit sex scenes in the film, to keep the tone as planned, saying, "I wanted the audience to completely rely on the emotional travel of these people and feel first love... It was important to me to create this powerful universality, because the whole idea of the movie is that the other person makes you beautiful—enlightens you, elevates you".[18]), I would make the quote part into its own sentence as the flow reads awkwardly to me.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (and described it as “devine”;), I am assuming you mean “divine”?
Another silly mistake. Yup I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if this quote ("the need to make this into a movie”) is really needed. I think you can paraphrase this.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (During negotiations, the production's budget was reduced from $12 million to $3.5 million.), is there any information on why the budget was reduced? It seems like a rather sizable decrease.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I was confused by this part (In 2016, Ivory stepped down from directing to avoid conflicts,) when I first read it. Conflicts with what? You explain it somewhat in the next sentence, but it should be clarified here.
I removed the conflicts part, since such content is explained in the next sentences. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After reading this sentence (Guadagnino dedicated the film to his friend Bill Paxton, who died in February 2017.), I was wondering if there was any information out there on why he dedicated this particular film to his friend?
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Guadagnino was tempted to remove the scene from the novel in which Elio masturbates into a pitted peach, which he thought was a metaphor for "sexual impulses and energy", and that it was too explicit.) is awkwardly worded/constructed. The last part (and that it was too explicit) is not fully connected with the rest of the sentence. I understand that you want it to connect with the verb “thought”, but the way that the commas are placed, it really connects with the beginning of the sentence and does not make sense. I would revise this.
I fixed the sentence. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (describing it as "a metamorphosis of some of the strongest ideas in the movie" and the key to illuminating the character's "overabundant sexual energy”.), the references should in sequential order. Check the rest of the article to make sure that the references are in the correct order as I see a few other instances of this.
I revised and fixed the other references. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (LaBeouf had read for the film in New York City but the production company later felt he was unsuitable because of his "various troubles”;), I would add a comma after “New York City”.
Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the relevance of this sentence (Chalamet has acted since he was a child and co-starred in Showtime's Homeland (2012).) for this article.
Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Chalamet, who can speak fluent French and had played piano for years, arrived in Italy five weeks early to learn Italian, piano, and guitar.). You say that he had played piano for years, and then he had to learn it again?
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what you mean by this sentence (Guadagnino did not want the film to "look like a reflection on the 80s ... when it becomes period.”) or what the quote even means to be honest. So Guadagnino did not want this movie to look like a period piece? Is that what he means? I am confused by this.
I fixed the quote. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence (Elio's polo shirt and Fido Dido T-shirt came from her husband's closet) reads strangely as the “her” does not match the subject “Elio”. I revise this to avoid it.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (The pre-production in Crema was fast;), could you clarify how it was “fast”?
The director vaguely mentioned it the interview. I removed it out of the paragraph. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have two comments for this sentence (Post-production with regular editor Fasano in June and July took only a month;[9] the fastest Guadagnino had edited.[66]). What do you mean by “regular editor”? Do you mean that he has frequently collaborated with Guadagnino? Also, you imply that Fasano edited the film, and then later say that Guadagnino did it, so I was a little confused here.
Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would move the Sufjan Stevens image to the right as he is look down and to the left, which makes it look like he is looking away from the article (which is normally discouraged).
I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Since there is a separate section on a potential sequel, I would include a sentence or a bit on it in the lead.
Added. Damian Vo (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. I would imagine that this would be a difficult article to work on given the amount of coverage devoted to the film. I still have not seen this film, but I enjoyed reading about it. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your helpful review! Good luck with your current FAC and your upcoming projects! Damian Vo (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary)Edit

Nominator(s): White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Back to work on submarines. This time, I've taken an old gem that @Bellhalla: wrote many years ago, added every exhaustible source I own and have come across, and doubled the size of the article over the course of my work. Bellhalla deserves a heck of a lot of credit for helping to get this article to A-class as well. I wish he were still active on Wikipedia to see it finally make it to FAC. NOTE: Despite his apparent retirement from Wikipedia, if this article passes this FAC, I would like Bellhalla to be given co-credit.

Now, about the article itself. The U-1 class was Austria-Hungary's first attempt at acquiring submarines for their navy. Built by an American naval architect, the ships had several interesting design mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater, as well as wheels (yes, wheels) to travel along the seafloor. As an experimental design, not all of the components of the U-1 class worked out in the end (the wheels proved to be entirely useless), and it was widely lambasted as a failure (in particular, the engines of both ships were a major issue, nearly killing their crews with poison gas before they were replaced).

That said, the ships were never really intended to do more than simply give Austro-Hugnarian naval officers a ship to study, and new sailors a submarine to train with. In that regard, the ships had a long (if not boring) career. Used mostly for training purposes, the ships were occasionally assigned with recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I, but neither ship sank any enemy vessels during the war. Declared obsolete in January 1918, the ships were again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola right before the end of the war. After a brief period of political chaos regarding who owned the vessels following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the ships were first seized by, and later granted to, Italy in 1920. The Italians decided to immediately scrap the ships in Pola that same year.White Shadows Let’s Talk 18:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by ChetsfordEdit

This is one of the most fascinating submarine articles I've ever read. In addition, it's impressively illustrated. I have a few minor nitpicks, none of which would rise to the level of impeding my support.

  • An experimental design, the submarines included unique designs such as a diving chamber and wheels for traveling along the seabed. - I don't know if the second "design" can be replaced with "features" or some other word so it doesn't read quite so redundantly. Maybe not, though.
  • While the U-1 class submarines were already outdated by 1915, their relocation to the port helped to dissuade Italian plans to bombard the port, as Italian military intelligence suggested the submarines were on regular patrol in the waters off Trieste. - Similarly to the above, I wonder if the second use of the word "port" could be replaced with "it" or anything else?
  • In addition, U-2 underwent an additional refit in Pola and had a new conning tower installed on 4 June 1915. - As above, I wonder if "an additional" could be replaced with "a further" or a similar word?
  • The ships would prove to be a disappointment however. - I believe there should be a comma separating "disappointment" and "however".
  • submarines were initended - I think it could be this is intended to be intended?

Chetsford (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I believe I have made all these changes in the article now. If I’m missing anything please let me know because I like the suggestions you gave. Word repetition in a sentence is one of my pet peeves.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 19:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SM_U-1_(Austria-Hungary).jpg needs a stronger FUR if it is to be included, and what steps have been taken to try to ascertain copyright status?
  • I've actually got another photo I can put in place of the lead image. Bellhalla put in place the copyright notice just to be careful but it’s almost certain that the photo is PD by now. Regardless, I can just replace it if need be.
  • Replaced with another photo from the article body.
  • File:Lake-class.png: how do we know this image is accurate?
  • Shipbucket explains how their artists go about drawing ships, and when you compare their stated scale to the dimensions of these submarines in question it checks out, but I have no independent way to confirm this unfortunately. I’m not even sure how to do such a thing to be honest.
  • I've removed the photo just to be on the safe side, though I wish there was a way to verify the accuracy as having a cross section of the ship would be a great idea.
  • File:Simon.Lake.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I don’t have an answer to that ATM as it came from Lake’s own Wikipedia article, but I can certainly look that up and get you an answer.
  • Ok, so I wasn't able to ascertain the date of the photo of Mr. Lake, but the fact that a copy of that exact photo can be found here tells me that it is most certainly in the public domain. I can swap out the images and sources for them if you'd like, just so we have a more ironclad link to a site that proves the photo is in the PD.

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I've done a cheeky c/e, feel free to revert anywhere you don't think I've improved the prose of changed meaning.

  • suggest adding in a bit to the lead about the conclusions drawn about the boats per the U-1 Milhist ACR comment
  • done
  • suggest adding info about the range of the deck gun and range and speed of the torpedoes, per U-1 Milhist ACR comment
  • If I can get this info via the ACR on U-1 I'll certainly add it in.
  • link sea trials
  • done
  • I expected to see the power plant details in the body
  • done

Just check the U-1 Milhist ACR to make sure I haven't missed something from there that is relevant here. Otherwise, this is looking good from my perspective. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! I’ll be sure to get to this as soon as I can.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 05:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Done! I've applied all of the relevant changes from the U-1 ACR to this article as well.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The article underwent significant improvement since the last nomination:

  • Many of the old sources have been updated or replaced with more reliable ones;
  • Prose and flow have been improved;
  • Fresh details have been added without noticeably expanding the article or changing its structure;
  • Outdated images have been removed;
  • The lead section has been rewritten for better flow, but all the major points have been preserved.

In its present condition it is (arguably) better than some country articles that already have Featured status, so I'll be happy to get any feedback that might improve this one further and bring it the star. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:11, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the revolts map and both diagrams
Done; changed the map, even at 300px the revolts map wasn't clear enough.
New map needs a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
It's posted in the description: Map based on Lalkov, Milčo (1997). Rulers of Bulgaria. Kibea. ISBN 954-474-098-8..
  • File:Flag_of_Bulgaria.svg: no reason why uploader would have a copyright on this image, it's too simple to warrant protection
Only administrators can edit the license, I've posted an edit request on the talk page.
Replaced with PD-ineligible.
  • File%3AMila_Rodino.ogg needs a US PD tag and a separate tag for the performance
Removed it. The performance was downloaded from the website of the National Assembly, which has no licensing information for any of the content it has published, so it is presumed copyrighted. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As Bulgaria does not have freedom of panorama, all 3D works will need explicit tags for the original works
Removed the National Bank image as its architect died in 1957. The Rectorate and National Assembly building should be free (their architects died in the 1920s and 1930s).
When specifically did the architect of File:Sofia_University_"St._Kliment_Ohridski"_(37849719131).jpg die? The following images also need tags: File:National_Palace_of_Culture_(23997858848).jpg, File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg, File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg
According to the University's website, the Rectorate was designed by Yordan Milanov, who died in 1932. Removed the National Palace image, the chief architect died 19 years ago.
  • File:The_defeat_of_Shipka_Peak,_Bulgarian_War_of_Independence.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:BASA-3K-7-342-28-Boris_III_of_Bulgaria.jpeg
Will PD-1923 do? I don't believe they've been published in the US prior to 1923, especially the latter.
When and where were they first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any information on that. The author of the painting died 101 years ago so it should be PD everywhere. The Archives Agency released a number of materials under PD a few years ago, so I'm not sure which US PD applies to them. Same concern about File:20140621_Veliko_Tarnovo_002.jpg (Medieval building) and File:Sofia_-_Odrysian_Wreath_from_Golyamata_Mogila.jpg (ancient item).
If we can't find information to support an appropriate PD tag, the images will need to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure the relevant information can be found, what I don't understand is how the PD tags should be implemented in File:Sofia - Odrysian Wreath from Golyamata Mogila.jpg and File:20140621 Veliko Tarnovo 002.jpg. The former can use a PD tag under the FoP rules as the building is Medieval so there is no copyright on it. The latter is not a painting, has no author, is not a building and may or may not be considered a work of art. Either way, the images are released under CC2.0 and CC-SA 4.0 respectively, so a PD tag would contradict these licenses. My question is therefore, is the PD tag necessary for the item depicted, or Featured Articles are limited to using public domain images only? I'm sorry for the question, I'm just at a loss. The Commons pages aren't really helpful in that regard. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not a contradiction to have both a CC and a PD tag - it's a recognition that there is more than one copyright at play. For example, if you are in a place without freedom of panorama and take a photo of a copyrighted sculpture, even if you release your photo under a CC license we still wouldn't be able to use it here. You should be sure to indicate which tag applies to which copyright, but we do need to reflect both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I see, in that case I'll see what the most relevant PD tags are for the images and will place them. Unfortunately a user insists on placing a city population template with four images that are definitely outside FoP but I'm attempting to resolve that conflict in the direction of removing the template, so no action will be taken on those.
To add to Tourbillon's comment, i will ask the same question i asked him, are you sure that freedom of panorama applies when in the law it is stated that "Freedom of panorama is limited in Bulgaria to informational "or other non-commercial purposes". " ( As far as I'm aware, wikipedia is a non-commercial informational website, and uploading images to wikipedia is a non-commercial activity. What do you think? - Bowler92 11:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
For the purposes of Wikipedia, any license with a non-commercial requirement is considered non-free. See WP:NFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
ok, understood. -Bowler92 07:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Done on the above mentioned images. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Also strongly suggest working on citation formatting before someone comes to review that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific on the formatting issues? Thanks. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Similar sources should be formatted similarly. For example, some books include publisher locations while others do not, newspaper names should be italicized, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Tourbillon (inserted here) UGH! This is so, so true. I have a FAC article here too, undergoing review right now, and an advisor made me go through my references--and my article had 179 references to begin with--five separate times to be sure every reference had all the correct information: chapter headings for collections with different authors, names of the locations of all publishers, and accurate isbn numbers all written in the same formatting style--for me that was 13 digits. Source disparity was not an acceptable excuse in his view. I spent hours and then more hours using the isbn converter, checking for accuracy, looking up publisher locations on the web--as I said, 179 references--5 times--eventually eliminating nine references I couldn't find info on--so, NOT an easy requirement, but absolutely necessary for an encyclopedia. I want to encourage you to go the extra mile on this one. I'll help if you like. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Book references here are not that many - about 50 when I last counted them, and journal references are only a handful. I'll go through them again and find whatever additional information I can. What worries me more is that in some past country FACs, Encyclopedia Britannica was not considered a good enough source for some reason. It's practically the only good, up to date and easily accessible general source on Bulgaria. Any help is appreciated, and thanks for the review! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Right, noticed that earlier, working on it. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
{{cite book}} and {{cite web}} have been standardized, a few {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} remain, working on them now. Also replaced or removed a few redundant sources. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 17:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Updated those too, will make another pass if I've missed something (likely). - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Done, standardised journal, book, news and web citations. Some parametres (volume, ISSN) are not available for all sources and I've left those blank, so there may still be a discrepancy but it's because of source disparity. A few poor-quality or outdated sources have been scrubbed or replaced with better ones. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

  • I would suggest a clarification in the following sentence: "Flora includes more than 3,800 vascular plant species of which...", because that number includes only the vascular plants; mosses, lichens and algae are not included.
  • In the "Religion" section it should be noted that the Bulgarian Orthodox Church gained autocephalous status in 870, and became a patriarchate in 927. --Gligan (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
All sources I read point to 927 as the year of autocephaly, and 870 (circa) as the year of autonomy. The former seems to be the correct year. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 11:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, the correct year is 879. I am citing in Bulgarian the text from "История на България. Том I. Божилов, Гюзелев", стр. 191: "На заседанието на събора от 24 декември 879 г. обаче било взето решение, което имало голямо значение за придобиването на автокефалност на Българската архиепископия; то било формулирано така: "Отсега нататък константинополския патриарх да не ръкополага в България, нито пък да изпраща омофор. Дори като те [българите] се откажат от това и дойдат при негово светейшество [константинополския патриарх], да не получат благоволение." Чрез това Константинопол се оттеглил от върховенството си над Българската архиепископия и й предоставеил автокефалия." --Gligan (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually the passage states that a decision was taken in 879, however it seems like the recognition by the Byzantines and therefore actual autocephaly was not attained until 927. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 prose review -- SupportEdit

This is a genuinely interesting and well done article. I support this FAC. I believe it deserves to be a Featured article.

extended review completed with all issues addressed
The second sentence in the lead that begins with "organised" in the British spelling: that's certainly okay, and consistency is the only real requirement concerning that choice, but you might want to consider changing it to "-ized" even though it is not actually wrong. In the body of work coming out of Britain since 2002, about 60% use -ise but 40% use -ize, and it looks more correct to anyone who learned American spelling and not French, so -ize can please everyone while -ise can only please some. This has a good discussion of it: [[7]]. I don't count it against you whichever way you go--it's entirely a style thing--and would, of course, mean changing it throughout the whole article.
Changed, although I fear that it might serve as a hook for someone else to perceive this as inconsistent use of British and American spelling.
Yikes--consistency is the most important thing. Well, if someone else comes along and complains, you can revert the changes. And be doing this back and forth till it's accepted! Hah!
  • Organised prehistoric cultures appeared in Bulgarian lands during the Neolithic period should more accurately read: "In the Neolithic period, organized prehistoric cultures appeared in the lands that would one day become Bulgaria." They can't appear in something that isn't there yet even though you know it's coming.
  • In Antiquity, the region was a battleground... give dates in parenthesis for when "Antiquity" was. Yes, we all know--but the sophomore doing a paper probably won't.
Added, however I've only added the centuries when most of this warfare occurred, generally the time span discussed further down in the History section.
I don't see why that won't be perfectly okay.
  • The Eastern Roman Empire lost some of these territories to an invading Bulgar horde, which founded the first unified Bulgarian state in 681 AD. which one founded the state? The ERE or the Bulgar horde?
  • Be careful of pronouns: It dominated... when they refer to a whole sentence in front of them. Better to be specific with nouns.
  • For the sake of clarity, you might consider dividing these two sentences somewhat differently. Taking the first part of the previous sentence, and putting a period where the comma is now, then beginning the next sentence with the second half of that first sentence "The Bulgars then founded..." and connecting the next sentence with the "which" so it reads "The Bulgars dominated...etc" would be clearer, less ambiguous, and yet no longer.
All corrected, I also clarified Eastern Roman and Byzantine as the latter is mentioned in the next sentence.
  • After numerous exhausting wars and feudal strife, the Second Bulgarian Empire disintegrated in 1396 but...but...when did a second Empire appear? Remember your two guiding principles of writing are clarity and specificity--the research provides the accuracy--but it's the writing itself that has to communicate clearly. Assume your reader doesn't know what you know.
Added a new sentence about the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 07:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
It's an excellent sentence! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the rest of the lead is good and will pass my inspection with these few adjustments.

I will move on and do more if these are responded to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. More later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I like everything you did in the lead, except we created a new problem doing it: now that "In the Neolithic period" begins the first sentence, there are two sentences in a row beginning with "In..." Making one change often leads to another. In this case, I like altering the beginning of the second sentence--maybe--"By the 6th-3rd centuries BCE, the region had become a battleground..." You decide. You can go back and put the "in the Neolithic period" in the middle of the first sentence, with commas, if you prefer--it was the "Bulgarian lands" that was the issue with that one, and you have fixed that. But one of them needs adapting to the other one now. Try not to be too frustrated--I have one sentence that has been rewritten about 14 times I think. :-)
Been there already, the previous (failed) FACs were harsh, but the article has improved this much largely owing to that. I just changed it to During the Neolithic period... which should be fine!
Saw it--it's better than fine. That paragraph is a really good short synopsis of the history section. It reads well.
This is a very interesting and informative sentence: The meaning may be further extended to "rebel", "to incite", or "to produce a state of disorder", i.e. the "disturbers". In my view it might read a little better if it said " rebel, incite or produce a state of disorder, i.e. "the disturbers." That's entirely personal preference though. I placed the period inside the quotation marks because it ends the whole sentence, not just the fragment.
Corrected, was a bit choppy anyway.
It does read better without the extra "to"s. I personally don't like all the quotation marks either. Those are single common words so I don't think they are necessary--but don't change them if you think they are needed. That's entirely personal preference on my part.
In the last sentence beginning "Alternate etymologies..." There are three groups mentioned between this sentence and the last mention of the Bulgars--perhaps clarify that last sentence about which you are referring to without depending on the reader to make the right assumption.
Clarified that.
"Human activity in the lands of modern Bulgaria can be traced back to the Paleolithic." Excellent sentence.
What does gold exploitation mean?
Linked to goldsmith, which is where "gold working" redirects. It's metallurgy specifically focused on gold and jewels.
I think that needs explaining. Maybe something along the lines of "... with inventing goldworking and the metallurgy necessary to work it." Something like that--feel free to put that in your own words--but for the ordinary reader, it's generally better not to use jargon (words specific to a field). Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I've changed it to gold metallurgy, that should be clear enough - otherwise a lengthy explanation will have to be added, and that will look out of place.
Except the term "exploitation" is still there with no explanation. People won't know what it means, and it's a cardinal rule of good writing not to use specialized words you don't explain. It's confusing to the reader. If they have to stop and get out a dictionary and look a word up, what are the chances they will bother to finish reading? Either remove the word "exploitation" or explain it. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Is the treasure not monetarily valuable as well?
In current gold value, comparatively not so much - it's less than seven kilograms in weight.
Hmmm-I'm not striking this one yet either. I want to know that--"While it is not valuable for its gold, which is less than seven kilograms in weight, it has been highly valuable for..." or some such thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the monetary value is of marginal importance in a historical subsection, which is why I decided to leave it out.
I follow your reasoning, however--your reader doesn't know that and will wonder. This isn't about what you know and think as much as it is about what your reader will not know and wonder. It's an interesting piece of information too. So I don't agree this is a good decision. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The Iron age--which was when?
Difficult to say. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. I've added an early before Iron Age because the late Iron Age in Europe goes as far as 800 AD.
Then you can't say it. Even adding 'early' makes a claim you can't back up. If it's difficult to say, then say that. Actually, the two sentences you have right here would be perfect. The Thracians did not have a writing system so it has been difficult to ascertain when exactly they appeared. The general consensus is that they were present in the early Iron Age, but no exact century can be given. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
"Early Iron Age" is the most accurate approximation of when they appeared; the alternative would be to remove the era of origin entirely, which wouldn't be exactly informative.
No, the alternative is not to remove it, the alternative is to say it accurately. You really must do this one. It effects the accuracy of the article. You must explain "early iron age" (with years) is the best approximation--you can't just claim it is when it happened if no one really knows. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Prehistory and antiquity: I know nothing of Bulgaria and I followed this whole section easily. Well done.
Thank you! I added one more sentence about the Thracians that clarifies the link between their kingdom and the Persian invasion.
First Bulgarian Empire: I got a little confused here. I had to go back and think through The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains as referring to what you've been talking about--I hope--but is that modern Bulgaria? That first Bulgarian empire? The territory the tribes fought over? All of the above? Or what exactly? And this is the first I've heard of "Old Great Bulgaria"--where did that come from? I think this first sentence needs to be reworked with some additional explanation. The other two sentences are clear and informative.
The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes fought; the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is part of that region. That's where the First Bulgarian Empire was established. Old Great Bulgaria is a previous majority Bulgar polity in what is now Ukraine. It is politically unrelated to the First Bulgarian Empire, where the Bulgars were a minority. I think the confusion also stems from the fact that Bulgar and Bulgarian are not quite the same thing; the former refers to the Asian tribe, whereas the latter refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. I changed it to something slightly more detailed, hopefully it's clearer now - but let me know if otherwise! Also, spotted three ISBN-less cites at the end of the first subsection, looking for additional data. Added one to the FBE subsection. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you are going to have to add some of this in. You have three sentences here that are pertinent, provide a broader foundation for understanding what you are talking about, and seem necessary for clarity. I understand wanting to leave out everything unnecessary due to length, but when that absence creates confusion, length is just unavoidable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
What about something like you have here: "The Slavs settled the broader Southeast European region where the ancient tribes had fought. The area between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains is the section of that region that became the First Bulgarian Empire. It was that area, between the lower Danube and the Balkan Mountains, that was again invaded in 680, this time by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects. Bulgar refers to the Asian tribe, whereas Bulgarian refers to the confederacy of peoples that formed with the Bulgars at the helm in the First Bulgarian Empire. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. " Or flip things around, as you wish--but it needs fixing because it is not clear enough the way it is.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I made a slightly more subtle change: Added a new sentence in the second paragraph specifying the locale of Moesia, and then changed the first paragraph of FBE to refer specifically to Moesia as the region that the Bulgars invaded. The reason I abstained from adding the Bulgars as a leading ethnos and generally avoid delving into the "ethnic" topic is that it often becomes an edit battleground. Let me know if it is clear enough as it is now.
Following the arrival of the Slavs, Moesia was invaded by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh.[39][40] The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity situated north of the Black Sea. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire.[23] The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects.[34] This is worse, not better I'm afraid. First, a reader will wonder "Who the Hell is Moesia and why are we talking about them now?" You completely removed the geographic connection which was a good inclusion--it just did not explain what it referred to--that's all you needed to add for that one. The rest of it is choppy and disconnected now. It jumps from "Old Great Bulgaria" to "Byzantine" for no apparent reason. This is not a good revision.
I do understand it is difficult to write for someone who doesn't know what you know, because you can't "un-know" stuff, and it's hard to imagine and put yourself in their shoes. That's why reviews from people who don't know your topic are important in a different way than reviews from those who do know it are. Some high school kid will use this to do a report for school, and that kid will not be able to make sense of this paragraph--and will move on over to Encyclopedia Britannica instead. The rest of this is too good to lose over a couple of rough paragraphs.
Please, try this instead: "The entire region of the south-eastern European continent had been settled by the Slavs, including the area between the lower Danube and the Balkan mountains, that was the cause of so much tribal war. This geographic area, which would become the First Bulgarian Empire, was once again invaded in 680, by the Bulgar horde of Khan Asparukh fighting for the Byzantines. The horde was a remnant of Old Great Bulgaria, an extinct Bulgar polity, situated north of the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine. A peace treaty with the Byzantine Empire was signed in 681, marking the foundation of the First Bulgarian Empire. The Bulgars gradually mixed with the local population and forged a common language based on Slavic dialects."
I said European continent instead of just Europe because there is no Europe at this time, but there is a continent. It adds back in the valuable geographic information--with explanation and connection--that did not need removing. Is "fighting for the Byzantines" correct? Without that, there is no explanation as to why a treaty with the Byzantine empire would stop a war with OGB. And it avoids the ethnic discussion and isn't too long. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I followed all the rest with no trouble. It was clear--and really interesting!
More after this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Moving on with next section.
  • payment in kind best to say what that means
Linked to tax in kind, which explains it in a simple way.
OkayJenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And the next
  • Ottoman rule really good! I personally would like a very short--maybe one sentence--explanation of why the Battle of Shipka Pass is important. Providing the link is good, so I can go read more if I want--after I know why it matters. But if it isn't possible to explain in a sentence, just leave it.
Expanded the sentence, should be clear now!
Perfect! Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
And the next
  • the executions of thousands of war criminals and dissidents Adding another sentence as explanation might be good--Stalin killed millions in Russia --how many "dissidents" and "war criminals" died in Bulgaria?
Specified and also rephrased the first two sentences.
It reads well and is clear and specific now. Well done. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
These are such picky little points, I almost hesitate to mention them because overall this whole section is brilliant. It's easy to follow and interesting--really, really good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
In the section that opens: The Treaty of San Stefano was signed on 3 March 1878 by Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and included a provision to set up an autonomous Bulgarian principality roughly on the territories of the Second Bulgarian Empire This is a good clear sentence--but notice it assumes we know what the territories of the empire are--showing yet again the importance of explaining that "Danube and the mountains" phrase up in the First B.E.
Addressed that - the territories in question are Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia; the Berlin Treaty state only included the first one.
No, you didn't address it--you just changed the name as though any reader will know where Moesia is, and what it means, without explanation from you. This change made things worse not better. Jenhawk777 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me rephrase--it did add clarity here in this section--it is the previous section--the FBE--where the addition of Moesia made things muddier and less clear Jenhawk777 18:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm going ahead and moving on to the next section because of time. I did some minor copy-edits--things like commas and prepositions--but I don't want to rewrite your material without your agreement. This paragraph in politics needs a slight reworking.
  • Political parties gather in the National Assembly, a body of 240 deputies elected to four-year terms by direct popular vote. The National Assembly has the power to enact laws, approve the budget, schedule presidential elections, select and dismiss the prime minister and other ministers, declare war, deploy troops abroad, and ratify international treaties and agreements. The president serves as the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has the authority to return a bill for further debate, although the parliament can override the presidential veto by a simple majority vote of all members of parliament.[100] Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments.
  • It would solve its problems if the third sentence became the opening sentence: "In addition to a Prime-minister, Bulgaria has a President who serves as the head...etc." Then go with the sentence you have as the opening: "The National assembly is a body of 240..." The reason for this is that you refer to the President before you say there is one. Add a sentence either in this or the previous paragraph that explains the difference--(if there is one, or say so if they're the same)--between the Parliament which you refer to here, and the National Assembly, as Parliament has not been defined. Don't make references to things that aren't defined. Is the Prime minister the head of Parliament? Is the President the head of the National Assembly? I do not have a good idea of Bulgarian government from this yet.
  • I would move the last sentence--Overall, Bulgaria displays a pattern of unstable governments--from the end of the second paragraph to begin the next paragraph as it opens a new idea which is discussed in the next two paragraphs. The rest of this section is good.
Good points - reordered those sentences. Now it flows better. Also clarified that the prime minister is head of government.
That is a definite improvement. Jenhawk777 17:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm down to 'economy' but I have to quit for awhile--real life interferes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Alright! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 15:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The changes you made to these sections are excellent. Jenhawk777 07:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

New Section, Jenhawk777, prose review continuingEdit

all issues resolved
This has gotten too long, so I created a new section. It does not mean the things left undone in the previous section no longer matter.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Economy

but the social consequences of these measures have been "catastrophic" please explain. A single sentence will do.Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit of info on that one, should be clear now.
  • Infrastructure

Biomass has become the primary source of renewable power after more than a decade of growth in the sector.[285] I know it's linked, but include an explanatory phrase anyway. Biomass, fuel produced through biological processes, has become the primary source ... Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Demographics

Clarified this one as well.
  • The PISA study of 2015 found 41.5% of pupils in the 9th grade to be functionally illiterate in reading, maths and science.[315] Average literacy stands at 98.4% with no significant difference between sexes I don't see how these two statistics can fit together--perhaps think about what percentage of the population 9th graders are--and/or--make sure and say "However, the literacy rate of the overall population stands at..." Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
They're related. The 98% have basic literacy (which is reading), but a large percentage lack functional literacy (reading with understanding). I rephrased it in a way that relates the two,
  • Culture

with millennium-old folk traditions. one millennium? If so, it should say "a" millennium-old folk tradition. If it's older than one thousand years, it should say millennia-old folk traditions.

Millenia* corrected!

Many of these are personified as witches, I would have changed this one myself, but I had to assume you mean the spirits referred to in the previous sentence, and I am unsure if that assumption is correct. Once again, pronouns ...

These actually refers to both spirits and diseases. Both are personified as witches or other kinds of creatures/phenomena. I'm not sure what the correct word to emphasise that would be, though.

The Middle Ages were marked by the literary schools of Preslav and Ohrid does this refer to their founding? Some accomplishment of some kind? How many people went there? What?

It referred to their body of work, which consisted of both Bulgarian-language translations of Byzantine religious texts and original works. Those were the first scriptures in a Slavic language so they served to bring most Slavs under Eastern Christianity.

extended rhythmical time is it possible to explain this without going into too much detail?

Unfortunately no, and I've long considered this one problematic. It's a very specific detail of Bulgarian folk music, but it can't be explained without delving deep into musical terminology. A fair use audio file would be great as an illustration, but it's beyond risky.
  • Sports

when it was represented by Charles Champaud who played what? Did he win anything? Whether he did or not--he went--an achievement by itself. Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

He was a gymnast (linked to the 1896 gymnastics events), but did not medal. Which isn't such a big issue, those were the first modern games after all. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I have now finished the article. It is truly good with only a couple rough spots. It made me admire much about your country and want to visit! Jenhawk777 19:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

You're most welcome! - ☣Tourbillon A ? 10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sandringham HouseEdit

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Likened to a "golf-hotel at St Andrews or a station-hotel at Strathpeffer", Sandringham House has had a poor architectural press. But it holds some interest, as the private home of all the 20th century British monarchs, and the scene of the deaths of two of them. A Grade II* listed building, Sandringham is a modern rarity, a fully-functioning Victorian country house and estate surviving into the early 21st century. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Support and a few comments from Tim rileyEdit

Excellent piece, but in rereading the article I have spotted a few minor points that I ought to have raised at the peer review. (The heat and senility, you know.) Apologies for missing them earlier.

  • Info-box
    • "Built for Edward VII" – but you say it was built before he became king, so it was in fact built for the Prince of Wales, or, at pinch, Edward VII when Prince of Wales.
  •  Y - Done.
  • Edward VII
    • Palmerston is linked again here, having been linked in the previous para.
  •  Y - Undone.
    • First para: still some inconsistency over "the Prince" or "the prince"
  •  Y - Done, I hope.
    • "The resulting red-brick house was complete by late 1870, the only element…" – stronger stop than a comma required.
  •  Y - Done, with a semi-colon.
  • George V
    • At PR I suggested restraint in capitalising, but you really can't deny Christmas its capital.
  •  Y - Done.
  • George VI
    • "at 10.30p.m. He was discovered at 7.30 a.m." – inconsistent spacing.
  •  Y - Done.
  • Elizabeth II
    • Why link George VI here?
  •  Y - Done.
  • Appreciation
    • "Royal family" or "Royal Family"? We have both here.
  •  Y - Done.
  • Gardens
    • If you're going to give Dighton Probyn his "Sir", you might do the same for Eric Savill, who got his K in 1955, so was Sir Eric at the time you mention him.
  •  Y - Done.
  • Alt text – lacking throughout.
  •  Y - Now done.

That's all from me, I think. Happy to support. I'll do a source review if nobody else is forthcoming. – Tim riley talk 20:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - Tim, it is, as ever, much appreciated. And no apologies are necessary. I'm sure your usual laser-like focus wandered as you slogged through yet another bloody, boring house! Particularly one as architecturally disappointing as this. I shall attend to all of the comments asap, particularly the alt text which I'm ashamed I omitted. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Tim riley - Tim, first off, apologies for the delay in responding. Second, many thanks for the PR, which I should have acknowledged at the outset. Lastly, hope I've actioned all the above satisfactorily, except for the alt text which I'll get on to now. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Sandringham_eetkamer.JPG is quite blurry, any better-quality images available?

Also suggest some serious work on citation formatting before someone gets around to reviewing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria - Nikki, many thanks for the review. You're quite right, the dining room photo is of poor quality. Unfortunately, it is literally the only interior image I could find, either or here or on Geograph. I'm not actually at all sure I should even be using that one, as I think it was probably taken in contravention of the "No photos inside" rule that pertains at Sandringham House. And which accounts for the unavailability of any other images. If you think it would be better, I'll take it out. It's just a pity not to have any internal shots in an architecture article.
Re. the citation formatting, could you give me a hint. I've used my usual sfn and the citation bot isn't showing any obvious errors to me. Apologies if I'm being slow. KJP1 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of issues with consistency in the full citations - accessdates of varying formats, variations in which parameters are used and which not even for sources from the same site, newspapers presented as publishers, random CS2 cite where most are CS1, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Shall see what I can do with these. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Tim riley, Nikkimaria - I'm hoping I've now made the formatting of the online sources consistent, but it's highly likely I've missed something. Very happy to address any outstanding issues during the Source review and thanks again for the pick-up. KJP1 (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

I'll pick up the source review, but in view of Nikkimaria's comments, above, I'll leave it a day or two, to give KJP time to address those points before I start. Tim riley talk 08:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)


The sources cited appear reliable. Only one dodgy one: the link for ref 133 takes one to a wholly unrelated page.

 Y - odd. Replaced.

Otherwise, I note that ref 94 points to a self-published work, but the statement it covers is minor and uncontentious, and I don't propose to challenge it.

Indeed it is, but having bought it, I think it's reliable. He's a Rev. after all! KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Some minor points of formatting etc:

  • Views differ on whether one should add access dates as well as publication dates (where the latter are known), but I think you should be consistent whichever you go for:
  • "Appleton House". The Norwegian Royal Household. 5 March 2011" (ref 134)
  • "Home Office Circular 018/2007 (Trespass on protected sites)". GOV.UK. Home Office. 22 May 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2017 (ref 122).
The only other instance of publishing and retrieval dates both given is at ref 124.
 Y - Done by removal in both cases to make consistent throughout.
  • Two slightly different references to the same site, viz: "The History of Sandringham". The Sandringham Estate. Retrieved 29 July 2018 and The History of Sandringham". The Sandringham Estate. Retrieved 2017-11-26 (refs 4 and 88). (The latter is also the only incidence of a yyyy-mm-dd date; all the other dates are consistently dd-mm-yyyy.)
 Y - consolidated and made consistent thereby.
  • Ref 123 – I think the year is probably wrong. All other references to Mackworth-Young & Ransom give it as 1993.
 Y - Oops. Now sorted.
  • Staff writers: I don't think I have ever seen the words "Staff writers" appearing in the Sources of any other article. Isn't it usual to comment them out for articles with no by-line? I don't say it's wrong to include them, but they look a bit strange. (Refs 67, 71, 79, 106, 121 and 137–140)
 Y - I've never done this before, but noticed the option was there so used it! Can never resist pressing a shiny new button. Now removed.
  • Titles of authors: Not sure why Roy Strong gets his K in the References, but Alan Lascelles, Harold Nicolson and Nikolaus Pevsner don't in the Sources.
 Y - de-gonged Roy for consistency.
  • The royal author is "Duke of Windsor" in the References (124), but "Windsor, the Duke of" in the Sources.
 Y - Hope I've got your meaning here?
  • Sources: "Cassell and Company" – two minor points: everywhere else in your sources – e.g. Chatto & Windus – you use an ampersand rather than "and"; and elsewhere you shorten Company to Co.
 Y - Done and done.
  • Publishers – links: not sure it's necessary or particularly helpful to readers to link the names of publishing houses, but if you are going to do so you might add one for Thames & Hudson.
 Y - but perhaps not in the way you'd prefer!
  • American publishers: New Haven USA but Connecticut US. I understand the latter is preferred.
 Y - Done.

That's all I can find. – Tim riley talk 20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Tim riley - Tim, many thanks and only sorry I left more than I would have liked undone. Shall set to tomorrow. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Tim riley - Many thanks for catching these and I hope/think I've addressed them all. Now I just need to try to drum up a little more interest in the grim old house! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Signing off source review. All is now right as far as I can see. Tim riley talk 20:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from GianoEdit

This seems a well written and informative article and worthy of FA status. Perhaps the early 20th century statement: "Sandringham had not a single good picture, piece of furniture or other work of art" could be updated, as the house possesses quite a few good works of art, many collected by the late Queen Mother, not to mention Queen Alexandra's large collection of Fabergé. Otherwise, it all seems good to me. Giano (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Giano - Very much appreciated and thanks for looking in. And a very good point re. the art. I'd forgotten about the QM's collection of 20th century English works. I'll find a couple of references and alter accordingly. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Giano - I hope the additional text and the footnotes address your very legitimate concern. KJP1 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from CasliberEdit

Taking a look now... (well, I started earlier today but got interrupted IRL) - will jot any queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

In the Early history section, the word "estate" appears in the first 3 sentences. Maybe change the second to something like ".... the pavements of a Roman villa, have been discovered within its borders/on the grounds" or somesuch...
there are no depictions of the original hall around?
There's one here, which must be out of copyright by now. Giano (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Casliber - Very much appreciate the interest. Will address the comments as they come through if that's ok. An image of the earlier Hall would be nice, and I see Giano's found one, but my clipping skills are inadequate. I'll have a look around. I'd also love some interior shots, but they're not actually allowed and the one of the dining room is dodgy in a number of ways. KJP1 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
There's quite a nice one here, second down [8] but it says it's copyrighted, even though it must be 150 odd years old as it shows Edward and Alexandra at the old hall so will have been taken between their buying in 1862, and the rebuilding circa 1865. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with finding something as I feel it will help the article. Also, I was surprised to find Sandringham Estate is a redirect. I did ponder about things such as the seven villages mentioned as being on the estate and more on the gardens, but thought to myself that these would be covered in an article on the estate as this is on the house....but that article is lacking. Ultimately I feel that there is enough context if this article is about the house alone but if it is meant to be on the estate that is another whole kettle of fish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, a very nice read, with some warmth that makes it engageing, yet concise as well. I think we are there WRT FA-hood but just want to clarify the scope as mentioned above. I figure you'll either find an appropriately licenced image of the old house or not, so if there is none then it is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Casliber - Glad you liked it. I completely agree that an article on the estate, as opposed to the house, would have a broader scope. It's a big place, encompassing a number of villages/churches/parishes etc., and would need a broader canvas. Perhaps somebody will write it, but I don't think it will be me. Thanks again for your interest. KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for the Support and I'll continue to search for a usable image of the old hall. You're quite right, a before and after set would be of benefit to the article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility: comments and support from RexxSEdit

The images all have well-crafted alt text and are sized reasonably well, if a little on the small side to my eyes. However, they don't respect registered users' preferences for thumbnail sizing because they all use a fixed pixel size. That could be improved by using the |upright= parameter, for example, changing 200px to upright=0.9. I understand the desire to keep a balance between images and text, but I always feel architectural articles benefit by making their images as large as can be accommodated without ruining the balance. Our default width for thumbnails is 220px and most of the images here are less than that.
All of the text is at least 90% of the page's base font size, easily meeting our standards set at MOS:FONTSIZE.
There is little use of colour made beyond our standard foreground and background colours, which makes its accessibility as good as we can get it. The only exception is the Template:Royal palaces in the United Kingdom, where the blue title bar has insufficient colour difference from the blue link and fails WCAG 2 AAA standards. That, of course, is no reflection on this article as the template does not allow a change from the default {{Navbox}} colours.
All of the elements on the page are navigable without use of a mouse, and all are accessible by anyone using a screen reader. No elements are collapsed by default.

The article has good accessibility overall, leaving little room for improvement. I'd be happy to support the article's promotion. --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

RexxS - That is extremely kind, and I very much appreciate both the interest, and the carefully-considered suggestions. I absolutely agree that architecture articles are hugely enhanced by images - which is incidentally why I'm slowly working my way through photographing the remainder of Monmouthshire's 250-odd Grade II* listed buildings! - and I'll see what I can do to improve them. Do feel free to have a bash yourself, as I suspect you'll have a much better idea than I what you're doing. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
RexxS - I tried 0.9 upright, but it looked even smaller than 220px. I've plagiarised from Ceoil's Black Hours, Morgan MS 493 at 1.3. Is that ok? KJP1 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I was hoping you would play with the sizes to find what looked best. The default is that 220px is equivalent to upright=1.0. The image you experimented with was already 250px wide, so you needed something bigger than upright=1.0. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, playing around and they are looking better. Just need to jig around the text, and maybe flip a few left/rights. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
They already look so much nicer to my old and tired eyes. I have two windows open side-by-side right now on my 4K monitor showing the article before and after your resizing. I think it is a clear improvement. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
It does doesn't it! Many thanks for the suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from FreikorpEdit

  • 'after the Norman invasion' - should Norman invasion be wikilinked? Also 'Norman era' in the previous section redirects to England in the High Middle Ages. Would it be better off linking to a sub-section at that article or even House of Normandy?
 Y - done and done.
  • 'His mode of living to date had been disappointing' ... 'fast living set' - this all seems a bit vague, can you clarify this at all? I.e. What was disappointing and define fast living set?
 Y - done, I hope. I've linked to the Tranby Croft affair, which is the redirect for Marlborough House set. It's not absolutely on point, as Tranby Croft was many years later. Basically, the Marlborough House set were a bunch of wealthy aristos and arrivistes that encouraged Edward in his pursuit of wine, women and song, not that he needed much encouragement, and the idea was to wean him anyway from this crowd by sticking him in the depths of Norfolk where he could live the quieter life of a country gent. It didn't work. Have also put in a note about the Marlborough House set. Is it any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 'by the estate's recent historian' - consider replacing 'recent' as per WP:REALTIME
 Y - done.
  • 'This house was built by Albert Edward Prince of Wales and Alexandra his wife' - should Alexandra be wikilinked here as it is the first mention in the body, rather than two sentences later?
 Y - done.
  • 'Following a fire during preparations for the Prince of Wales's 50th birthday' - it would be of interest to readers to know how the fire started, if such information is available.
 Y - done, I hope.
  • 'on an alley at "Rumpelheim" (sic)' - So what exactly is the error here? Is it spelt wrong? Is it necessary to clarify this spelling error to the reader? At the moment I think it just raises more questions. Can we wikilink it to the correct spelling?
 Y - done, hopefully. This is a bit confusing. Martin spells the place Rumpelheim. He means Offenbach-Rumpenheim, for which the best link is the German Wiki. Should I link that, or this, Offenbach am Main which is the closest we've got on the English Wiki? Or should I just remove the "sic"? Or both? For now I've give the English Wiki link and taken out the sic. KJP1 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 'water being supplied from the Appleton water tower' - this strikes me as odd to mention. Is there anything significant about this water tower? Where exactly is the tower?
 Y - hope I've clarified. It's one of the more significant buildings on the estate and I think warrants a mention.
  • Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but perhaps clarify in the prose that 'Persimmon and Diamond Jubilee' are race horses. Stud farms do not exclusively breed horses.
 Y - done.
  • 'are listed Grade II' - would it be worth mentioning what this actually means? What makes a building grade II, as opposed to grade I or grade III?
 Y - done.
  • Should dates have commas after them? I.e. In 1886, In 2007,
 Y - hope I've caught them all.

That's all I found. Looks really good overall. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Freikorp - Many thanks indeed for the review and for the very helpful comments. Shall get on to them soonest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Freikorp - Hope I've dealt with everything satisfactorily and thanks again for taking the time and the trouble. It's definitely improved it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I've looked over everything and happy to support this now. Good luck with the nomination. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciated and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from DBaKEdit

I'm so sorry that I am late to the party. Apologies all round. Here are some poorly-organized and partial comments which I hope might nevertheless be some small help. I might try to add some more or I might have been deported to Bad Editor Island before I get round to it.

  • Everywhere: does Royal as a passing adjective need a capital? I think not, you obviously think it does. Choose your weapon!
 N - Going to need to check these through.
  • Lead, paragraph 1: Occupied from Elizabethan times, the first major house on the site was a Georgian mansion, constructed in 1771. This is an uncomfortable read for me, as it feels like an almost-dangling participle. It was the site, not the first major house, that was occupied from Elizabethan times - can we disentangle these two please?
 Y - Done.
  • History > Early history, paragraph 1: ... even older remains, including the pavements of a Roman villa, have been discovered in the area. Which area? If it is the house site or grounds or just round the corner then fine, but it it's within say a 15-mile radius, not OK. Can we nail down the area a bit more, please?
 Y - Done, as far as I can. Messent says only "on the Estate".
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 2: The resulting red-brick house was complete by late 1870; the only element of the original house that was retained ... - "original house" is a hostage to imprecision here - the only bit of which house, do we mean?? We should say.
 Y - Done.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 2, the next sentence: The resulting building was entered through a large porte-cochère, straight into the main living room, the saloon, an arrangement that was subsequently found to be inconvenient, and provided living and sleeping accommodation over three storeys, with attics and a basement. This is too long and sets too many different hares running to comfortably resolve them by the full stop. Please fillet out the different ideas (what it provided, what was found inconvenient, an ting) and tell us them in a new one, separately but still somehow interrelated. Also bzzzzzzzt repetition on "resulting".
 Y - Hope this is clarified.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: Despite rebuilding the house ... this is like one of those optical illusions where sometimes it's an old lady smoking a pipe and the other way up it's a bearded man playing the sousaphone (YMMV). It makes me go "Despite rebuilding the house, who did what? Oh hang on ..." Please reword to remove the ambiguity. Or maybe just a comma. Anything that stops the terrible terrible sousaphone.
 Y - and similarly this.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: ... in 1883 a new extension, the bachelors' wing, ... is a bachelors' wing just a thing that we can casually mention (like: my house has one) or is it more of a proper name for this particular thing, so it is the Bachelors' Wing? I sort of think the latter and am worried you have been shouted at by anticapitalists too much (see above).
 Y - No idea as to the extent of your own domain, but I think it's a rare case where I should be capitalising.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: Damage caused by a serious fire that broke out when maids lit the fires in the second floor bedrooms[25] during preparations for the Prince of Wales's 50th birthday in 1891,[26] led Edis to undertake further building and extensions. Aaargh! Another very long sentence that is giving me hallucinations and fainting fits. The thing that led Edis is a very long thing and reads awkwardly. I feel that at the very least a comma after the first word, Damage, would be more correct and read less painfully; the Rolls Royce version would be to rewrite or restructure a little.
 Y - Clarified, I hope.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: ... water being supplied from a water tower constructed by Edward at neighboring (sic, fixed) Appleton - can we please here, or somewhere, mention that this is the Landmark Trust's very fine Appleton Water Tower?
Good Lord - I had no idea we had a link for that. Well-spotted indeed! KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 Y - Now noted and footnoted.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 4: Edward worked to create one of the best sporting estates ... I am shouting "well did he or didn't he?" at my screen. There's something oddly ambiguous about this choice of words - it's too weak to say he DID, and it's too wishy washy to say that he intended or wished to ... I think either perhaps he should just do it, or he should strive to do it, or something, but "worked" does not blow my horn nor ring my bell. Sorry.
 Y - I think we can comfortably say he did.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 5: Neither his son, nor his grandsons evinced such interest in horses, although ... at the very least that first comma is wrong and should come out. It might be worse than that; I'm not sure.
 Y - Hope this reads better.
  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 5: Sandringham was the scene for a considerable number of Royal births and deaths ... "was the scene for" is awkward. Maybe turn it round and say that a considerable number etc happened at Sandringham?
 Y - This, a hangover from the original version, never sat well. Hope it's better now.
  • History > George V, paragraph 1: The lack of space did, however, enable George to limit the entertaining ... which sounds like it was a good thing for George, but I am not sure that we explain it properly ... without that, it might have forced him to do so, etc.
 Y - He did not. Dinner a deux with Queen Mary at home was paradise for him. Hope it's now clear.
  • History > George V, paragraph 3: Queen Alexandra died at Sandringham on 20 November 1925 which finally allowed the King and his family to move to the main house. Well yes but it sounds a bit directly consequential and even opportunist. Can we not somehow say, please, that she died, and that one result of her death was that they moved in ... I'm not explaining this well. I don't want an essay on it, just less A>B in the apparent logic.
 Y - Done, I hope.
  • History > George V, paragraph 3: Two days later, George's body was transported by train from Wolferton to London, and a lying in state at Westminster Hall. - reads oddly for me. Might something like this work? "... by train from Wolferton to London, and to its lying in state at Westminster Hall." I think what is bugging me is that Wolferton and London are places but a L-I-S is a thing? Or something. I just think that even the repetition of "to" would help.
 Y - Amended as per your suggestion.

That's all I have for now. It was that length of train journey! At the risk of stating the obvious, I do support the promotion of this excellent article. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

DBaK - Many thanks. The comments are very helpful and not remotely tardy. I shall crack on with them asap. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome and I am glad to help. Happy editing DBaK (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Addendum – a few more comments from DBaKEdit

Just nipping back briefly to Edward VII and then on ...

  • History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: That at Sandringham was modelled on an alley at Rumpelheim, Germany. I feel this is in danger of losing the sense a little - could we maybe swap things about a bit to help the reader with something like this? "The bowling alley at Sandringham was modelled on one at Rumpelheim, Germany."
 Y - Hopes this runs more smoothly.
  • History > George V, paragraph 2: A memorial to the dead was raised on the estate, to which the names of those killed in the Second World War were added subsequently. ... "Estate to which" is awkward. To avoid this I would replace the comma with a semicolon and remove "to which" so you would get: "A memorial to the dead was raised on the estate; the names of those killed in the Second World War were added subsequently."
 Y - Amended as suggested.
  • History > Elizabeth II, paragraph 3: In January 1957 the Queen received the resignation of the then Prime Minister Anthony Eden - could we please lose the "then"? Sometimes they help, but this one does not: it's restating the absolutely obvious and inevitable.
 Y - Done, by deletion.
  • Architecture and description > Saloon: why does Edis need to be a colonel here? If it makes sense to give him the rank as a courtesy earlier, then fair enough, but it seems unlikely to be relevant here; I would just use his surname here.
 Y - Done, by demotion.
  • Architecture and description > Appreciation: Notable exceptions came to include some of the collection of, mainly 20th century English, art ... I don't think that the commas help or are right - I would simply omit them: "Notable exceptions came to include some of the collection of mainly 20th century English art ..." or reword to avoid this issue.
 Y - Done, as per your suggestion.
  • Gardens: a gift to Queen Alexandra from the comptroller of her household, General Sir Dighton Probyn in 1913 is going to need a comma after "Probyn" if it is not reworded ... the date could be moved earlier to avoid this.
 Y - Done.
  • Wider estate > Park House: it is now an hotel - I believe that this should read "it is now a hotel". Queensberry Rules?
 Y - Done.
  • Wider estate > York Cottage: York Cottage, originally known as Bachelors' Cottage, was built by the Prince of Wales soon after ... unless you've been following closely from the start you might lose track of which Prince fo Wales we mean here, so much further down the article. Is there a neat, easy way to remind the reader?
 Y - Done, but does it work any better?
  • Wider estate > York Cottage: Some press reports have suggested that the Queen has given it as a wedding present to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, although other commentators dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense" - reads slightly oddly. I think I might get the doubt in earlier with something like: "Although some press reports have suggested that the Queen has given it as a wedding present to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, other commentators dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense"" then you can sense which way this quite long sentence is heading while you are reading it.
 Y - Done as suggested.

And that really is me done and shushing now! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

DBaK - Really appreciate the input, which has greatly improved the article. I shall make a point of inviting you to the PR next time! I hope I'd addressed the issues to your satisfaction but let me know if I've not. I know I need to go through and make my Royals consistent. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just a few comments,

  • "to a Norman knight, Robert Fitz-Corbun after the Norman invasion.[2]" possibly diminish or spread out the Normans?
 Y - Done.
  • "and in 1771 Cornish Henley cleared the site to build Sandringham Hall.[4] The house was subsequently modified in the early 19th century by Charles Spencer Cowper," what need for "subsequently" when you've dated the events?
 Y - Done.
  • Is anything known about the use of the house at the time it was bought for Edward? Were the owners already seeking to sell it?
 Y - Done. I've expanded the "Early" section a bit to give more detail. It was indeed rather sparse.
  • "which was finalised in the October of that year.[10]" I would slice the "the", personally.
 Y - Done.
  • "The Norfolk countryside surrounding the house particularly appealed to Alexandra, as it reminded her of the countryside of her native Denmark.[24]" I would cut "of the countryside" to leave "... as it reminded her of her native Denmark".
 Y - Done.
  • If Edward VIII was left nothing but the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, how is it that he owned Sandringham House?
 Y - Done. Hope I've clarified this. He got Sandringham, and Balmoral, simply by being the eldest son, although GV could have left them to somebody else, had he chosen. The point I was failing to make was that George V, who had already lost all faith in Ed8's suitability for kingship; "I pray to God that my eldest son will never marry and have children, and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne"; starved him of cash.
  • Can anything more be said about who is presently managing the estate? It does not sound like it is the Duke of Edinburgh, and yet he is implied as still running it."
 N - Unfortunately not. I am sure you're right and that, given his age, the Duke doesn't actually run the estate now, even though he does spend much/most of his time there. They will certainly have an estate manager. But their own website, here, [9] sheds no light on it. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "with Spanish tapestries, a gift from Alfonso XII of Spain.[108]" it is revealed in a footnote to the next paragraph that these are by Goya. I would say that is significant enough to bring forward, perhaps by adding "by Goya" after "tapestries"
 Y - Done. Actually, they're not all Goya, so I've caveated. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "art assembled by the Queen Mother," This is the first time you mention her; should there be a link? I noe you never link Queen Mary. I note later, "for the King and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother after the Second World War.[120][121] " which is a bit problematical, time wise, with "was purchased by the Queen Mother and installed in 1951.[122] [p] " even more so.
 Y - Done. I hope. And QMary's link. It does become very tricky when one's writing of what X did before they were called X. I got into a similar tangle with EdVII. I hope it is clearer now. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • " James Pope-Hennessy, the official biography of Queen Mary, was even less impressed," some issue or other.
 Y - Done.
  • I realise Wood Farm has its own article, but I'm surprised that there is no discussion of it and its history in the article. The interest, for example, in Prince John of the United Kingdom might lead people to the Sandringham article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 Y - Done. Have added a, fairly brief, section on Wood Farm in the Wider estate section.
Wehwalt - Very much appreciate the interest and the comments. Shall get on to them soonest. KJP1 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt - Very much hope I've addressed the issues satisfactorily. Thank you again for your review. Very helpful and much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Support all looks good now. Enjoyable to learn more about this famous place.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the first theropod dinosaur discovered in India that had more than just skull pieces. That said, this is probably, if it passes, the shortest FA dinosaur article, and in all cases my first dinosaur article for FA, but length doesn't always equate to completeness. It's complete as far's I can tell, that's why it's here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by LusotitanEdit

I'll do a more in-depth check soon, but for now I'd like to see a bit longer of a lead if possible. I'd wager you should be able to squeeze two good paragraphs out of this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by IJReidEdit

I'll add some in later, but there seems to be a little disconnect between what goes in what section. The first paragraph of Description doesn't contain any description, and the material found is listed in Description and not Discovery. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "though the dubious genus Lametasaurus described in 1923 may actually represent a stout Rajasaurus individual, specifically the hip remains," I can't understand this wording does it imply only the hips are Rajasaurus?
That's what it says, yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording is still convoluted. Perhaps something like "Only the holotype specimen exists, although the hip bone remains of the dubious genus Lametasaurus, described in 1923 for [list material] from [location], might represent a stout individual of Rajasaurus. This cannot be confirmed as the Lametasaurus specimen has been lost." IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
At this point I really don't think the article is comprehensive or well-written enough, but I'm not really sure where to start without simply hard-opposing.
 :/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "On the braincase, only the left sides of the parietal and frontal bones are preserved, though the opposite is true for the horn" I don't understand, the frontals and parietals aren't braincase bones, and the sentence "on the braincase," makes no sense when you consider this.
Are you sure the parietal is not part of the braincase? It seems to be one of the major bones that make up the braincase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I guess you could but generally the frontoparietal is considered the skull roof while occipital bones are braincase.
The source described the frontals and parietals under a subheading "Braincase"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The horn" what horn?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the horn is significant enough it deserves more than a passing mention. Maybe reorder the paragraph so the remaining horn info directly follows?
I just split it off into its own paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "the walls decreasing" what walls? decreasing in what?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The low horn on its forehead ..." a lot of repetition in the words horn and bone and has a lot of pauses (comma should be present before the "more than")
Well it does talk about bones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Like with metatarsals, cutting off the bone is perfectly appropriate after first mention. Also, a comma is still needed
Done, and I don't see where the comma should go   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The right side of the orbitosphenoid bones is broken away, exposing, on the frontal bone near the midline, a path for the olfactory tract which is a part of smelling" this sentence bears very little relevance for inclusion apart from the mention of "for smelling"
Deleted the orbitosphenoid part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Crista prootica needs a link or gloss
I defined what it was in the same sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The wording doesn't help laymen know the crista prootica is simply the prootic crest
I don't what either of those are, but I rearranged it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Gloss otic capsule, orbitosphenoid, olfactory tract, sagittal crest etc
All of those are already wikilinked   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
All of those are already explained in text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding a bracketes phrase explanation would be helpful to those without the beta feature for page previews
I hate those page previews, there's no x button on them; all of those are already defined in text (like sagittal crest is "crest along the middle of the top of the skull")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there anything more of importance like the shape of the skull, snout bones, eye positioning, anything more than some braincase and rear-of-skull details?
No, because they only found the braincase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if this diagram[10] is completely misleading then? It shows a lot of skull material besides the braincase, so I wonder whether some parts have been identified since the original description, or if the image is just erroneous. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that there is more material known, maybe dig into newer literature?
I just remembered appendixes exist :/ but it's citing this from 1999 (which I can't access) saying all the parts listed were used in some kinda analysis, and also I can't figure out how to read the appendix because it says things like "Crown height (largest maxillary crowns): 20-30% (O), or 10-15% (I), of height of snout at midlength." So of the things I can read there, it had a maxilla, premaxilla, and a quadrate, and there were air pockets between the maxilla and premaxilla (I've been trying to read this for half an hour, that's all I got). News articles say there was a jaw but I find no reference to a mandible anywhere   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
A tip, you can access practically anything via the links in the infobox here... FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Whoa, that's cool. But in any case, that 1999 article didn't elucidate anything, so when the appendix cites something I'm not entirely sure what's it's trying to do. All I've added is premaxilla, maxilla, and quadrate bone to the listing of the holotype remains in Discovery and naming. Everything the appendix says about everything seems either trivial or incomprehensible (though if it's incomprehensible it's generally also trivial)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if something has been overlooked on Google scholar. But then again, Sereno was one of the describers, and he has a reputation of not following up on preliminary descriptions with more detail later. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Only one neck vertebra–likely a middle vertebra–is preserved, and it is proportionally shorter than that of other ceratosaurians, and also it is broader than is tall; like in other ceratosaurians, the back end of the vertebra where it connects to another vertebra (articular process) is very concave" run-on sentence, break this up into at least two
the semi-colon is a replacement for a period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The sentence is still too long, please cut it in half and reword if necessary.
Alright is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Are the centra opisthocoelous? There should be some mention of the centrum description its more easy to understand than the neural arch and spine anatomy.
the entire thing basically is centrum description and what side's convex or concave (every time it says "concave at the articular processes")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Then thats something that needs fixing, because articular processes aren't on the centrum, the zygapophyses (see link) are on the arch
anatomy is hard, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Most dinosaur articles use dorsal vertebrae instead of thoracic, following almost all literature
done, I'd never seen "dorsal vertebra" before so I just went with thoracic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Air spaces" better would be to use air pockets or "_ for air sacs"
I switched it to pockets   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Whats significant about the angle of the pelvic bone
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "the second metatarsal bone which connects the ankle bone to the second toe is robust" comma missing
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A lot of saying "metatarsal bone". Why not just shorten to "metatarsal" after the first full use?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nothing on its classification changed between 2003 and 2014? Not from papers on stuff like Rugops or Kryptovenator or Skorpiovenator or Ilokelesia?
Not that I've found, the big thing was finding an abelisaurid outside of Gondwana as far's I can tell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure a quick mention of studies like Sereno or Carrano or Pol and where they place Rajasaurus would be good, just to show comprehensiveness in literature. Also maybe add notes on Brachyrostra vs Rajasaurus' placement from Canale. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I got a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No maxilla, premaxilla or quadrate are mentioned in the material list of Wilson et al, but is listed here in Discovery. To add: looking into literature the only mentions of cranial material are the Chatterjee 1978 paper and Chatterjee & Rudra 1996, where a premaxilla, maxilla, dentary, jugal, lachrimal and angular are "described" (not really described but talked about). These were referred to Indosuchus. It appears as though the cranial material often drawn as "Rajasaurus" really comes from this bunch of intermetiate fossils. Wait for the Sereno & Wilson paper mentioned as going through indian theropod remains to be published IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonkEdit

  • Will review soon, some initial thoughts first. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "in his book, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" Why is this needed in-text?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "in a comprehensive analysis of abelisaurid size" Likewise.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For the unfamiliar reader, perhaps give a general description of its body plan, based on Paul's general description of abelisaurs on page 78 of his Field Guide.
I just found a free preview online, added now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Paul also states this genus specifically may have used its horn for display and head butting with con-specifics (page 80).
  • You could give some info about how abelisaurs are generally thought to have behaved. Feeding behaviour, I think they are thought to have been fast as well. There is a review paper on this published this year:[11]
Are you sure it's entirely sound to do that? All it specifically says about Rajasaurus is that it had a horn   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Anything that is true for abelisaurs in general could be relevant here, for example, if we know all abelisaurs ate sauropods, you don't have to find a source that specifically says Rajasaurus did so. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Well if that's the case I could basically copy over Majungasaurus over here or Abelisauridae. Where's the line drawn?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
No, because info that is specific for Majungasaurus doesn't necessarily apply to other members of the group. Unlike, well, info that applies to the entire group, and stated as such in a given source. See for example the last paragraph of the palaeoecology section in the recently promoted Oxalaia, that's a good example of how to do it. If a review paper says for example "abelisaurids probably used their horns for display", or "abelisaurids were fast runners", that is very relevant here, so it needs to be checked out. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, you got your paleobiology section now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
It makes the article better, so if it is "mine", I can only be happy. I might ditch the Isisaurus image, though, it seems everyone agrees it has inaccurate proportions. I am in the process of fixing the horn and jaw muscles on the last Rajasaurus restoration too, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't tell if the horn's too big or if it's just perspective, but in any case I replaced Isisaurus with the Sanajeh snake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I fixed the image before you looked again, it should be fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That paper also has some info on the life appearance on Rajasaurus, the absence of this citation makes me wonder if there has been a thorough literature search about this taxon and its group. On Google Scholar or such.
Are you sure that's the right paper? Rajasaurus only appears three times in the entire thing, two sentences about the horn and once in a cladogram (and they confused India with Madagascar on it anyways)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It says specifically "The single horn of Majungasaurus and Rajasaurus do not have the depressed lip seen in Carnotaurus and Ceratosaurus, suggesting that they were covered by cornified tissue without dorsal extension." You might want to read the surrounding text to interpret what this exactly means and how it can be explained here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
That just means Carnotaurus had a bigger horn than the fossil shows because it had some skin jutting out on top of the horn, but Rajasaurus and Majungasaurus didn't have the hard skin thing. I don't think that's noteworthy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It is pretty significant that we can even tell that the horn was not much longer than the bony core, unlike in some relatives, therefore a recognisable feature of this animal. It tells the reader how the animal might or might not have looked in life. In fact, this info seems to imply that our last restoration that shows a significantly lengthened horn might need to be updated. If you leave it out, it conflicts with the comprehensiveness criterion. An article this short to begin with should'nt leave out directly relevant info about the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay it's there now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "suggesting the dinosaur was comparatively slower–" This info looks like it would belong in the paleoecology or a paleobiology section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Rajasaurus was then formally described in 2003 by geologist Jeffrey A. Wilson and palaeontologist Paul Sereno." Needs citation.
oops, added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll continue once the issues brought up by Reid have been fixed, since they may significantly alter/expand parts of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I went to page 8 on google scholar, there is nothing about the mouth, should I keep going?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Going ion what way? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The way you describe the discovery is a bit vague, this source gives a more precise account you could use:[12]
I rearranged the Discovery section and looks like I forgot to go back and fix it, it should be good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Still seems there are some details in the link above that could be used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Fragments of Rajasaurus were also found" So more than one specimen in known, or is it part of the same specimen? This is very unclear from the current text.
Ref no. 1 says, "The fossil bones of Rajasaurus are found at Rahioli (Gujarat) Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)...a small portion of the upper jaw of Rajasaurus...comes from the ‘Bara Shimla Hill’, Jabalpur."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Are they all part of the holotype, though? If not, this statement is incorrect: "Only the holotype specimen exists". FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The source says, "The bones of Rajasaurus were found at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)...a small portion of the upper the...reconstruction comes from...Jabalpur," but Wilson 2003 doesn't specifically say Rajasaurus bones were found in Jabalpur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
So I'm still confused, does that mean the sources are inconsistent in how many specimens there are? If so, you might have to state this specifically in the article, otherwise it looks like it contradicts itself. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Wilson says he's using remains found in Rahioli (making the Rahioli remains the holotype), and another source says that remains were also found in Jabalpur and these Jabalpur remains were used for a small part of the skull reconstruction while most of it relied on remains from Rahioli. Wilson never mentions the Rajasaurus Jabalpur remains, which would technically mean they are not part of the holotype specimen, and that would technically mean there are 2 specimens. However, that seems like a lot of independent conclusions. Also, they are from different ends of the same formation and in all likelihood represent the same individual whose remains were scattered along a river, meaning there's still only 1 specimen, but that's OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
So in that case, you should state explicitly in the article that one author says this, while another says that, without making your own conclusions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Wilson never says the dinosaur is only known from Rahioli, he just says the remains he's describing come from Rahioli   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, the problem is the text currently says "Only the holotype specimen exists", and since we don't know whether this refers to the bones collected from two different places, you need to be more specific for this not to read like a contradiction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I just deleted "only the holotype is known"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Banksia blechnifoliaEdit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, another banksia (like the other 32 FAs). Still, as a body of work I wanted to get them all featured. Anyway, short and sweet. It's comprehensive (I scoured the sources) and should read okay. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor
  • "Banksia blechnifolia is a species of flowering plant in the plant genus Banksia native to Western Australia" - are both the species and the genus native to Western Australia? bit unclear to me
if I do this, does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The fur on older stems turns grey with age. The leathery herringbone leaves rise vertically from the stems on thick 5–18 cm (2–7 in) long petioles, which have two narrow ribs on the undersurface. The leaves themselves are 25–45 cm (10–17 1⁄2 in) long, with 8–22 deep lobes on each leaf edge. These lobes are narrowly triangular to roughly linear in shape and 2–5 cm (3⁄4–2 in) long. They are either oppositely or alternately arranged along the leaf midline, and arise at 60–80 degrees. The leaf blade narrows for the top third of its length to a pointed apex" - lots of "the", "they"... perhaps a bit more varied sentence structure?
Man, that's quite hard - I did this to liven it up... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The individual flowers are reddish pink with a cream base. The perianth is 2.8–3.2 cm (1 1⁄8–1 1⁄4 in) long, includes a 3.5–5 mm limb and is covered in fine fur. The old flowers fade to light brown and then grey, and remain on the spike, obscuring the developing seed pods known as follicles." - same as above
I tried this. Hard going... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Von Mueller wrote of it again in 1869 as a variety of B. repens, giving it the name Banksia pinnatisecta.[5] The species was then mostly forgotten until 1931, when it was collected again by William Blackall and Charles Gardner near Middle Mt Barren" - Middle Mt Barren, which is what? is there a relevant link? if not, a brief description would be useful since it's meaningless to a lay reader like myself
It lies in Fitzgerald River National Park - both West and East Mount Barren have pages but the middle one appears less notable...sigh. So linked to parent article/location Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • References look good.

Happy to support once my minor concerns are addressed. ceranthor 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber, I think the changes look fine. Feel free to change anything back to a previous version if you feel uncomfortable with any of the changes you've made. ceranthor 23:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
your changes are fine. @Ceranthor: I got everything, right? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Yup. ceranthor 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll do the layman review.
  • Shouldn't the infobox caption begin with a capital letter?
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Not all people mentioned are presented.
got 'em all now (I think...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this detail worth showing?[13] What is it?
a growing stem and leaves - yes/added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "With respect to B. blechnifolia, Mast's results have some semblance to George and Thiele's, as B. repens, B. chamaephyton and B. blechnifolia form a closely knit group within this group, and the overall inferred phylogeny is very different from George's arrangement." But/though?
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "found that it diverged from a" Last name you mentioned was the genus name, so perhaos spell out the specific name instead of just "it".
yes/done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "from material collected in 1861 by G. Maxwell" Is it known where it was collected?
I think I would have added it if known - but will check again. it was only recorded as "southwestern Australia", so not strictly unknown but not helpful either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "and take 14 to 49 days to germinate.[18] B. blechnifolia takes 4–5 years to flower from seed." If this is true to the species in general, doesn't it belong elsewhere in the article? Seems to be about the life cycle rather than just cultivation.
have tweaked it - that is how long it takes to flower in cultivation. Not sure how long it takes in nature (probably the same) but is not specified thus in the source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "and no subspecies are recognised" Only stated in the intro.
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad I of GranadaEdit

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Muhammad I (1195–1273), the founder of the Emirate of Granada, the last Muslim state in Spain. I've been working on it, relying on multiple scholarly sources. I nominated it for GA successfully, and then put it for a peer review and addressed all the feedback. Would appreciate an FA review on this. HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note -- hi, per FAC instructions, any open peer review should be closed before nominating here; pls close the peer review if you're going to proceed with this nom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

@Ian Rose: Thanks, I closed it just now. The peer review has been inactive for a while, I forgot it hadn't been formally closed. HaEr48 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Serial Number 54129

  • I might come back to this later, but a couple of brief remarks for now—a couple of things just stand out on a first read.
  • It's thorough, no doubt, and extremely interesting. The main thing regarding content is his death, including the end of his life. Do we have any more on this? And there's a little repetition ("He was succeeded by his son and designated successor Muhammad II", cf. "By the time of his death, Muhammad I had already secured the succession for his son, also named Muhammad").
  • I'll read up the sources to see if they have more. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I checked the sources and unfortunately I can't find more information about the end of his life. Re the repetition, is it that both sentence name his successor and the fact that it's secured before his death? IMO, in this case the duplicated information is not that much and it's reiterating important info in a new section, so I don't think it's necessarily bad. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Repetition in the lede too: "the last independent Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula" / "during this period was to be Spain's last Muslim state".
  • Removed the second phrase. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs—fn.13, check the dash; Harvey 1992 / Miranda 1970 / Watt 2007 needs page nos for their chapters; Henri Terrasse should swap places with Watt.
    • Fixed the dash, page numbers, and order of Terrasse vs Watt. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • "unresolved in 1273, when Muhammad", lose the comma;
    • "One of the taifa leader" needs pluralizing, as does "seven month into the siege of Jaén";
    • "Alfonso was more interested other" needs an "in";
    • "to discuss extension of the 1246 truce"—an extension or extending;
    • "He declared himself to be vassal of"—declared himself vassel of / declared himself the vassel of;
      • I think you mean "vassal", SN. - Dank (push to talk) 10:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • "Initially the rebellion went well"—comma after initially;
    • "much larger than what was paid before the rebellion"—had been paid;
    • "appointment as leader of Arjona in 1232, and helped "—lose the comma;
    • "Both families were intermarried"—unnecessary "were", comma after intermarried;
    • "Muhammad's own hometown of Arjona"—superflous "own";
    • "At the beginning, he displayed"—In the?
    • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talkcontribs)

Comment from RetiredDuke - I've only skimmed through since it's so early into the nomination, but can you choose one of Málaga/Malaga and Almería/Almeria and commit to it? It's distracting to read. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why include the same image twice?
  • The first one is a cropped image, as a lead image for illustrating how the person was depicted, the second one is the non-cropped image to illustrate the Mudejar revolt (which is discussed in that section). Is this not appropriate? HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Replaced by another image. HaEr48 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up the southern Spain map
  • File:Castilla_1210.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Alhamar,_rey_de_Granada,_rinde_vasallaje_al_rey_de_Castilla,_Fernando_III_el_Santo_(Museo_del_Prado).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from DankEdit

  • "he became known for his charisma": Not at FAC, please. It's true that even reliable sources say from time to time that a person was loved by everyone, but by itself, the statement means nothing, and is often suspect. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed "his charisma". HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ibn al-Ahmar, and had the kunya Abu Abdullah": Ibn al-Ahmar or Abu Abdullah (father of Abdullah)
  • Changed to "Ibn al-Ahmar or by his kunya Abu Abdullah". I don't want to include "father of Abdullah" because it's unclear if he is really a father of someone called Abdullah - people often use kunya that's not really based on his son's name. See Kunya (Arabic)#General use. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the north of the peninsula there were several Christian kingdoms: Castile, León (in a union with Castile since 1231)": First question: what's the time frame of the narrative at this point, before or after 1231?
  • As stated in the beginning of the section, this section lays out the political situation in the early 13th century. Leon's union with Castile happened in the middle of this timeframe, that's why I noted the union. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "decided to declare": Does this mean something different than "declared"? If so, what? - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed to just "declared"
  • "Alfonso was more interested other in enterprises": ?
  • Sorry it should be "in other enterprises". Changed now. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Created the stubs. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "of to": of
  • "was succeeded by his son and designated successor": One or the other can go.
  • I feel those two convey different information. Changed to "He was succeeded by his son Muhammad II as he had planned". HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dank: Thanks for the copyediting, the feedback and the support. I've made changes according to your feedback above. HaEr48 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, your changes look good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonkEdit

  • Looks interesting, will review soon. At first glance, I wonder if the full image[14] will look more appealing in the infobox? It seems a shame to crop artwork that is really not that much bigger in its full version.
  • @FunkMonk: IMO, with the full image it's not easy to point out which man is the subject of the article. But if other editors are recommending the full image I won't mind deferring to that opinion. HaEr48 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Looked fine to me when I tested, as long as you increase the size and make it clear he is on the left with the red shield, but no big deal. In any case, you use redundant parameters "| image = File:" File is not needed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is some duplinking, try this script to highlight them:[15]
  • Removed some duplinks. I kept some, mostly first non-lead mention and those links that shows up in image captions. HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You should link al-Andalus at first mention outside the intro, and reiterate it refers to Islamic Iberia. Perhaps even state when the Islamic invasion occurred for context.
  • Linked at reiterated the meaning of al-Andalus in the Background section. Not sure about the Islamic invasion, it happened 5 centuries before the subject of the article. It's like talking about the European colonization of America in a bio of Donald Trump. 06:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
You could argue that the Islamic invasion of Iberia is much less familiar to most readers, and more relevant to the subject than European colonisation is to Donald Trump specifically, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You have Reconquista as see also in the section, but don't link or mention it in the background section, which seems like an oversight.
  • Mentioned and link reconquista in the section. HaEr48 (talk)
  • What is the significance/relevance of a photo showing an apparently random building in Arjona? If anything, show something left over from the period.
  • Removed (see comment below). HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Speaking of Arjona images, this photo in the town's Commons category[16] shows a bust depicting a person in Islamic garb, wonder if it has anything to do with this article's subject. This article seems to confirm it:[17] If you remove the photo of the random building and move the maps up, you could move the Alhambra photo up to the "Settling in Granada" section, and show the bust under legacy instead.
  • Wow, good find! I added the bust statue, and moved the other pictures as suggested. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The assembly elected Muhammad, who was known for his piety and his martial reputation in previous conflicts against the Christians, as the town's leader." Any details about these previous conflicts? Seems odd that these are not explained earlier, considering this is his biography.
  • There is no detail in the sources. If I were to guess, I'd say, given the political context in the background section, there must be occasional (or even regular) conflicts in the frontiers with the Christians, and Arjona was close to the frontiers, so he might be involved in those. Arjona was a small town, Muhammad I was not yet a big figure, and probably they were only small scale conflicts, so it's quite normal that it's not really noted by historians. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "the support of his clan, the Banu Nasr (also known as the Banu al-Ahmar)" his clan should already be mentioned in the origin section.
  • "after being taken by the Nasrids" You have not explained or linked these earlier in the article body.
  • Clarified that this refers to Muhammad's takeover of those cities, mentioned in the preceding sentences.
  • "helped Ferdinand III of Castile take Córdoba and end centuries of Muslim rule in the city" What was his motivation for helping Muslims lose control?
  • Added that he's doing this while allying himself with the Castilians. Presumably he's also interested in weakening his overlord/rival, Ibn Hud. 06:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "captured Muhammad's homeland of Arjona" Homeland seems a bit strong.
  • Changed into hometown. HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The painting showing him kissing the hand of the king seems possibly revisionist (glorifying the reconquistadors), how do the sources state this happened? If none of them state it happened this way, perhaps a note could be added to the caption.
  • It seems clear that he did kiss Ferdinand's hand, but it seems that Christian and Muslim sources seemed to disagree whether Ferdinand III-Muhammad I relation is a lord-vassal one in the feudal sense or just a mutual agreement between equals. Added several sentences to the "Initial conflict with Castile". HaEr48 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Very nice with this increased detail. FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems there are a lot of names to choose from, how do most of the sources refer to him? You first refer to him as just Muhammad, but by the "Revolt of the Mudéjars" section, you say Muhammad I. EIther one should be picked, or there needs to be some logic to when it changes.
  • I explained the reasoning for choosing "Muhammad I" here. You can click the link for details, but basically it's slightly more common in the sources, plus it is more "systematic" and consistent with how the subsequent Sultans of Granada are named, so that's a plus. I'll try to do something about Muhammad I vs just Muhammad. 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I replaced many "Muhammad I" with just "Muhammad". I am being careful a little bit, because it's such a common name that many other figures mentioned in the articles are also so named, e.g. Muhammad II of Granada, Muhammad I al-Mustansir and Muhammad ibn Hud, so sometimes I need to disambiguate. Also some sentences, randomly mentioning "Muhammad" can be ambiguous given that it's such a common name, e.g. "Banu Ashqilula started a rebellion against Muhammad". HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise, be consistent with Alfonso X/Alfonso.
  • I removed most of "Alfonso X" and also "Ferdinand III". HaEr48 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Same with Banu Ashqilula/the Ashqilula.
  • Fixed this to always say the Banu Ashqilula. 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "according to professor of Spanish history L. P. Harvey" You don't present other historians mentioned, be consistent.
  • "as well to switch alliances" As well as?
  • "is rule didn't" Contractions are discouraged.
  • Nowhere does the article state he was a sultan, but he is categorised as such. The fact that he ruled an emirate indicates he was an emir, but this isn't stated either. Maybe he was both at different times. So could be clearer, and the category should reflect the outcome.
  • I added a note in the infobox that for him, the title of sultan, emir (and king) is used interchangeably (in historical documents as well as by modern writers). For some reason when I started editing I found Wikipedia mostly using "Emirate" for Granada and "Sultan" for the individual monarchs, and I did not have any good reason to change that so I just follow the convention. What do you think? HaEr48 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "was still unresolved in 1273 when Muhammad died after falling off his horse." The intro could state that Granada survived for several centuries after.
  • The intro could also mention Alhambra.
@FunkMonk: Thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I've responded to some of them and feel free to check. I'll still work on the rest in the coming days. 07:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking good so far. FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
All that seems to be left is the Muhammad/Muhammad I and Alfonso X/Alfonso issues. 08:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Done. Please take another look and let me know if you have more feedback. 04:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, very interesting yet underrepresented topic. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Tower Hill MemorialEdit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I bring you (just for a change!) another war memorial. This one is dedicated to merchant seamen in both world wars who lost their lives as a result of enemy action and have "no grave but the sea". It is one of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's memorials to the missing, and the CWGC's only monument in London. Anyone following my project will have already guessed that this is another work of Sir Edwin Lutyens (who was far from happy that his first design was rejected!). I learnt a lot while researching this and I hope you find it an interesting read worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks a great article, and I'll doubtless come back to this soon. In the meantime, something that jumped out at a skim was the "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial"—it took a re-read to get the precise meaning. Could it be clarified slightly? (Perhaps something like, "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life to be commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial", or something like that? Although of course up to you.) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support. A thorough and most readable article: rather moving, indeed. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review and Support - Pleased to pick up the source review for this one. It'll take me until later in the week due to work commitments. KJP1 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Geurst - Worldcat, and the Google Books link, give Rotterdam rather than Amsterdam, as the publication location. Apart, from this, super-picky, point, the bibliography looks absolutely fine.
  • I'll check the address on the copyright page when I have the book in front of me.
Citations - online
  • Source 49 - Should we note that The Times is paywalled? Although the snippet gives enough to support the content.
  • Apart from the above quibble, all the online sources check out and support the content.
Citations - offline
  • Fortunately, I've enough of these to allow the necessary spot-checking, so this may be done more quickly than I thought. To follow.
  • You'll probably find that the bulk of it is based on Skelton, Pevsner, and Ward-Jackson (and the NHLE), with background and a few details from the others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
And now done spot checks on the ones I have. All fine, as I knew they would be. So pleased to sign off on the Source Review and add my Support, as a fine addition to the canon. KJP1 (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim , one commentEdit

Happy to support, I just wondered whether the queen's first use of the medium should have a capital, since it refers to a specific named queen? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jim! My understanding is that it wouldn't be incorrect to use Queen as a proper noun but I tend not to. Cf. "commissioners" elsewhere in the article and probably other examples; also I think we'd frown on "the Admiral" for example. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • On "queen" above I agree that it should be capitalised when it refers to a specific individual, but I think it would be better to change "the queen's" to "her".
  • You say at the beginning that it consists of two memorials and then refer to a third. This seems to imply that the third is not part of the memorial but it is not clear.
  • "thousands of war memorials were built across Britain and other countries affected" No change needed, but it seems unjust that Austro-Hungarian casualties got no memorials - so I have been told - because the country ceased to exist.
  • "with the loss of over 17,000 lives" I think this should be in the lead - and why is the number of ships lost in brackets there? It is not a subsidiary point.
  • How many were listed on the memorial? (I see that you give a total for WW2 and both wars, but I think you should for WW1 (unless I have missed it).
  • "The bill was laid before parliament". Parliament should be capitalised and linked to Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  • "The unveiling ceremony was broadcast live on the radio in the queen's first use of the medium. Despite taking place in torrential rain, the unveiling ceremony was attended by a large crowd, who cheered the queen as she was driven away." Two more "queens" which should be capitalised in my opinion but I know there are different views on this.
  • "A service was planned for 17 October 2017, organised by several maritime organisations and due to be attended by 400 people, including foreign diplomats and Anne, Princess Royal, to mark 100 years since the introduction of the convoy system. The service was cancelled at short notice as the organisers were unable to obtain permission for a road closure which was required for the event." This is a bit strange. It surely would have been a major scandal with headlines in every newspaper and questions in Parliament yet the only reference to it I can find is the Times report saying it was cancelled because the City of London refused the organisers' demand that a road be closed because Princess Anne was attending. I would delete unless you can find other sources.
  • A first class article. A few niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): VedantTalk 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Punjabi film. This is my fifth attempt at a film FAC. Looking forward to constructive criticism. VedantTalk 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from KailashEdit

  • Link romantic comedy. The lead says "conceived as a romantic comedy set in the British Punjab", referring to Angrej and not Goreyan Nu Daffa Karo. However, the development section does the opposite. Please clear up the confusion after reading the source. If Angrej is really a rom-com, add it to Indian romantic comedy films.
  • Please try and comply with WP:FILMCAST, by ensuring all starring actors are sourced. Besides, what is Varun Sharma's role? He isn't even sourced.
  • You might want to replace director of photography with cinematographer for preciseness, and because the article's name is the latter.
  • De-link any term you find too common. This gadget will help in such cases.
  • I'm pretty sure you mean to link Drishyam to this.
  • The "publisher=" field in many refs will need to be replaced with "website=". The ProveIt gadget will help ease the process.

Optional comment: For a movie released as recently as 2015, is this how far you could expand the article? If that is so, never mind if that's how much the Punjabi media covered. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've (hopefully) fixed everything. And yes Kailash, this really covers everything that is out there. VedantTalk 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Just one last comment: the lead says "Conceived as a romantic comedy set in the pre-partitioned Punjab", while the body says "Gill, who also starred in the film described it as a love story set in rural Punjab of 1945". It may be consistent in the sense of Angrej being a romance film, but you may have to mention somewhere in the article that it is a romantic comedy (although Tribune's Jasmine Singh calls it "cheerful reminder of love in the old times", we need a statement from the cast/crew about the genre). This source, which you have already added, quotes Ammy Virk as saying, "I feel that “Angrez” will be able to break the cliché of romantic-comedy formula films in Punjabi and give more exposure to artistes". See how you can use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added the bit about the comic element of the film Kailash from the same source that describes Gill view of the film. Do you think that the new version solves the problem? VedantTalk 13:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes it does. I later reviewed the article and saw the awards section mentions the PTC Punjabi Film Awards' year but no date. According to this source, the event took place on 14 April 2016. Please mention that. But nonetheless, this article already has my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added the date and the ref Kailash, thank you so much for taking out time to review this. VedantTalk 11:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • For this part (the film chronicles the love story of a young man from the province of Punjab) of the lead, I would clarify both parties involved in the love story. Is it a love story between a young man and a young woman? A love story between family? Friends?
  • I think for this part (which featured vocals from Gill, Virk and Sunidhi Chauhan.) of the lead, it should be “features” instead of “featured”.
  • For this part (The performances of the cast, the film's production design, and the humour), I do not think you need “the film’s” as it is clear from the context.
  • For this part (grossed a total of around ₹125 million in its entire theatrical run), I do not think you need the word “entire”.
  • I am confused by this part (he said that idea of an Indian wedding in the period Punjab). In the Wikipedia article, Punjab is referenced as a province, so I am not sure what you mean by “period”. I am not familiar with Indian history to be honest so apologies if I am missing something.
  • For this part (The album consisted of seven songs), I believe that it should be “consists” instead of “consisted”.
  • For this part (The sets, the props, the dresses and dialect,), I am not sure the links for “sets” and dialect” are necessary.

Great work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed everything Aoba47. Thanks for taking out time despite your wiki-break. I'll try and make sure I read that section before posting at the talk next. VedantTalk 06:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

All the references look fine to me, save the BookMyShow one. I know that it is a ticket booking website, having booked there for a few films myself, but you can try and find information somewhere else, say here at BBFC, Moviefone and TOI.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the BMS source with new the refs Ssven2, thank you for the review. VedantTalk 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns were addressed when it was a GAN. The article has also improved since then. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Yash. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Well detailed, researched and has proper referencing. After a thorough read, i found no notable issues to point out. To the best of my knowledge, i can confidently say that this article meets the criteria for a FA. Regards, Pavanjandhyala 17:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Pavan. I appreciate it. VedantTalk 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

It passes the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review Aoba47, I appreciate it. Let me know if you need help with any article. :) VedantTalk 08:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This dinosaur is relatively obscure among non-specialists, which seems to be my forté, but does have a significant number of publications about it due to its extended and complicated history. One of, if not the, most complete dinosaur from England, this would become the first Featured Article of a more basal sauropod, and the second for a British dinosaur, following Baryonyx from earlier this year. I believe this article, which should now be stable after a recent overhaul, is as comprehensive as it can be while remaining focused on the topic at hand. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonkEdit

  • Interestingly, I think this is the first time we have three dinosaur articles at FAC simultaneously. I'll review soon, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this up, I expect it will be a slower FA review because of its low relevance
  • You could mention current genus affiliations in the captions of images that show formerly assigned species. Otherwise it is a bit misleading.
I think it should be good now
  • The image layout under classification seems a bit messy. The Mamenchisaurus photo creates white space on the left side of the cladogram. Also, I'm not sure if the wretched image of the hips add anything to that section (what's the poinjt when you don't even show the hips of Cetiosauriscus itself for comparison?), maybe just move the Mamenchisaurus photo to that spot and prevent some clutter.
  • I think maybe the life restoration could be moved to the top of the classification section, it seems a bit "hidden" out of the way in its current position. Then the Mamenchisaurus image could be moved to its current spot.
  • "Cetiosauriscus was a generic herbivorous sauropod" This seems like an overstatement, which source says it is "generic", and how do you define "generic" here? How can we even know if such a fragmentary animal was just "generic? Also, it is only stated it was herbivorous in the intro.
Paul's description of "cetiosaurs" was "generalized sauropods", removed from lead and put into description instead.
  • I wonder if all of the points brought up during Jens Lallensack's GA review have been implemented since? At least I can see his last two suggested sources aren't in the current article.
I tried to do the ones I thought were reasonable. Checking the newer Glut supplements he doesn't actually discuss C. stewarti at all, only C. greppini, and Schwartz, which I couldn't re-find, is also on C. greppini so I replaced all citations of the conference abstract with a later published paper with equivalent information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I checked the original Glut (1997) and there was some information on Cetioauriscus. However, plenty of it was incorrect (most likely accidentally using the wrong specimen numbers), so I went to the primary source for the only currently unincluded content, Romers synonymy with Cetiosaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the first sentence of the history section should state the location before formation and age. I guess that's what most readers would want to know first in the discovery section. Many of the details, like the zone etc., are more relevant under palaeoecology, and could be moved there.
Changed and moved
  • The description of to the infobox pghoto says: "Note the similarity of this photograph to the drawing of the skeleton in Woodward (1905)" Perhaps add this diagram to the article? There is white space room under classification, for example.
  • You don't present the people mentioned under discovery, could at least give their occupations.
  • Words like manus, caudal, chevrons, incertae sedis, could be glossed. Many others too.
Sadly I cannot link to the dino glossary until its out of jens' sandbox, I tried earlier and was reverted because you cannot link from an article to a sandbox
Oh, I just mean explain in brackets here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh alright I'll get on that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Still some needed, like incertae sedis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "A whiplash tail" That is a pretty strange term to use out of nowhere. Tail tip?
  • "but a different individual" But belonging to.
  • "thought by Alan Charig" When and why?
  • "This assignment has not been accepted in alternate studies by Huene, Paul Upchurch and Darren Naish" When? And spell out Huene's name. How could Huene nopt "accept" a conclusion made after he had died?
Huenes full name (removed full name from later mention). Huene in 1927 IIRC rejected the referral of the tail to (then) Cetiosauriscus leedsi. Wording changed to make this easier to understand
  • "(BMNH, now abbreviated as NHMUK)", "(now named the Natural History Museum and abbreviated as NHMUK)". I think this could be consolidated somehow, otherwise repetitive.
Removed second mention, kept first as is
  • "was put up" Seems an odd way to put it. Constructed? Erected?
Changed to "was put on display"
  • There is some overlinking, try this script to highlight them:[18]
Done all that aren't duplicated between the lead and text, not sure if theres a policy but from what I remember links are allowed to be repeated between lead and text. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:30, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "BMNH R3078 was referred in 1905 by Arthur Smith Woodward to the species he newly recombined as Cetiosaurus leedsi" This sentence seems too convoluted, and would be hard to understand for most readers. I don't think "newly combined" adds much, just give a date.
  • "John Arthur Phillips (1871)" you mostly state years in a sentence, not in brackets, better to be consistent.
  • After you mention a full name, you don't need to sell it out afterwards, as you do with for example Charig.
Done except for Henry Woodward, because theres also Arthur Woodward who is mentioned later and a bit of name confusion is possible
  • "cetiosaur". I think stating this in the description only adds more confusion, it isn't a descriptive term. Better to keep it under classification.
  • "As a cetiosaur it would have had a head with a shorter and rounded snout" Isn't this just a GSP hand wave statement, though? I don't think you cna state any of this as faqct, especially since the classifcation section indicates its classification is in flux. Same with the "generalized" part.
Removed most points, tail and arm length are known in Cetiosauriscus so I left them
  • "To the genus he referred the specimens NHMUK R1984–R1988 and NHMUK R3078" Weren't they still BMNH at the time? I think either you should stick to one abbreviation, or use them in a way that makes chronological sense.
Changed all to NHMUK except the first mention of NHMUK R3078.
  • Not sure if the long descriptions of dubious species should perhaps be moved to the description or classification sections instead? The descriptions seem way too detailed in any case (especially for describing features that ar enot even diagnostic), could be simplified to only state how they differ from the type species.
  • In any case, since there is only one definite species, it would probably be better to have a section only for formerly assigned species, and keep the history of the one valid species in the "Discovery and naming", otherwise you give the impression that they are all equally valid.
Theres a major issue here because of how the type, and valid, species was once a dubious species. I can't move the info of C. stewarti without also moving the C. leedsi information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You mix UK and US spelling, ise and ize, should stick to UK.
  • Still a lot of people needing presentations. Greg Paul also needs full name and link.
  • "the whiplash tail NHMUK R1967" Could also be changed to tail tip or similar.
  • "Huene based his new name off" Based on?
  • "whale lizard like" Needing hyphen?
  • "reassigned the species "Ornithopsis" greppini... into the genus Cetiosauriscus." To.
  • You should also state where the assigned species were found. Now you only mention their formations for all, cities for some, and countries for others.
  • "by sauropod paleontologist John Stanton McIntosh" When? Generally give dates for all revisions.
  • "Material named for the species" This makes no sense. Assigned to the species? Material the species is based on?
  • "As it lacks any diagnostic features of Cetiosauriscus, Cetiosaurus longus is the senior objective synonym of Cetiosauriscus longus" I don't think most readers would get this. You should explain that it defaults to its original name.
  • ""Cetiosaurus" glymptonensis is considered to be Eusauropoda incertae sedis" By who and when?
  • "C. greppini is now considered to be Eusauropoda incertae sedis." By who?
  • "Cetiosaurus longus is the senior objective synonym of Cetiosauriscus longus" Concluded by who?
  • " and close relatives like" If we don't know that these are actually close relatives or not, you need to say "possibly close relatives".
  • " being the name for the specimen Huene had originally named the taxon for" You need to specify that "taxon" here is the genus, just to be clear.
  • "London Brick Company hat owned" That, I assume.
  • "Ecology" Why not palaeoecology, as in all other dinosaur FAs?
Its already in the "Paleobiology" section, extra redundancy isn't needed
But these are two separate terms. Whether you place the section within or outside the palaeobiology section, it is still paleoecology rather than just ecology. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it would be more useful to show the pelvis than the forelimb bones at the beginning of the species section, since it was presumably the only overlapping element between the species and is discussed in the adjacent text. So you could maybe swap the position of the photo at the end and the diagram at the top? Also looks nice for the beginning of the article.
  • Why was NHMUK R3078 referred to C. leedsi in the first place?
  • "The possibly referrable series of distal caudal vertebrae" Specify that they were referred to Cetiosauriscus.
  • "Distal caudal of ?Cetiosauriscus" Is this one of the pathological caudals? if so, could be stated.
No its not
  • "It has been found only in" Since only one specimen is known, that should go without saying. So you could instead say "the single known specimen is from" or such.
  • Perhaps do a section break before "Hundreds of invertebrates" under ecology, as the paragraph is very long, and it will fill up some of the white space some of us see between the last paragraph and the references.
Done, but left the {{clear}}
  • Anything on the environment, flora, and climate? Anything on the geology (what kinds of sediments it is from, etc.)?
  • "and the flying pterosaur" Flying should be redundant.
  • Any of the see also links that could be used as sources in the article? otherwise, why are they needed?
I'm leaving them for now because they aren't really relevant for any new information, would simply duplicate content. But they also contain information on Cetiosauriscus and other taxa that could be considered mildly relevant.
I'm not sure if this complies with Wikipedia:Further reading, seems you could prune a lot of it out. FunkMonk (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume the skeleton isn't mounted anymore, so how is it stored now? The photo indicates it has been disassembled, could be an interesting detail to add.
Looking at the Dinosaur of the British Isles book I've seen, the skeleton is still mounted. But I'm not sure and no references I have can verify this. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why we need a long list of supposedly diagnostic features of an invalid family (cardiodotnidae) under classification? All we need to know here is that they were grouped together because one author seemingly saw some very general similarities.
Its about as necessary as for the other character lists, gives a general knowledge of the groups features and changes in discrete-ness over time
But it seems misleading to group this with much later observations by modern scientists. You at least have to state that none of these features are considered relevant today, if that can even be sourced. If not, it will only seem misleading, like it is an equally plausible alternative to the much later hypotheses. Best would be to shorten it and say something like "some of the features used by X in Y to group the cetiosauridae were for example xxx, but today these features are not considered diagnostic." FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I added a disclaimer
  • "In 2004 this placement was followed without comment." Meaningless if you don't state by who.
  • "based upon the two most inclusive matrices of the time, those of Jeffrey A. Wilson (2002[24]) and Upchurch (1995[25])" Not sure why we need this detail. What does it say about the subject of the article?
Added relevance
  • "using equal weighting, following implied weights instead found it as non-neosauropod" Explain in text what any of this means, if it even needs to be here. You could just simplify to say they used to methods of analysis.
  • "The results of the pruned implied weights" Again, do we need all this detail?
Simplified. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "a strong anterior articular ball (opisthocoelous)" this makes it seem like the ball is what opisthocoelous refers to, you should say something like "an opisthocoelous condition".
  • "On the lateral surfaces" Gloss as "side" or similar.
  • Link air sacs, laminae, etc.
Lamina is already, addes for air sacs
  • "here is no ventral" Likewise, if you are going to use anatomical terms, explain them at first mention.
  • Explain sacrum, transverse processes, hyposphene, scapula, foramen , coracoid, centrum, etc.. In general, a lot of anatomical technical terms are not linked or explained here, you could look throughout for these.
Gone through the whole description
  • "Four sacrum neural spines" Should be sacral.
  • "Next preserved" Next what preserved?
  • "Woodward (1905[6])" Elsewhere you say "in date".
  • "The shape of the humerus is similar to the shortness of Titanosaurus" For this you are quoting a paper form 1923, I very much doubt the Titanosaurus mentioned here is what it is today. Perhaps there are other such issues in the description, I fear some of it might be outdated.
Neuquensaurus apparently
  • "and the later Titanosauridae" Again, what does this actually refer to?
Added quotes, the family is still valid just unsure content
  • "with serial position" Simplify/explain jargon.
  • making them as long as hindlimbs." As its?
  • marine ichthyosaurs" Redundant?
  • "being similar proportions to" Similar in.
  • "was considered the fourth caudal in serial position by Woodward (1905[6])" Is this in line with current thinking?
Removed entire sentence
  • Nothing about its lifestyle, just something general true for its group?
I could add some generic arm-waving from Paul? It would be the simplest and easiest source to get the general information from. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Might be problematic if it is about "cetiosaurs". Maybe its current classification is too broad to say anything specific. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I only see a couple of unanswered points above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • One more point, the intro should probably mention that other species have historically been assigned to the genus as well. And no other FAs say "extinct dinosaur", should be redundant in the context.
All querries should now be completed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this looks as good as it can be to me now, would be good with a layman review too to see if it is comprehensible enough. I have a final question, you say the two editions of Paul's book give different weight estimates based on classification, do they also give different length estimates? FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope both say 15m ... IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77Edit

  • Some minor licensing stuff with a couple images, all fixed, but for File:Cetiosauriscus restoration.jpg, you need to specify a certain study or studies on which you based your reconstruction on (just to verify that it's an accurate depiction) and that about completes the image review   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah yeah added the references, not any paper but the mount photographs and drawing. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I changed the link a bit and added a brief explanation. I'm hoping the dinosaur glossary can be put into use soon it will be helpful. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say I'm reading through the Description section and I'm very lost. Why is cetiosaur in quotes? If you're referring to Cetiosauridae, shouldn't it be cetiosaurid? When you say the snout was snorter, was that a typo? Why are pluerocoels important and what do they do? I'm reading this like a very complicated scientific report with many words that don't mean anything to me than a read in the English language   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I explained the use of cetiosaur in quotes, its informal
Snorter was a typo
I explained what pleurocoels are but their physiological importance is never discussed in the context of Cetiosauriscus
I can try and go through the description but as far as dinosaur articles go it is rather tame so I don't think I will end up changing much. If there are specific terms that need explanation I can add that in. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I see you started using square brackets inside of parentheses, but how about instead you replace the parentheses with dashes or commas?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I tried commas. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Can't link yet but reworded to make more sense
I'm pretty sure it is
Fixed now
Added brief explanation, he needs an article
  • Why is the London Brick Company in italics, and while you're there, you missed the f in of and you made owner plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done I think
  • Your explainer of postzygapophyses as spinopostygapophyseal lamina is not particularly enlightening   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done I think
Fixed earlier mention of a different name (zygosphene)
  • What does axially concave summits mean? Is it just saying that it slopes down from front to back, head-side to tail-side (I'm looking at the pictures so I'm guessing here)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, reworded
  • I see you use big vocabulary words and then wikilink them, but how about you use simpler words (like rugose→rough/bumpy/wrinkled/etc.)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Done in that case
I will remove some duplicate links in a subsequent edit, just making sure I have everything linked before I remove them. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
All above changes should be completed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It makes it sound like the dinosaur's part of the family Mamenchisauridae, but it doesn't say that in the taxobox and Mamenchisauridae doesn't actually come up anywhere in the article (but the study does)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I reworded, its been found to be both mamenchisaur and non-mamenchisaur but closer to mamenchisaurs than a diplodocid
I don’t understand. You’re saying it’s closer to, but not a part of, the family Memenchisauridae than to Diplodocidae?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's all too relevant to list the dinosaurs from the formation that didn't live at the same time as Cetiosauriscus in the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Metriacanthosaurus is of unknown provenance, might be from the same age as Cetiosauriscus, and the other two are the only large predators so I think general readers would find it relevant
  • I don't think ref no. 3 has the right author "The Trustees of the Natural History Museum" and I don't think it entirely needs one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Just keeping it how it was written in the published paper, back in those days species were capitalized
The two editions share nothing but the general organization and title, they are drastically different in every way.
I'm gonna keep the reference as its published title is. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
When I google it, it reads "Studies in paleopathology; general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the link in the reference itself, page 15 shows it exactly as it is written here, and page 374 does not have the initial period, but is also formatted differently "Studies in paleopathology[line break]I. general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals". I'm inclined to follow the ToC format with the additional period to represent the line break, but if you wish I can remove the first period making it "Studies in paleopathology I. general consideration of the evidence of pathological conditions found among fossil animals". IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What's important about the Kosmoceras jason biozone? Why's it significant it lived at the same time and area as a (seemingly) random ammonite species?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Brief relevance explanation
  • I think you should wikilink terms in the image captions, too (like "caudal vertebra" and "humerus")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Linked Humerus, caudals are linked earlier
No I mean all complex terms in all captions regardless of location (so wikilink also radius and ulna, etc.)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Half the pathology section isn't pathology, and you should probably mention which specimen is discusses and where, perhaps, the injuries were specifically on the vertebrae   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Removed unecessary description but added more in about implications. There is no more information about Cetiosauriscus specifically besides what is there.
  • It bothers me that the last picture is pushing all the references to the right so I'd recommend using {{clear}} but you don't have to   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't happen for me possibly browser size difference. Added anyways
Yes. I think thats a more generic term so wouldn't need linking.
Added in and modified reference
Added link to relevant article. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Added explanation
Linked, the explanation should be sufficient (two convex ends). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from HemiaucheniaEdit

"Cetiosauriscus had a—for sauropod standards—moderately long neck and tail, a rounded skull, and forelimbs as long as hindlimbs" Not sure what this section adds to the article to be honest and also I am not aware that any skull material has been found for Cetiosauriscus so I'm not sure why that's mentioned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the grammar and removed the skull mention. It's mildly relevant and about as generalist a way as you can describe the anatomy. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Moderately long seems meaningless, if we don't even know if it was a mamenchisaur or "cetiosaur"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the neck mention, the tail length is pretty much certain unless it had the diplodocid whip, so I left that. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens LallensackEdit

Few general comments first.

  • I think the article would be more easy to read with a bit of additional background information. For example, I would include a sentence introducing Alfred Leeds, as he seems to have been quite central.
Added a blurb
But it is not well integrated, not sure if it is ideal to start the paragraph (and main article) with a side note. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I also would add something introducing Cetiosaurus. If possible, I would try to introduce as much as possible, otherwise the reader gets bombarded by names but cannot make much sense of them.
Added a blurb and reordered
  • In 1980, Charig re-examined the holotype of Cetiosauriscus leedsii while describing a new specimen from the Early Cretaceous of England. In this he confirmed that the ilium of the species, NHMUK R1988 – I am confused. Why is R1988 a new specimen, when it was already described by Huene (as stated earlier)? I'm also wondering how many specimens of C. stewarti there are, I didn't get that; certainly something to clarify, and to add to the lead as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After excavation, the sauropod specimen was collected and taken by farmer Alfred Nicholson Leeds to Eyebury – I would remove the "was collected", as it means quite the same as "excavated".
  • The mount of Cetiosauriscus was put on display just prior to the cast skeleton of Diplodocus – If you mention the Diplodocus cast, you should also introduce it to explain its relevance.
  • and was displayed with the dorsal vertebrae NHMUK R1984 and some isolated teeth from a camarasaurid.[4] – And what is the relevance of the teeth? Are they from the same quarry? Martill 1988 ("A review of the terrestrial vertebrate fossils of the Oxford Clay (Callovian-Oxfordian) of England") mentions some teeth which were thought to possibly belong to the Cetiosauriscus specimen, maybe it is worth to elaborate on them.
Martill 1991 mentions them, but there's no specimen in either publication so I'm not sure if adding the disclaimer in the first part of the lead is OR or not. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This species was originally named Ornithopsis leedsii in 1887 by John Hulke for a pelvis, vertebrae and ribs collected by Leeds which showed similarities to Cetiosaurus. – similarities to Cetiosaurus oxoniensis?
Yes and added
  • The first paragraph in the Species section is confusing. For example, you state that suggesting that the Wealden Group material belonged to Ornithopsis and the Jurassic remains to Cetiosaurus, but it was not mentioned before that Ornithopsis comes from the Wealden.
  • Maybe it is better to have the Species section in strict chronological order to improve readability.
I have it chronologically with regards to when things are referred to Cetiosauriscus
  • However, naturalist Richard Lydekker disagreed with Seeley – when? For each study, the year is given, but not here. It makes it very difficult to understand since the stuff is not in chronological order.
No date stated but added to the sentence
  • Cetiosauriscus greppini differs from Cetiosauriscus stewarti by having – again confusing, as C. stewarti was not introduced in the article yet (apart from the lead), and it implies that this is a different species than Cetiosauriscus leedsii, which was used in the preceding sentences. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack All comments are now done I believe. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In May 1898 a sauropod fossil was discovered in the area around – but who discovered it? One would guess it was Leeds itself as the previous sentence was about him …
Added "clay workers"
  • collected numerous collections – not ideal wording
Changed words
  • These pits are part of the Oxford Clay Formation – somehow repetitive now.
Merged with first sentence
  • (possibly referred to Cetiosauriscus[11]) – referable?
  • Cetiosaurus is one of the first sauropods to be named – as with Leeds; I think the reader will have difficulties following if paragraphs start with information that do not seem connected to the topic at first sight. I would suggest something like "The name Cetiosauriscus was historically closely associated with the older name Cetiosaurus, one of the first sauropods to be named …". Something like this would improve the common thread.
Added note of "all English sauropod" referral
  • Given the taxonomic complications that follow, wouldn't it be better to introduce Cetiosaurus also by its species, C. oxoniensis? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I can't really in this case because C. oxoniensis wasn't named in 1842 so isn't the topic of the sentence
  • where it was noted Ornithopsis hulkei, Cetiosaurus oxoniensis and Ornithopsis leedsii were all likely in the same genus, Ornithopsis having priority. – not sure why Ornithopsis had priority, wasn't Cetiosaurus named first?
Not sure changed, think it might say ornithopsis in the source
  • and the Jurassic remains (including O. leedsii) to Cetiosaurus. – confusing not to mention "O. oxoniensis" here, as it does not become very clear that C. leedsii is not the only Cetiosaurus species.
  • was referred in 1905 by palaeontologist Arthur Smith Woodward to the species Cetiosaurus leedsi – somehow confusing, as the previous sentence was talking about Pelorosaurus leedsi. So that referral to Pelorosaurus was not accepted? Should be mentioned then.
  • However, naturalist Richard Lydekker discussed with Seeley, before the publication of Seeley's 1889 paper, that Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis were the same taxon. – I thought I did not consider them the same taxon. Maybe shorten and merge with the following sentence for clarity?
Forgot to write "not"
  • as it was from the same geologic formation and location as other specimens of that taxon – I would remove "location", not sure what is meant (I guess it does not mean "from the same clay pit").
  • Sometimes the genus name is abbreviated, sometimes not; I would do it consequently after first mention or (maybe better) write them out always.
  • All in all, I still have my problems with the first three paragraphs, and especially the third; as they are very difficult to read and to follow, I would suggest a careful copy edit here. Rest seems ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
What would be the best way to fix this? The first paragraph is ordered chronologically now, second is inbetween first and third in state, and the third was heavily cut from suggestions above to remove any anatomical details. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Made an attempt to better integrate the sentence about Leeds, but please revert if you don't like it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Much better. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Antiochus XII DionysusEdit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

History is a witness to countless moments where a leader was so close to victory then lost all due to a miscalculation and perhaps stupid courage which lead him to fight in the front lines, getting killed in the process, leading his army to disband and his enemy to prevail. This is the summary of Antiochus XII's mistake. This king was an energetic ruler who seemed to be on the path of regaining the Seleucid Empire’s long lost prestige. He defeated Judea and came close to defeating the Nabataeans. This article will be interesting for anyone who have a soft spot for the Seleucids. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from DankEdit

  • Different people take different approaches to lead writing. Checking the history of WP:LEAD will give you a flavor of what the arguments are (although that's impractical for just about everyone). To help you get through FAC, I recommend not listing two very long, nearly identical names before you even get to a verb, so I removed the second one, the transliteration. It would be fine to put it anywhere else ... the start of the first section, some infobox, etc.
  • Consistency is needed in the notation for Seleucid years: "88-87 BC", "85/84", "230", etc.
  • It would be best to create stubs for Alfred Raymond Bellinger and Horvat Uza, rather than linking to the Italian and French Wikipedias.
  • "a certain Philotas": probably just "Philotas", or "a [something] named Philotas", or "Governor Philotas".
  • "Alexander Jannaeus as a retribution for the defeat mentioned by George Syncellus": After the first mention, here and elsewhere, don't use their first names.
  • "6th-century": probably sixth-century. At any rate, consistency is needed (for centuries under 10).
  • "Josephus called Antiochus XII the last Seleucid king, which is echoed by Malalas, according to the translation of Glanville Downey, but Antiochus XIII is generally considered to be the last Seleucid king.": Please clarify.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I corrected everything. If you think anything still needs adjustment, please tell me.
Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural noteEdit

Attar-Aram syria, I must've missed something, when did you obtain leave to open a second solo nomination while Philip I Philadelphus is still running? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Ian, I actually dont have a leave! I thought you are allowed two nominations at the same time. Now I think Im mixing the rule of copy editors guild with FA. It is fine to close this and I will nominate it again later since in any case it didnt get enough reviews to pass or fail. CHheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Well the FAC instructions are pretty clear on that point and I figured you'd been around here enough to recall them... Thing is, when an existing nom seems close to consensus for promotion, and the nominator requests leave to open a new one, the coords generally agree. That was probably the case with Philip at the time you opened this one. Because of that, and the fact that I didn't pick up on the situation until now, when someone had already taken the time to review, I think we may as well leave this open -- but pls keep the instructions in mind for next time! Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I was also confused by this, which is why I didn't comment yet, but I will return at a later date to review now that it obtained leave. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right Ian, will be more carefull in the future

From FunkMonkEdit

  • Might as well start my section, but it will take a bit before I can review. Some preliminary points below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey FunkMonk, sorry for the late response. Im on a vacation and dont have any PC, only my phone and any editor knows what a pain it is to edit through a smart phone. I will work on your review as soon as Im home.
  • One thing I noticed about this and most other articles about Seleucid rylers of Syria, none of them are tagged as part of Wikiproject Syria. Any reason for this?
Not really, I have tagged it
  • Josephus is not linked or presented. Other historians mentioned are not presented either, only Bellinger.
Those old historians are famous, for history students. Somtimes I forget that they are not actually famous. I introduced him and the other non introduced historians
  • This[19] Citebot edit was reverted, but it does have some valuable changes, such as adding dois, correct dashes between numbers, and abbreviations of Google Books links, which should be retained.
I restored the bot's helpfull edits.
  • Everything linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body at first mention.
  • Link Hadad in caption.
  • "Nabataeans' oil industry" What kind of oil?
Petrol, I added this to the article
  • "This is possibly related to Philip I's attack on Damascus, but this supposition has little support" Then why was he portrayed as bearded?
It can relate to the campaign against Jannaeus or the Nabateans
  • "stretched 28 km" Convert.
  • "and it would logical for the king" Be?
  • "the last Seleucid king was in fact Antiochus XIII" Give date for when his rule ended here?
  • "plain stretching 4 km" Convert.
  • "his Egyptian wife" Only stated in intro.
  • Is this image of any use?[20]
Used for the last section
  • Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which has had historical eruptions and is currently considered to be the most active volcano there (not sure if it has been supplanted by Sabancaya at any point). Apparently before 2006-2007 the region was ill-prepared for eruptions at Ubinas and the issues were remedied in a very short time frame. It is close to Huaynaputina and geologically related to it as well; these two volcanoes have had large historical eruptions, including Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption that is the largest in South America during historical time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - Went through and did some final copyediting. Convinced this is comprehensive and well-written. Great work. ceranthor 18:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments support - taking a look now.....notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
In light of its activity, Ubinas is monitored by the Peruvian geological service INGEMMET, which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas as well as a regular volcano activity report. - this sentence is unwieldy and should be split or reworded.
...a history of usually small- to moderate-sized explosive eruptions as well as larger eruptions such as in 1667,... - the word "usually" is redundant I think...
also, if you're covering its activilty in para 2, the "active" in the first sentence makes it a little repetitive and could be removed...?
The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. - umm, then what is it from?
which on the northern and eastern side of Ubinas is covered by volcanic ash and some lava flows - I am confused here - what does the "which" refer here to?
The summit of the volcano is truncated by a - can't we remove the "truncated by"?
The magmas erupted by all three volcanoes appears to originate... - shouldn't this be "magma"?
I am confused, you mention, a period of dormancy lasting until 25,000–14,700 years ago...but then in the next sentence say 5,000-21,000 years ago volcanic activity restarted....
and persistent smoking - doesn't seem to make sense grammatically

These are the most obvious examples. I think there are more - but will give it another read tomorrow. Also, I made these changes, if you can check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Got these issues done. Regarding that notch it is kind of implied but not explicitly stated in the source(s) that it is a landslide scar - says something like "Examination of this features with field glasses and from a study of aerial photographs (but no field studies) suggests to the writer that it is the result of rock avalanches and mud flows rather than an eruptive center. ". I don't think the magmas are exactly identical, hence I preferred the plural form. Your edits look fine to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok - need to read and digest....more later... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Casliber Any updates? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Ubinas is a volcano in the Moquegua Region of southern Peru, close to Huaynaputina and not far from the city of Arequipa. - "close" and "not far" are vague - put the distances in and let the reader decide
Activity at the volcano commenced in the Pleistocene epoch - put approximate time in MYA

Nothing else is really jumping out at me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Did rewrite the lead section. Didn't specify which time in the Pleistocene because it is not known for certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Right then - tentative support, but I would not be hugely surprised if other reviewers found prose issues as I find I don't have the best eye for detail. Still, I can't see anything else and it seems pretty complete....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Ya, I wouldn't surprise me either since my prose skills are only so-so. Which is why I always ask someone else to take a look before sending an article of mine to FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if you disagree with anything.

  • Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano indicate that glaciers developed on Ubinas during the last glacial maximum. Is this saying that there are two things that indicate glaciers: 1 - Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, and 2 - cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano? If so, they should be joined by an "and" before "cirques", and I'd suggest a comma before "indicate" to help the reader parse the sentence.
  • Peruvian volcanoes including Ubinas belong to the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes: all Peruvian volcanoes are in the CVZ? If so I'd put "All" at the front of the sentence.
  • the marginal faults of this graben are the sites of the volcanic vents: why "the" in "the volcanic vents"? It sounds as if you're indicating that these have already been referred to.
  • the average temperature is 11–9 °C (52–48 °F): any reason why you give this with the highest temperature first? There's no requirement not to do this, but it's unusual and I think it would be less jarring if reversed.
  • pajonal which also consists of shrubs and grasses made up by high Andean vegetation: does "made up by" mean "consisting of", or "with additional contributions from"? If the former I'd make it "made up of".
  • Small lakes and waterlogged soil contains wetlands...: suggest "Small lakes and areas of waterlogged soil form wetlands...".
  • Animal species are mainly described for the National Reserve: I think you mean something like "descriptions of animal species in the area mainly give their habitat as the National Reserve, rather than Ubinas specifically". If so I think the phrasing should be clearer.
  • The last activity of Ubinas I generated more than four units of pyroclastic flows, with a total volume of about 1.8 cubic kilometres (0.43 cu mi) and possibly an old caldera before 261,000 ± 10,000 years ago: can we just say "more than four pyroclastic flows", or perhaps "more than four separate pyroclastic flows", or is there some subtlety of meaning that I'm missing? And if the "total volume" is related to the flows, but the old caldera is not, as I think is the case, I'd put a comma before "and possibly".
  • How can a volcanic explosion cause an epidemic?

I've finished copyediting; I'll read through again once the above points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Mike Christie I think I got them all. "The volcanic vents" is deliberate since the statement refers to the aforementioned vents Ubinas, Ticsani and Huaynaputina. I don't think that we can assume that "one unit of pyroclastic flows"="one pyroclastic flow". Good question on the epidemics especially given PMC 2725828, maybe in this case it's due to ash intoxication of starvation after ashfalls have destroyed crops. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Struck all but one point above. What does "unit of pyroclastic flow" mean, in that case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Stratigraphic unit. Added a link to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple more points on another read-through.

  • The section on name and mythology gives two similar words in two indigenous languages, but doesn't assert that either is connected to the name of the volcano. Can we be more direct about this?
  • Is there a good reason to mention the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina? It seems to be a non sequitur. If it's because of the connection with Ubinas it should perhaps be repositioned, as the article doesn't mention the connection till the next paragraph.
  • The external links don't look particularly useful -- have you reviewed them?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Added a bit of explanation. Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption is mentioned because it was the largest historical volcanic event in Peru and I do write a bit about context. I've removed the broken external links; I was thinking that the other three sources are stuff that a reader would probably be interested in knowing but don't have a place in the prose for WP:RS reasons (or in case of the Volcano Observatory, being too generic). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
How about moving the sentence about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption to the end of the following paragraph, where it could be combined with the observation that the magma chambers of Ubinas, Huaynaputina and Ticsani are connected, and with the comment about de Espinosa, which is related to that observation? OK on the external links, so I've struck the comment, but the Rivera Porras is really just a book reference, so you might consider moving it to a "Further reading" section instead, and making it a cite book with a link to this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think I got these changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Request's already there and here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, seems like someone else will have to do the source review then. And summoning Frank R 1981 to see if they can resolve the image source problem that Nikkimaria highlighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Irakli TsereteliEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A leading socialist figure prior to and during the Russian Revolution, Irakli Tsereteli was deeply committed to socialist ideals, and his unwillingness to deviate from his principles ultimately helped the Bolsheviks launch the November Revolution. He then returned to his native Georgia and helped the fledgling Democratic Republic of Georgia gain international recognition, before it too fell to the Bolsheviks. He's since then been largely forgotten, and there is only one (political) biography of him out there, which is cited heavily here. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by ChetsfordEdit

This is a very nicely composed and extremely interesting article. As it's recently passed GA there's not a lot to comment on except some minor nit-picking and all of the functional aspects (e.g. reliable sourcing, use of Alt text, etc.) are met. There are certainly aspects of the biography that left me wanting more, however, within the spirit of an encyclopedia article I believe this is thorough and covers all major aspects without going into needless detail. My own curiosity would be better satiated by exploring the references in greater detail than demanding additions. I had a few minor comments, none of which rise to the level of impairing my support.

  • the two were asked to attend on account their contacts in Europe - I believe there should be an "of" between the words "account" and "their".
  • Twice his law studies are mentioned but, unless I missed it, there is no mention of where they were undertaken.
  • However his refusal to perceive the Bolsheviks as a serious threat, even as late as October 1917, ultimately helped them lead the October Revolution. - Because "however" is being used as a connector, and not a modifier, I believe it should have a comma after it.

Chetsford (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and fixed up those two issues. I also would have liked more, but to so would effectively require going to read his archived papers at Stanford, which while something I'd like to eventually do, is beyond the scope of this, for now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • All of the images description pages should include when and where the images were first published, not just created. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Will take a look and get back to you shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:: Aside from the lead image, I have noted the publication details for the images. In regards to the prison photo and the image labelled "IrakliTsereteliComoMinistroMayoJunio1917", they are both from the Roobol book, which does not cite sources for the images, aside from the date they were first published (1904 and 1917, respectively). I do not have the book available for the latter two (which have groups in them; I'm not writing their long, Spanish names here), so can not confirm their details, but feel that if need be they can be removed without harming the article. The initial image lacks any details, and while it is a great shot of Tsereteli, without details I feel that it is going to be difficult to justify its inclusion here. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
The Roobol book says specifically they were published in those years? For File:SocialistasEnIrkutskDanTsereteliVoitinskiDan19141915.png and File:PresidenciaPrimerCongresoSoviéticoSkobelevChjeidzePlejánovTsereteliJunioJulio1917.png, is there any earlier publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Roobol does say that, yes. And found out that the other two are credited as from the Hoover Institution archives, so while they may have been published around the date of creation, I have no easy way to confirm it, at least not now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:, thoughts on this? Kaiser matias (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately in the absence of a confirmed early publication, the current tagging on those images won't work. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(outdent)@Nikkimaria:, that isn't really an issue as their absence doesn't detract from the overall tone of the article, so have gone ahead and removed them. Hope that it is now good to go. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

San JuniperoEdit

Nominator(s): Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Black Mirror is an infamously dark and depressing anthology series, but as it moved to Netflix, Charlie Brooker marked the show's new era by writing what is, in my opinion, the most beautiful and uplifting love story in the history of television. I hope the article does justice to this superb hour of drama. Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Herman Vandenburg AmesEdit

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago I discovered, to my great surprise, we had no article on Herman Vandenburg Ames. In the early 20th century Ames was instrumental in the development of government archives and the preservation of official records in the United States, two things which are very much in the spirit of this project. Originally I'd intended to just write a stub article to remedy this oversight, however, it ended up growing into a much longer article and - for purposes of thoroughness - I also created separate articles on his predecessor and successor as Dean of the Pennsylvania graduate school to fill out the "academic offices" template. I'd nominated this for GA, however, due to the current GA backlog and the lower level of interest in Law articles, after a number of months it didn't appear to be vectoring towards a review and a peer review request met with similar disinterest. Ergo, I've decided to move this straight to FA. That said, Blackmane gave it a good copyedit, and I've also taken care to archive all the web links with I apologize that some of the references are offline and, in one case, may be difficult to acquire (i.e. I had to order reference 15 from the University of Pennsylvania through interlibrary loan). Thanks for the consideration. Chetsford (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from DankEdit

  • "becoming a "brilliant, fervent, and impressive" Congregational preacher": Per WP:INTEXT, quoted text needs attribution in the text, not just in the footnote.
updated Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "serving as ... chaplain of state institutions of Rhode Island": Feels indeterminate to me. One, two, three institutions? What kind of institutions?
updated Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "parents — Herman": If you want to pass FAC, read MOS:DASH carefully, both on this point and the things I mention below. Here, it should be an unspaced em-dash or spaced en-dash.
thank you much - fixed throughout Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Ames family were descended": In AmEng, it's usually "was", but even better would be to rewrite it, since "was" sounds awful to most Commonwealth ears.
good point - rewritten Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "of Bruton, England in": Wikipedia's MOS is slightly behind the times here ... we need a comma after England, and after any similar construction. Check throughout.
updated and checked Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "which would become among the largest university scholarships in existence at that time": It seems to me this would be better without "which would become" ... if it's not, then I don't understand the sentence.
I agree - rewritten Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "1901-1902": en-dash.
fixed Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "would note that - though they had": en-dash.
fixed Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone else will probably bring this up, but FAC style (and Wikipedia style, generally) never relies as heavily on quotes as you do.
Thank you - on reading this through I can see what you mean. I've rewritten this to remove the block quote as well as four in-paragraph quotes. Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I did some light copyediting up through "Writing and research". That's probably it for me. I apologize, but I won't have time to finish up. I'm as surprised as you are that this wasn't a Wikipedia article before you tackled it, and I think you've done an excellent job of giving the flavor of the man and his accomplishments, at least as far as I read. I hope this passes FAC, either this time or the next time this comes to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Dank - thanks very much for this review. Please see my amendments above and let me know if I've missed anything or you notice anything else! Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Happy to help. The dashes need a little work, but someone will probably be along to fix those soon. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer (but note my earlier comments). Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Also, if there's only one thing in the image and only one thing mentioned in the caption, it isn't helpful to say "pictured"
  • File:Delta_Upsilon_Amherst_chapter_house.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:University_of_Pennsylvania_College_Hall.jpg, File:Herman_Vandenburg_Ames_(1865–1935),_portrait_photograph.jpg, File:Ames_note_1918.jpg
  • File:Herman_V._Ames_signature.png would also need an original publication with that tag, but see COM:SIG
  • File:BenFranklinAtPennCropped.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've made these changes except for the last one as I can't find an image called BenFranklinAtPennCropped.jpg. Chetsford (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It's in the UPenn navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the catch! I've removed the navbox. Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1Edit

A very well-written and well-sourced article. Happy to support. A few comments/suggestions for consideration below, but nothing to stand in the way.

  • "the inaugural recipient of the American Historical Society's Justin Winsor Prize" - can a work, rather than its author, be the recipient of a prize? I'm genuinely not sure.
  • "Ames was a driving force behind the establishment of the Pennsylvania State Archives, specifically, but also influenced the widespread establishment of government archives throughout the United States" - not sure the "specifically" is necessary, or the "but" quite apposite? Perhaps, "Ames was a driving force behind the establishment of the Pennsylvania State Archives and influenced the widespread establishment of government archives throughout the United States"?
  • "the acquisition of materials in American History" - does the History require capitalisation?
Early life
  • "He was ultimately ordained to the clergy" - is the "to the clergy" necessary? You could link Ordination.
  • "In the 16th century Amyas was frequently confused with Ames" - just checking this should be "Amyas" and not "Amyias" as in the previous sentence?
  • "Though his interest was in American History" - see lead comment on the capitalised H. I see in the following section, it's used without the capitalisation.
Career - Teaching
  • "Other notable students of Ames' included Herbert Eugene Bolton" - a plural start but a singular finish. Did you mean to include John Musser, although you mention him above?
  • "However, Musser offered contravening recollections of Ames' academic manner" - a few points. Is the "However" necessary? Is "contravening" quite the right word, or would something like "contradictory" work? And "manner" seems a little odd, "approach"?
Archival preservation
  • "examining Pennsylvania's state records, which were poorly organized and largely diffused across various state offices" - "scattered", or "deposited in various …"?
  • "Ames continued his attempts to inventory Pennsylvania public records" - is "inventory" a verb? "to compile an inventory of Pennsylvania's public records"?
  • "Ames and Shimmel ended their work with several recommendations.[18] First, they recommended" - to avoid the double "recommend" perhaps replace the second with "advised"?

I'd be pleased to pick up the Source review, if no one else volunteers. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

KJP1 - thanks so much for your excellent review and I will gladly accept your offer of a source review, too. I've made all the edits above with two exceptions. In the matter of "American H/history" the University of Pennsylvania capitalizes "H" when referring to the Ames Fund, which seems to invoke it as the academic discipline of American History but "h" when referring to history of the Americas (as in International Relations as a discipline vs international relations as in the relations between nations). The only other item was in the question of "inventory" as my Merriam-Webster dictionary says it can be either a noun ("a list of property or assets") or a verb ("to make a list of property or assets"). Chetsford (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." I do not think this is worth mentioning in the lead.
  • I would also mention here where his papers are housed rather than his sister's fund.
  • You mention where he studied but not what he studied at each college. This should be stated.
  • " a room which he shared with the rest of the graduate school offices" I am not sure what this means. All the offices were in one room?
  • "an $80,000 endowment from the late Frederic Courtland Penfield, among the largest university scholarship funds in existence at that time" I would say "which was among the largest."
  • "During the 1901—1902 academic year, Ames was one of Ezra Pound's professors" But you say he became a full professor by 1908. If assistant professor this should be clarified - and when was he promoted to this position?
  • "the eighteenth amendment" I think this should be explained, not just linked.
  • You could link presentist to Presentism (literary and historical analysis). Also to relativism, although I am not clear that you are using the word in the same sense as in the linked article.
  • "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." It seems more important that the portrait is owned by the University of Pennsylvaia. Is it known whether it is on display?
  • I do not understand the pedigree chart and it is not referenced.
  • He was obviously important as an archivist but as a historian? He was liberal and conservative on the constitution, presentist and relativist on history, he saw WWI as a wonderful opportunity for historians to influence public opinion in favour of the government but also believed in impartiality. He seems to have had no coherent views? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Dudley, thanks so much for this thorough review. I've made notes below. Please let me know if you have any questions or you see that I've missed anything.
  • "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." I do not think this is worth mentioning in the lead.
  • I would also mention here where his papers are housed rather than his sister's fund.
  • You mention where he studied but not what he studied at each college. This should be stated.
I agree. I actually don't have this information, oddly none of the sources specify his major at Amherst. While I assume it was History I can't say so with absolute certainty.
  • " a room which he shared with the rest of the graduate school offices" I am not sure what this means. All the offices were in one room?
Correct. (As an aside, IIRC, Pennsylvania didn't begin offering graduate degrees (outside of specialist degrees like MD) until the 1890s.)
  • It still does not sound right to me. A person shares with other people, not with offices. Maybe with other staff and/or with graduate students. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "an $80,000 endowment from the late Frederic Courtland Penfield, among the largest university scholarship funds in existence at that time" I would say "which was among the largest."
  • "During the 1901—1902 academic year, Ames was one of Ezra Pound's professors" But you say he became a full professor by 1908. If assistant professor this should be clarified - and when was he promoted to this position?
changed "professors" to "instructors"; to the other point, in the U.S. system of academic ranks, assistant professor is the lowest grade in the tenure track so it would be the initial point of entry and there would be no date of promotion
  • "the eighteenth amendment" I think this should be explained, not just linked.
  • "Ames' portrait, by Alice L. Emmong, is cataloged in the United States National Portrait Collection." It seems more important that the portrait is owned by the University of Pennsylvaia. Is it known whether it is on display?
I don't believe it is currently hanging, though this is personal observation and I can't cite a RS that says it is or is not on display.
  • I do not understand the pedigree chart and it is not referenced.
updated the image file with references
  • This should be referenced in the article, not just in the image file. I would suggest a note explaining with each name linked. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • He was obviously important as an archivist but as a historian? He was liberal and conservative on the constitution, presentist and relativist on history, he saw WWI as a wonderful opportunity for historians to influence public :opinion in favour of the government but also believed in impartiality. He seems to have had no coherent views?
I'd agree that's potentially a valid critique.
Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles I've made these changes now (substituted "staff" for "offices" and added a note "B" to the image caption) Chetsford (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford, Sarastro1 - No worries, I promised to pick this up and am sorry for the delay. It'll be done this afternoon. KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

I'll go through them all, obviously, but will only list any that have issues. A general point, but certainly not standing in the way - like you, I think links to the book sources can assist readers. But some of our esteemed colleagues at FAC hate them, unless they give a snippet. One point that was made to me, which I thought had some validity, is that links to Google give an advantage to a commercial seller. I therefore use Worldcat as my linking site, unless Google Books does give a snippet. But, as I say, it's a preference and something to bear in mind, not something that needs amendment. KJP1 (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Source 1 - do we want to indicate you need a Harvardkey to access? You indicate a "subscription" site elsewhere, e.g. Source 20.
  • Source 2 - this lists the collection, but doesn't appear to permit online access to it. I can't therefore check the content.
  • Source 30 - it might just be my computer but this one displays the text very oddly!
  • Source 43 - this appears to be an unpublished PHD thesis. But the statements it supports aren't controversial and I think it meets Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP. I'm assuming its author isn't the Alan Ginsberg, otherwise you'd need an authorlink!
  • Source 50 - more a prose query - should the quote read "Funeral services lor Dr. Herman V. Ames..", in which case it needs a (sic), or is it a typo? Similarly, what's "21st and Walnut sts"? Is that a US way of writing 21st and Walnut Streets? Ignore me, if I'm just not getting the variation.
  • General - I can't access the offline sources and, realistically, it's unlikely to be practical to do so from the UK. Of the online sources, a number are "paywalled" or similar. But they do take you to where they say. Nevertheless, I can access a good number; 3/21/24/26/31/32/34/36/38/39/41/45/51/54/56/58/60/62; and these support the content. That, and the fact that the nominator isn't new to FAC, lead me to be satisfied with the Source Review and I hope the coordinators are content. I should also say that the nominator's made the commendable effort to archive the online sources. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
KJP1 - thank you again for the excellent review! To your comments:
  • Source 1 - do we want to indicate you need a Harvardkey to access? You indicate a "subscription" site elsewhere, e.g. Source 20.
I've located a different link that doesn't require a Harvardkey and have updated the URL. (That said, it doesn't actually permit you to view the thesis which is only in paper form, it only permits you to confirm authorship/date/title, however, the source is just used to support a statement of author/date/title in the infobox rather than any content.)
  • Source 2 - this lists the collection, but doesn't appear to permit online access to it. I can't therefore check the content.
On this one, I also did not go into the Ames papers; the reference here is just to the short biographical note on the index page.
  • Source 30 - it might just be my computer but this one displays the text very oddly!
No, it was my fault. One number was off in the URL which is fixed now.
  • Source 43 - this appears to be an unpublished PHD thesis. But the statements it supports aren't controversial and I think it meets Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP. I'm assuming its author isn't the Alan Ginsberg, otherwise you'd need an authorlink!
I neglected to insert the URL but have corrected now.
  • Source 50 - more a prose query - should the quote read "Funeral services lor Dr. Herman V. Ames..", in which case it needs a (sic), or is it a typo? Similarly, what's "21st and Walnut sts"? Is that a US way of writing 21st and Walnut Streets? Ignore me, if I'm just not getting the variation.
Lor/For - it was my sloppy transcription! I've now changed "lor" to "for". On the questions of "sts" ... it's an anachronistic US way of writing "streets" (i.e. no longer commonly used; a la "drs" as a plural abbreviation of doctor).
Chetsford (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Michelle Williams (actress)Edit

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Michelle Williams. Among her many roles, she has played a young girl whose family murders their matriarch; a meek woman tragically married to a gay man; a woman whose husband and son are killed in a terrorist attack; a vagrant whose only attachment is to her missing dog; a housewife who drowns her own children; a depressed wife whose marriage is ending; a suicidal and insecure actress with a drug problem; a woman who had sexual relations with a grown man at the age of 12; a mother who loses all her children in a house fire; and another mother who receives her son's mutilated ear in her morning mail. Hmm... so if you're still upbeat about this, please share your thoughts. "Happy" reading. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by MoisejpEdit

First read-though:
1980–1995: Early life:

  • "Although she described her family as": Would "although she has described..." be better here?
  • "Williams has recounted fond memories of her growing up": Consider removing "her"?
  • "She said of the experience": I'm just making these comments on the fly and haven't had a chance to read through everything, so not sure if my suggesting this throughout might make the overall tone "heavier" but consider "she has said"? If you want to wait until I get through the article to see how many more instances of this there would be, that's okay.
  • "about a young boy's (played by Tom Guiry)": Slightly awkward since "boy's" is a possessive, but if you can't find a better way to reword this, I can live with it. Moisejp (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1996–2000: Dawson's Creek and transition to adult roles:

  • "which despite selling to a production company was never made": Clause's subject seems to change midway here. "...despite being sold to a production company was never made" would be one way to resolve the issue but there may be other ways that flow better. Moisejp (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "co-starring James Van Der Beek, Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson": So far elsewhere you seem to be using serial commas, but there is none here.
  • "she preferred living there over Los Angeles": Consider cutting or expanding. Feels tagged on and incomplete as is.
  • "In a review of the first season for The New York Times, Caryn James called it a soap opera that was "redeemed by intelligence and sharp writing" and found Williams "too earnest to suit this otherwise shrewdly tongue-in-cheek cast" ": For me, "and found" doesn't flow perfectly, maybe because there is "redeemed", which breaks up the flow, and makes it harder for the reader to instantly tie "found" to subject "Caryn James". Also, should it be "but found" instead of "and found", since what comes before is positive and what comes after is negative?
  • "Ray Richmond of Variety labeled it "an addictive drama with considerable heart" and found...": Two sentences in a row with "found"—better to avoid this if possible.
  • "a rating's success": Should it be "ratings success"?
  • "but she found it difficult to come to terms with her sudden fame": Like "she preferred living there over Los Angeles" above, I feel this idea would be better either expanded or removed. Moisejp (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "admitted that she had not been fully invested in it": Perhaps "she had not fully invested herself in it" would be clearer to make clear that it was her and not external forces doing the investing.
  • "She said that the financial stability of a steady job...": Another candidate to consider making present perfect ("has said"), as—based on the year of the article—this seems to have been said after the fact.
  • "in which she and Kirsten Dunst played young girls obsessed with Richard Nixon.[30][7]": Minor comment (no strong opinion about this) but I wonder whether if they were teenagers, "young girls" could be ambiguous—it could suggest younger than they were. Also, I suggest switching the order of the refs so the smaller number comes first (which you do elsewhere, but I know it can be easy for orders to change during editing when juggling lots of refs).Moisejp (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for these very helpful comments, Moisejp. Looking forward to the rest of them. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain

  • "The British film Me Without You (2001) about an obsessive female friendship featured Williams opposite Anna Friel." I suggest putting commas around "about an obsessive female friendship" for flow. Also, the number of f's in the sentence may be borderline distracting. If you reworded "featured" I think it would help. Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

2006–2010: Work with auteurs

  • "A review in Variety mentioned that she was underused in it." Here "mentioned" doesn't feel like the perfect word—maybe it doesn't seem strong enough for expressing the reviewer's opinion? Sorry that this review is going slowly—I only have time for a very few comments at a time, but I will keep at it bit by bit. :-) Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked the sentence altogether. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
And take your time with the review, Moisejp. There's no hurry. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Two days after finishing work on Synecdoche, New York, Williams began filming Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy, which centers on Wendy, a poor and lonesome young woman who travels with her dog, Lucy, in hopes of finding employment." Small comment, but perhaps it is unnecessary to repeat Wendy and Lucy's names in the second half of the sentence. I think it probably works without their names, and sounds less repetitive. Moisejp (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway

  • "She was displeased with how the film turned out." Consider adding one or more details about why she was displeased with it. Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
All she said was, "“Did you see Suite Française? Wow. Ouch. That one hurt.” I didn't find any additional reasons about why she hated it. What do you think we should do? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, maybe instead of saying why she didn't like it, you could briefy talk about what she says in the following paragraph, which could be interesting: "To make or to watch back? “Both,” she says without missing a beat. “You can never have a sense when you read something – or even while you’re making it – if it’s going to be good or not. You really can’t tell. And you work just as hard on the movies that are bad as you do on the ones that are good. So it’s alway sort of a surprise how they turn out.” " Moisejp (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You could. For me personally something like the following would better capture the most interesting part of the quote, but this may be a matter of preference: "She revealed/commented in a 2017 interview that she was not happy with how the film turned out, commenting/adding that this can be hard to predict when reading a script and during production." Moisejp (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that reads very nicely. Moisejp (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Eager to work in a different medium and finding it tough to get hired in film": It seems surprising to suddenly hear that she had trouble getting hired in film. It sounds like previous to this she had a quite regular stream of work, including in some high-profile projects. Maybe this statement needs to be explained better? Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Keen to work in a musical" may be a bit repetitive after directly following "Eager to work in a different medium" (same structure, both with the verb "work"). Could you consider rewording one of the two phrases?
  • "Critical consensus on her performance was mixed": I'm not sure that "consensus was mixed" collocates well. It sounds a bit contradictory to me.
  • "Jesse Green of New York magazine wrote that "she acts the hell out of the role" but Newsday's Linda Winer found her "timid" and "bland"." Maybe one of Green's or Winer's statements could be paraphrased? It feels unnecessary to use direct quotes for both. Green's would be easy to paraphrase but Winer's probably wouldn't be hard either.
  • "The rigorousness of the assignment led Williams to consider Cabaret to be the "hardest work of my life"." May be a matter of style, but I'd have a little preference for "hardest work of [her] life". But if you disagree, that's OK.
  • "Challenged by her work in Cabaret, Williams was eager to return to the stage." Maybe "eager to continue working on the stage" would be less ambiguous? At first I read "return to" as "come back to after a period of being away from", which doesn't make sense given that Cabaret was on stage.
  • "Hilton Als of The New Yorker found Williams'": Consider replacing "Williams' " with "the actress's" (or even "her"). This is the third sentence in a row mentioning Williams' name. Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "the film featured minimal dialogues": I think I would naturally say "minimal dialogue" (i.e., use it as as an uncountable noun), meaning "talking" as opposed to "dialogues" (meaning "talks").
  • "Despite the film's bleakness, Williams identified with her character's desire to reclaim her life in the face of tragedy.[119] Justin Chang wrote in his review that despite her brief role": Two sentences in a row with "despite", best to avoid.
  • "Williams "has one astonishing scene that rises from the movie like a small aria of heartbreak" ": I'd feel better if we were told a little about what this special scene was. Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Moisejp, done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

2017–present: Mainstream films:

  • "She has been cast alongside Adam Driver in Leos Carax's Annette, an experimental musical about a stand-up comedian's supernaturally gifted child, after Rooney Mara backed out of the project." I like the use of the present perfect in the first part ("has been cast"), but I don't think it works with the simple past in the second part ("backed out"). The easiest thing for now may be to just make the first part simple past ("was cast"); even if it is not ideal, it may be the lesser of the evils. (Similarly, earlier in the section, for "She compared her character's joyful disposition to that of Grace Kelly,[107] and she sang two songs for the film's soundtrack", I would have preferred "she has compared", but this does not mesh well with the simple past "sang", so for now I propose to leave this sentence as is. Possibly during my second read-through I might have a better idea.) Moisejp (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Media image and acting style:

  • There is lots of variation in verb tenses in this section for when reviewers are talking about her personality, style, etc. ("Charles McGrath of The New York Times found", "Adam Green of Vogue finds", "Erica Wagner of Harper's Bazaar has praised"). Maybe consider only using present perfect and present, or only present perfect and simple past? If you want to discuss this more before making changes I'm happy to. Moisejp (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Moisejp, oh, yes! Is this better? Please let me know if I'm missing something else. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Second read-through:

  • "For portraying the actress Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn (2011), she won a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress." I wonder if there's another word you can use besides "actress" to describe Monroe, to avoid using the word twice in the same sentence.
I've removed "the actress". It doesn't seem all that necessary anyway.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Despite significant media attention, Williams is reticent about her personal life." I'm not totally convinced "Despite" works here. It suggests that if people get a lot of media attention, they are less likely to want privacy? If you are comfortable with this assumption, though, please go ahead and keep it. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
A bit confused. Yes, some people do like the spotlight but in this case, don't you mean some "are more likely to want privacy"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally sure what you mean, but it's OK. It was just a minor point, and if it works well for you as is, I'll trust your judgement. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1980–1995: Early life:

  • "her father, who encouraged her to ... develop an independent personality" / "She mostly kept to herself and was self-sufficient": It's not clear to me how much overlap there may be between "independent personality" and "self-sufficient". Are they saying more or less the same thing? If yes, maybe remove one of the two. Or if no, I suggest putting the points next to each other with additional clarification about how they're different. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
From her interviews, the "self-sufficient" bit came later after she moved to San Diego and felt a bit alienated there. Does that make sense? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't had a chance to read the source, but would something like "think for herself" work instead of "develop an independent personality"? I see where you're getting with "self-sufficient", but it still feels like as it is "independent" could mean the same thing as "self-sufficient". It may be better to try to differentiate the two concepts as much as possible using different words—again, if indeed these different nuances were intended in the sources. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, so I decided to focus on something else she said in the same interview and tweaked it. That better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a nice edit. Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Williams became interested in acting at an early age when she saw a local production of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.[10] She performed in a local production of the musical Annie": If you can you replace one of the instances of "local", that would be ideal.
  • "The following year, she made her film debut in the family film Lassie": Replace one of the instances of "film" with "movie"?
  • "However, she disliked going there as she did not get along with other students." Minor comment, but I'm not sure that "However" is needed here. Also, "disliked going there" feels slightly awkward to me, but I can't think of anything better (without using the word "school", which is used in the sentences before and after, so better to avoid)—if you don't have any ideas, maybe just leave "disliked going there" as is. A final minor comment for this sentence: "get along well with" feels less colloquial to me than just "get along with". Moisejp (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

1996–2000: Dawson's Creek and transition to adult roles:

  • "To support herself, she took assignments in low-budget films and commercials.[7] She had minor roles in the television films My Son is Innocent (1996) and Killing Mr. Griffin (1997), and featured alongside Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange in the drama film A Thousand Acres (1997)." Sorry to keep harping on the issue of repetition, but there are three sentences in a row here that use the word "film". Would you consider using "movie" for one of the instances?
  • "In 1997, the 17-year old Williams entered the Robbins World Cup Championship, a futures trading contest; with a return of 1000%, she became the first woman to win the title and the third-highest winner of all time (her father ranks first)." Would you consider a footnote here to give more information? I gather from her father's wiki page that he is an extremely gifted investor. One suspects he coached her (or even made all the decisions for her under her name). I haven't read the sources you included, but is there extra information about the circumstances that would be worthwhile putting in a footnote? Otherwise it could possibly sound out of the blue that she suddenly won so much money—although "her father ranks first" is a hint that there's more to it.
  • "Her first film release since the commencement of Dawson's Creek": Instead of "commencement", "start" would be simpler and straightforward.
  • "which she considered to be a better fit for her personality": Very minor suggestion (ignore if you disagree) but "to be" feels unnecessary to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Moisejp, done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Will get back to this review soon, hopefully in the next few days I can add some more, and respond to your couple of comments above. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain:

  • "Dawson's Creek completed its run in 2003, and Williams was pleased with how it had ended." Would be nice if you could include specifics of how/why she was pleased with how it ended. Moisejp (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
She said, "Everybody agrees that it’s the right time for it to be over, so there’s a lot of peace that comes along with that". Not sure how else to write about this. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, when I read "pleased how it ended" I imagined it meant that she liked the story arc of the ending. What about something like ""Dawson's Creek ended in 2003, and Williams was satisfied with how it had run its course" or "...and Williams felt it had run its course well" or "Dawson's Creek completed its run in 2003, and Williams felt this was a satisfying time for it to end." I prefer the "run its course" versions because they may suggest not just good timing of its ending, but also good naturalness for the way it ended, which I think is implied in the source. Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Williams next appeared in Imaginary Heroes, a drama about a family coping with their son's suicide, and played an impressionable young woman fixated on mental health in the period film A Hole in One." Consider replacing "Williams" with "The actress"? There are lots of instances of "Williams" in this paragraph.
  • "Williams was emotionally affected by the story, and in spite of her limited screen time, was drawn to playing a woman constricted by social mores of the time." Minor comment, but "the social mores of the time" feels a little more usual to me. But I can't say that without the is absolutely wrong.
  • "It won three Academy Awards and Williams gained a Best Supporting Actress nomination." Replace "Williams" with "her"? There are, again, a lot of instances of her name in this paragraph. Not sure if it's more than elsewhere in the article, but I noticed it here, and this particular replacement feels like it would be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

2006–2010: Work with auteurs:

  • "Two days after finishing work on Synecdoche, New York, Williams began filming Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy, which centers on a poor and lonesome young woman traveling with her dog in hopes of finding employment." Perhaps instead of "in hopes of finding employment" I wonder if "and looking for employment" might be better. It's a subtle difference, but as it is now could it be read that it was through traveling with her dog (as opposed to traveling alone) that she hoped to find employment?
  • "with a largely volunteering crew": suggest "largely volunteer crew".
  • "Shutter Island released in 2010 and was a commercial success, accumulating over $294 million in box office receipts." Consider adding "worldwide" for extra clarity? Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway:

  • "In 2011, Williams played the actress Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn, a drama depicting the troubled production of the 1957 comedy The Prince and the Showgirl, based on accounts by Colin Clark, who worked on the film." Could possibly be confusing which of the two films mentioned Clark worked on.
  • "Roger Ebert considered Williams' performance to be key to the film's success and credited her for successfully evoking multiple aspects of Monroe's personality." Best to avoid repetition of success-successfully if possible. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Though she considered it to be a light-hearted film, Jenny McCartney of The Daily Telegraph found a darker undertone to it and favorably compared its theme to that of Blue Valentine." Is "she" Williams or (I think) McCartney? If it's McCartney, I don't feel "considered it to be light-hearted [but] found a darker undertone to it" is very clear. It's confusing. Moisejp (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This section says Williams sang several songs for My Week with Marilyn, but the Songs section below only lists three. Does that just mean only three of the several songs she sang were released (for example, on CD or digitally)?
  • "The film earned over $490 million worldwide to emerge as her highest-grossing release.[104] Suite Française, a period drama that Williams filmed in 2013, was released in a few territories in 2015 but was not theatrically released in America." Three instances of release/released in two sentences, best to reduce if possible. Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Media image and acting style:

  • "Williams has spoken about how she tries to balance her desire to be private and to use her celebrity to speak out against issues such as sexism, gender pay gap, and sexual harassment." Would be better to have a parallel structure after "balance". For example "balance her desire to be private and her..." Moisejp (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the right way to say this. I've tweaked it to "..balance her desire to be private and use her celebrity to speak out..", but I'm not sure if this is ideal. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked it, but let me know if it doesn't work for you. My version isn't perfect either, as it has "her" three times in close proximity, but I couldn't find a way to avoid it. But I think it's a lesser evil compared with not having good parallel structure. In the version I did, it uses "balance her (noun phrase a) and (noun phrase b)". There could be other ways to reach good parallel structure, though. Moisejp (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, Krimuk, thank you for your patience in all my comments, and I'm really happy with the quality of prose. I'm quite sure I'll be supporting. But taking the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive71#Source review woes to heart, I'd like to also do a source review including spot-checking as many sources as I can muster. Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Great job again, Krimuk! Moisejp (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Initial comment: This has no bearing on whether the source review will pass (it's not a requirement), but I notice that most but not all of your sources are archived. Would it make sense to archive the remaining ones for consistency, or do you have a logic to the ones you didn't archive? Moisejp (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I use this tool to archive links. Assuming that I haven't missed anything, they've all been archived now. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 1: Are the extra links (FYI / A&E Networks) necessary? I wasn't immediately sure what they are for. Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 5: Source→"her younger sister, Paige, and three older half siblings from her father’s first marriage"; article→"her younger sister, Paige, and three half-siblings from her father's first marriage". / Source→"The family moved to San Diego when Williams was nine"; article→"The family relocated to San Diego, California, when she was nine". Best to reword these sentences more. Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: It seems from this ref that Deception was originally called The Tourist. I can see you wanted to use this ref as it talks about her attraction to the role, but I wonder if there is a good way to account for the fact that the title mentioned in the source is different. Moisejp (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 is used as a source related to Heath Ledger but 2001 is before she met him (regardless of the year, I couldn't find him mentioned in the article). Also, consider paraphrasing "self-sufficient" to be "self-reliant" so you're not using the exact same word in the source? Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Update to my long comment below: I see ref 27 says "She passed the necessary exams". But do you have any sources that say explicitly she took the GED route rather than the diploma route? I'm not sure anything I have seen so far is very clear. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you sure it is precisely true that she completed her GED tests? Ref 10 says "I left and graduated from a correspondence school... one of the (conditions) for being emancipated: You have to get your diploma or your GED." Ref 20 says "when you're emancipated, you have to either have your GED, or you have to have graduated from high school. And so from the back of a magazine, we bought this education through correspondence school. It was called ICS, International Correspondence School, bought it for $300, and I finished three years of high school in nine months." I admit I'm not an expert on these things but General Educational Development says that GED is "a group of four subject tests which, when passed, provide certification that the test taker has United States or Canadian high school-level academic skills". But the two quotes from Williams don't say anything about her having taken tests; they say she "finished high school"—which I would guess is the same as getting her diploma; it sounds like GED was the option she didn't choose? Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 22: "...a part that she believed came closest to her personality". Does this ref say this? I didn't spot this, but I may have missed it.
  • May I suggest ref 22 would be better to support "her father ... encouraged her to form a reading habit" than ref 7? Ref 7 mentions her love of books but not her father, while ref 22 ties the two together.
  • Ref 24: "featured alongside" may suggest a relatively big role like those of Pfieffer and Lange, but in the list of roles she is quite far down. If it was a small role, maybe you can tie it in with the "minor roles" mentioned earlier in the sentence. Also, I assume ref 25 is for Killing Mr. Griffin. May I suggest putting it before ref 24, to keep the same order as the roles listed in the text? Moisejp (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 33, it looks like you may have copy-and-pasted the template from ref 32 but missed updating the title? Moisejp (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "It earned $55 million against its $17 million budget." The source (ref 35) specifies these were domestic earnings—it could be good to say this, as some of the figures in the article are for worldwide earnings. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 63: Maybe Entertainment Weekly changed the title of the article? It currently displays as "Michelle Williams climbs Brokeback Mountain ". Moisejp (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 101: Should it be author Anthony D'Alessandro, date of article February 12, 2012? Moisejp (talk) 05:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 136 and 137: In ref 137, Williams' performance is called "the funniest performance of her career" and in 136 "the kookiest". Just an idea, but seems like it could be a good opportunity to link the two reviews, since what they say is so similar. But if no ideas come to you for the best way to do this, no worries. (I don't have a super specific idea myself, just seems like there could be potential for something.) Almost finished my review, have got as far as ref 143. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, the first ref is not a review but an opinion piece, which I've used to cite the first part of the sentence. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review passes. Moisejp (talk) 14:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough review, Moisejp. I really appreciate it. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0, you're welcome. I enjoyed the article. I actually have only seen a few of her films and wasn't really aware of who she was or that she was famous for being with Heath Ledger. By the way, I remembered one other mini-comment I was going to mention: Is it worthwhile adding that Heath Ledger was also in I'm Not There? I don't know whether any of your sources may say anything about whether his involvement was a factor in her being offered a part? Moisejp (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, but it has a huge ensemble and the two of them don't have any scenes together. As for the project, all Williams has said is: "I had to do something, I thought, 'Todd is a good man, and a good director.' It loosened things up". No mention of Ledger. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I am a little confused by this sentence in the second paragraph of the lead (Williams went on to gain critical acclaim for playing emotionally troubled women coping with loss or loneliness in the independent dramas Wendy and Lucy(2008), Blue Valentine (2010), and Manchester by the Sea (2016).) due to the chronology. You mention a 2016 film here and then proceed to discuss films that were released before it in the subsequent sentences. I am just curious on why you went with this route?
What I tried to do in this sentence is club her critically acclaimed roles. So that the flow in this paragraph would be: her acclaimed roles; the role she won an award for, immediately after; her highest-grossing releases; and finally her Broadway appearances. Does that make sense? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It makes sense to me. I just wanted to hear your reasoning for it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be a silly question, but I am confused by “the Robbins World Cup Championship of Futures Trading”. What kind of championship is this? What are they competing in? I was a little lost as it is not made directly clear in the prose and there is not a link for further context either.
Tweaked with a wiki link. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Something about this part (but Williams was not intimidated by the challenge, crediting Raimi for making her comfortable with the process) reads a little off to me. Could you just say (but Williams credited Raimi for making her comfortable with the process). Something about the middle phrasing/wording seems a little too sensational or overly praising for me.
Makes sense. Removed. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on this sentence (She later regretted working on the project.) or this sentence (Displeased with the film roles she was being offered, Williams spent the next few years working on stage.). I am curious on what she regretted or found disappointing here?
Tweaked it. Is it better now? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it is better. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think you should add a bit about “All the Old Knives” and “Annette”. I am not sure how it works per say as there are articles out there about Williams being attached to the two projects, but no further word to the best of my knowledge.
Yeah, so I've added the Annette role, which was confirmed last year, but not All the Old Knives, because Variety reported that she was "in talks" to star, but there's been no further confirmation on that. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I would imagine that it is difficulty to keep up with an actor's future projects as there is plenty of changes (i.e. films falling through, actors being replaced, etc.) Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are duplicate links in the “Acting credits and awards” section for the film titles. Please remove them as they were already linked in previous sections. Same comment for the phrase “Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play”.
Right, so since these links are mostly scattered through the rest of the article, I feel it's beneficial to consolidate them at one place. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would disagree on this matter. I have also been told that items should only be linked once in an article (and primarily on their first use in the article) to avoid overlinking. However, I will leave this up to other reviewers as I may be incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think that there should be a note on the top of the page to link to the other Michelle Williams (i.e. Michelle Williams (singer))?
I guess not, since there are WP:2DABS and no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I think that both article titles help us distinguish them clearly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I just wanted to clear it with you first. I doubt that anyone really confuses the two even though they have the same name lol. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Oddly enough, I have only seen Williams in two films (Dick and Oz the Great and Powerful). I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I hope that my comments are helpful, and I hope that you have a great rest of your week? Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Aoba47 and as usual, they have been most helpful. :) Do try and watch more of her films -- especially if you are in need of an existential crisis. ;) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. You have done a great job with this. I will definitely check out more of her work in the future; I would love to see My Week with Marilyn sometime in the future. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Aoba47. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am just glad that I could help; hats off for tackling such a large topic. I really should try and work on an article about an actor in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Image review, only handling these images which seem to have issues:
This seems to be the clearest headshot of Ledger that's in commons. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be the source. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems OK from an image perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Battle of HalmyrosEdit

Nominator(s): Constantine 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Halmyros was a pivotal event in medieval Greek history, ending the first century of the Frankokratia with the rout of the Duchy of Athens and the installation of the Catalan Company as masters over much of central Greece, much to the consternation of pretty much every other power in the region. The article has been worked on-and-of since 2014, and has passed GAC and more recently, MILHIST's ACR, much to its benefit on both cases. I feel it is complete both content- and context-wise, and includes the best relevant scholarship. Any further suggestions to improve it will, of course, be most welcome. Constantine 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot as usual, Dank, your edits are fine. Constantine 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Gran-Companyia-Catalana-segell-1305.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Tag added, I am working on a better-quality version of the map (based on File:Map of the southern Balkans, 1410.svg), but this will take time. Constantine 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support it is a comprehensive article and nicely researched. Only comments regard the citations number 1 and 37. It will be nicer if 1 can be in the sources and 37 turned into a note. But I will leave this to the judgement of the nominator as it is not very important and wont affect this high quality aticle.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about then, with the proviso that I knew practically nothing about this period of Frankish Greek history when I first read it. I've taken a look at the changes and additions since then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • None of the three "primary sources" listed is cited in the article.
  • There are no publisher details for the Jacoby work cited in ref 37. Can you also confirm the language for this source?

Otherwise, sources seeem to be in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The primary sources are given because they are well, the primary sources. They have not been used in the article, except to check up on the facts reported by the secondary sources. Should I remove them to a separate section? I've also asked Phso2, who is very knowledgeable about Frankish Greece and the relevant scholarly literature, to take a look at the article, so there may be some additions, including new sources, over the next few days. Constantine 18:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have not used these sources directly, they should not appear in your list of sources. They could be listed as Further reading or External links. Though, if you've used them to confirm information included in your secondary sources, perhaps they should be cited. Incidentally, you've not answered my query with Jacoby. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brianboulton, I've moved the primary sources down to a separate section "Primary accounts", but have considerably reworked and expanded the sources part in the main article. I've also used Jacoby to rewrite the localisation debate, and expand a bit on the comments that Phso2 already made on the similarity with Courtrai. Please have a look. Cheers, Constantine 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
What you've done satisfies my concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support FifelfooEdit

Support on: Citation style; HQRS; Primary & Tertiary use; plagiarism by style check; historiography check; white myth/clean wehrmacht check. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Citation out of style "David Jacoby, Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie…"; Last, First (Year).
  • Short citation out of style "Setton (Catalan domination of Athens, p. 11)" Author Year, p. nn.
  • Kalaitzakis 2011 is a popular encyclopaedia article, but appropriately used
  • Brittanica is appropriately used
  • Miller, William (1908). is heavily used. Is this text still approved of by other scholars in the historiography? cited as a seminal and standard text. Good work.
  • Historiographical commentary inline is good.
  • I don't see a "white myth" problem in this article.
  • I read style for plagiarism. Style is consistent to me.
Hi Fifelfoo, I have reworked some sections of the article, and addressed your reference formatting issues. Please have another look. Cheers, Constantine 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note to coordinators: nominator has not responded for almost 2 weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Please note I will be on vacation and possibly without a good internet connection until early August, so my response to any new comments may take some time. Constantine 09:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC) I am back from vacation, for anyone interested in commenting here (sorry, forgot to update this). Constantine 21:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Kate SheppardEdit

Nominator(s): gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the leader of the New Zealand suffrage movement, which gained votes for women 125 years ago on 19 September 1893.-gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I will be on holiday and unavailable to respond from 6 August to 21 August. Please don't close this FAC due to lack of response during this period. Other editors may be able to address issues raised while I'm away.-gadfium 20:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I will be unable to make any substantial contributions from now until 22 August, as I will have limited internet and only a mobile phone to access it with. I remain committed to the featured article process.-gadfium 06:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the comic and petition
  • File:Julius_Vogel,_ca_1870s.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Women's_Suffrage_Petition_1893_(9365778997).jpg, File:National_Council_of_Women,_Christchurch,_1896.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've scaled up the images suggested. I think perhaps the petition is now too large but I'll leave it for further comment.
    • Each of the three images you identify have rationales as to why they are in the public domain in New Zealand. I'm not a copyright expert, and if these rationals are not sufficient, I'm happy to remove the images from the article. The photographer of the Vogel portrait died in 1919 and the photo was taken in the 1870s, so it is clearly public domain as New Zealand uses life of author plus 50 years.[21] For the petition, if you accept the copyright belongs to the original petition and not the much later digitisation of it, Sheppard was the author and she died in 1934. The photo of the National Council of Women has an unknown photographer, so its copyright status depends on when it was published. I am not clear on whether this photo was published in the NZ Graphic in 1896, or a similar photo was published there. @Schwede66: might have more information.-gadfium 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The primary issue in these cases is the US status - they currently use tags indicating a pre-1923 publication, not simply creation. If a pre-1923 publication can't be demonstrated, a different tag would need to be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I would happily change the tags of the first two to PD-old-70, but that tag says it also needs a US-specific tag. This needs someone well-versed in copyright law to sort out.-gadfium 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I have changed the tags of these three images to PD-US-unpublished. If there is evidence found that any have been published, then the original tags were correct. If this is not an acceptable solution, I will request assistance at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.-gadfium 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I've looked into the issue whether the third photo (New Zealand Council of Women) was published in the 16 May 1896 edition of The New Zealand Graphic as implied by the National Library entry. I'd say this is highly likely (what else would they mean by giving this reference?). But one way to know for sure is to go to a library and have a look. Nine libraries hold copies of this journal and the closest one to me is the Canterbury Museum Documentary Research Centre. If needed, I'd be happy to enquire with them (a) whether they hold this edition and (b) whether they give me access. Let me know if it's needed. Schwede66 05:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes please. If you find you don't have time, I can look in the Auckland Museum library.-gadfium 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
            • @Schwede66: I can go to the Auckland Museum today if you have not already had a chance to look at this.-gadfium 20:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
              • Oh, I didn't see the previous reply - sorry. This page wasn't on my watchlist (it is now). Let me know if you have success today / find the time to go. If not, I'll ask at the local museum here. Schwede66 20:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
                • The Auckland Museum was not able to supply this to me today, although they do have it, so I found a copy at University of Auckland. The photo was published in 1896, and I have updated the Commons description accordingly. Thanks to @Schwede66: and @Susan Tol: for their help.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyedits, and your support. You have a great ability to turn convoluted prose into plain English!-gadfium 03:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Your writing is in very good shape, and easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good.

  • fn 100, 101, 106, 108, 116 and 117 differ from the rest. Suggest moving them down into the sources to match.
  • On the other hand, "Women and the vote: Introduction" and "1893 women's suffrage petition" from New Zealand History are not used in the article. Suggest moving them to the Further Reading section.
  • I had to click on the link to find out what they call "football" in New Zealand
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll tackle these in the morning, about 12 hours from now.-gadfium 06:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Done.-gadfium 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, which definitely improved the article. And thank you for your support.-gadfium 19:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • " a position through which she elevated the cause of suffrage in New Zealand" A bit clumsy. Maybe " and she used the position to advance the cause of female suffrage in New Zealand"
  • "Kate Sheppard promoted suffrage" I think you need to say female suffrage each time.
  • "she successfully advocated for women's suffrage" I think the wod for is not needed.
  • "Failing health provoked a return to New Zealand" provoked is an odd word here.
  • "George Beath, the partner of Kate's sister Marie" What does partner mean here - lover? fiancé? business partner?
  • "also Classics Master at Christchurch High School at the time" I think "at the time" is superfluous.
  • What are Relative Statistics?
  • "prohibition and women's suffrage would be the organisation's central aim." Presumably aims.
  • "he eventually did so on 19 September, which granted women full voting rights" This sounds awkward. I suggest deleting "which granted women full voting rights" and moving it to replace "enabling women's suffrage" at the beginning of the paragraph.
  • " it was not until 1933 that the first woman was elected to parliament" No change needed, but I see Britain was ahead of NZ on this, and presumably on first woman cabinet minister with Margaret Bondfield in 1929.
  • "but also found time to promote " I would delete "found time"
  • "Sheppard bought new furnishings and appeared to be planning for a permanent residence" This is unclear. New furnishings for a house in Canterbury?
  • A first rate article but some minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done.
  • Re George Beath: In modern New Zealand, "partner" means romantic partner, possibly more so than in other Western countries, but I agree it is inappropriate and confusing in this context. I considered "boyfriend" but I think that would also be inappropriate for that era. The source does not say they were lovers at that point, nor whether they were engaged. "Suitor" might work, but I went with "future husband" which makes no assumptions at all.
  • Relative Statistics seems to be a term used by the prohibition movement and I cannot find a definition of it. In the American temperance movement, the equivalent position was at one time called "Relation of Intemperance to Labor and Capital with Relative Statistics" (source: "A brief history of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union : outline course of study for local unions", section 36, from which I gather it means the comparitive consumption of alcohol between the working classes and the capitalists. Perhaps the term was used differently in New Zealand, so I am reluctant to add such an explanation to the article.
  • Thank you for your review, and if my changes are not satisfactory I am very happy to discuss further improvements.-gadfium 22:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Support - and sorry I forgot to do it earlier. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. The article has now certainly reached FA standard. (I went ahead and made a few last-minute copy edits rather than compiling a list of further matters requiring attention.)--Ipigott (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you.-gadfium 22:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Coord notesEdit

  • I think ref formatting has been checked above but we still need signoff on source quality/reliability.
  • Also as this appears to be the nominator's first FAC, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing.

You can make requests for these at the top of WT:FAC (unless any of the reviewers above would like to do the honours). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

AirTrain JFKEdit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free). The article was passed as a Good Article in October. I think I have found all the high-quality and relevant sources about this topic that I can find, so I have nominated this page for Featured Article status. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong Support by AmericanAir88Edit


  • Bibliography Number 6 is a Dead Link
  • Reference 126 is a Dead Link

Amazing work as always. As the Good Article Reviewer of this article, I definitely Support this article.

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for the support, I have fixed these links. Also to clarify, you were the reviewer on the GA nomination. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "airport's operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey." It is more relevant here that they own the railway - maybe mention both.
  • "renovation of the three airports" What three airports - apologies if I have missed your explanation.
  • "This would provide faster service to JFK via a one-seat ride " Is one-seat ride USEng for not having to change trains?
  • There is a missing url error message on n 15.
  • Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the delay. I've fixed all the issues you've mentioned above. You are correct, "one-seat ride" is the same as not having to transfer. epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Not going to comment on all images, just these that might have problems. Of which there apparently aren't any, although I wonder if the logo is really simple enough to not fall under copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the comment. From the looks of it, the logo is just an outline of a plane and an outline of a train track with three sleepers (vertical bars). It definitely looks simple enough. epicgenius (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SounderBruceEdit

I will be combing through for specific issues, but generally the prose in the article needs some work to be readable to a non-local layman.

  • First off, the Incidents and shutdowns section doesn't look necessary at all. The January 2017 shutdown could be merged into the history, but the rest is routine for a train system of any size.
  • The Street View box in the external links section is unnecessary and the links will likely break after the next imagery update.
  • The first sentence needs to use a spelled-out three, a less specific length (eight miles is fine), and should move the airport further in front. It also omits all mention of state and country, which is standard.
  • Again, the mixing of spelled-out and numeral figures is jarring. "10" should be "ten", at all times.
  • "as a 24/7 service", or better yet "runs 24 hours on all days"
  • "under contract to" should be "under a contract with"
  • Who proposed the Program for Action? The lead, as brief as it should be, also needs bits of context.
  • Elaborate on why the 21 proposals generally failed
  • "Serious planning" sounds out of place
  • Opening date is in a sentence fragment

More to come if I feel like it, but at the moment I don't think this is up to FA quality given that this is just the lead and some extras. SounderBruce 08:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday (restorer)Edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday had several careers. In private life he was a dealer, but he is remembered best as the British Museum’s first specialist restorer. His “immortality as the prince of restorers”, as it was put at the time, was assured when a drunken young man smashed the Portland Vase, one of the museum’s most famous treasures, and Doubleday pieced it back together. Doubleday was also called upon to restore Babylonian clay tablets—the results were catastrophic—and to testify in criminal trials, including when another young man (this time sober) stole thousands of pounds worth of coins from the museum.

Doubleday’s life is enigmatic. Despite research by myself and others, all that can be said of the first 30-odd years of his life is that he was born between 1796 and 1800 in New York, and that he worked at a print shop in his youth; at the other end of his life, the disposal of his estate is curious. This article nevertheless represents an exhaustive look at the available sources, and has benefited by the input of multiple people. There is little more that can realistically be asked of this article, which is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:John_Doubleday_with_the_Portland_Vase.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:JohnDoubledayHC-NPG.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. The earliest publication I know of is in a 1989 book. Should an unpublished tag be used instead (and any suggestions for which tag)? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Typically an unpublished tag would only work for things first published after 2002 - 1989 is too early. Is it possible the NPG/BM would have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, in the US at least, should the copyright of unpublished works with author unknown not expire 120 years after creation, so here in 1965? ——Usernameunique (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a bit more complicated than that since the works are not originally American - see the Cornell chart. {{PD-US-unpublished}} specifies no publication before 2003. More details if possible would help nail down the status. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Usernameunique: The response there confirms my understanding of the situation - without more details we would need to assume this isn't PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nikkimaria, sorry for the delay in responding. Also pinging Stefan2, who gave helpful advice in the now-archived post at WP:MCQ. It's possible the photograph was published before 1989 (have just sent the BM an email asking for clarification, and have also asked on the Portland Vase talk page), but I haven't been able to find any evidence of it. The 1989 book was a British Museum publication by a British Museum conservator (Nigel Williams) who had himself just restored the Portland Vase (and, incidentally, published a photograph of himself in identical pose—see Williams's article), so the publication of the Doubleday photograph was germane then in a way that it would not be for most previous publications. Of course, I may have just missed an earlier publication, especially as I'm not familiar with much of the Portland Vase literature. The 1989 copyright appears to be valid ("© 1989 The Trustees of the British Museum"). If this nearly 200-year-old photograph is still copyrighted in the US, would it still be under copyright in the UK, or would we need distinct license tags? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It would not necessarily still be under copyright in the UK, but that doesn't really matter if it is in the US - we'd need to host it locally, and locally we only care about US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Have we resolved this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose, after another long discussion, it appears that consensus is on the side of the image being in the public domain. I have added an appropriate US copyright tag. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Have to say I'm not convinced by the arguments made in that discussion - the image was published, just not (as far as we know, unless you got a reply to your queries?) early enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish OssifrageEdit

Primarily looking at sourcing and source formatting, at least on this pass. First impression: you might want to think about two columns for the Bibliography.

  • Done.
  • I really don't understand when you choose to use {{free access}} versus {{open access}}. In my mind, open access represents a source published under the open access model, as distinct from one where a freely-accessible copy now exists. In any case, there's no clearly consistent rule being used here.
  • Open access is being used when the source is in the public domain, free access when it still might be under copyright but is nevertheless available to read for free online. This is per Firebrace's advice here, which is based on Open access#Gratis and libre open access.
  • Book-format sources that lack an ISBN (such as due to age) should have an OCLC identifier, when possible.
  • Which ones are you thinking of? I include an OCLC if it neither has an ISBN nor is available online (such as the 1856 auction catalogue), but if it’s an out-of-copyright work that’s available online (such as on Google Books), there’s no real point in double providing the bibliographic information.
  • Periodicals typically only require a publisher when that would be necessary or useful to identify the work in question (although you certainly have more cause to do so when citing 19th century publications). Publication location is discouraged for periodicals except where necessary for identification (it's fine with The Morning Post, for example). In any case, although there are some aspects of editorial discretion here, you should check the list for consistent application one whatever rules you set.
  • Added locations, and a few publishers, when possible. There are a few for which I'm unsure what the correct information is (e.g., Petrie, Sharpe & Hardy), and a few for which it seemed some information would be entirely redundant (such as the Report of the Architectural Society of the Archdeaconry of Northampton), but I've added a fair amount.
  • If you retain publisher locations, "Saonara" will absolutely need to include country.
  • Done.
  • Volume XXXII of Archaeologia doesn't display the volume number in bold. Honestly, I'll admit – I have no idea what is going on here. The rest of the entries display normally, and the template is formatted exactly the same.
  • Yep, this annoys me too. Apparently bold cuts out when the volume number is too long, so XXXI gets bolded but XXXII doesn’t. Solving this probably requires a template edit, which I have no idea how to do.
  • ISBNs should ideally all be presented as correctly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • All post-2006 books have the 13 digit ISBN. Is conversion necessary for those published before 2007?
  • Any particular reason why it's best practice? Sorry if I sound incorrigible here; I don't mean to be, just feels weird to cite a book with information that's not contained within it.
  • If you need to cite the 1851 English census, is it possible to do so directly, rather than a summarized excerpt at FamilySearch? Consider whether there's a need to directly cite this sort of primary material rather than, for example, the National Picture Gallery capsule (already referenced elsewhere) that appears to include much or all of the same content.
  • I'm open to suggestions—just tried using {{cite census}}, but turns out that's particular to the US censuses. I think it's worth having in some form, for a number of reasons: there are very few primary sources about Doubleday, this provides a fair amount of information, and some of it (such as the names of Doubleday's daughters) is not included on the National Portrait Gallery page. Another option would be to link to Ancestry, which actually has a photograph of the page, although that requires a paid account (FamilySearch requires a free account).
  • Is there a reason you are citing two editions of The English Cyclopædia: Arts and Sciences for what seems to be the same fact? Should you list "British Museum, The" as the internal section / chapter cited?
  • Not a good one: removed. Added the chapter.
  • What is the benefit of referencing Timothy Miller Limited's commercial auction site for three specific example pieces? Contrariwise, are any of the images available of Doubleday's work outside of the British Museum distinctive enough to be worth a non-free use inclusion to illustrate his work as a dealer?
  • The benefit is that the links have good, detailed photographs of the items Doubleday sold, and they are also the only source for "Shakespeare's tree" and the lead seal. I’ve emailed both Millett and Shenton to see if I might use their photographs, but didn’t hear back. I would much like to add "Shakespeare's tree" if you think the non-free use is worth it—the images will also be undergoing a bit of a shuffle in a day or two, as I'd like to add an image of Doubleday's headstone to "Personal life".
  • There is some inconsistency about when you include a page number in the reference. At first, I thought you were omitting the page number when the reference was a single page (which I wouldn't do, but which is probably acceptable if done consistently). But at least in the case of the Notes and Queries reference, you include the (single) page number in the references. Personally, I'd prefer to see page numbers in the references for anything paginated, but what really matters is that your citation style is consistent.
  • That's what it was supposed to be, but you're right, Notes and Queries was inconsistent. I've gone through each footnote, and that's the only one that I could find to change. Three others might look inconsistent, but are that way for particular reasons: with Williams 1989 I'm citing to the entire book, Williams 1993 doesn't have the page numbers included in Google Books for some reason (I could ILL it if necessary, but it's a minor point in the article; tried asking Google Books, but their full copy doesn't have page numbers either), and Pickup 2017 (for which I have only a word doc version that Pickup emailed me, not a scan of the work as published).
  • I don't have access to the Panzeri & Gimondi work, but I do have a couple of questions about it. Is the content you are citing from this book independently authored and/or titled? Are you certain that the title is half-Italian and half-English? Indices I was able to find seem to list the book primarily as Amplius Vetusta Servare. Primi Esiti del Progetto Europeo Archivio Storico dei Restauratori Europei. Likewise, is the cited content in English? If it is Italian, it will need a language tag.
  • Good point. It's an independently authored section (by William Andrew Oddy), in English, that takes up a page or two in the book. I won't be able to add the details for about a week and a half (I'm travelling and the scans are at home), but my memory is that there are two titles pages, one in Italian and one in English, and that the English one retains the Italian title but translates the subtitle (see Princeton's catalog entry, e.g.).
  • Squeamish Ossifrage, I've just taken a look. First, I've added the correct information about Oddy being the author of that section. Second, there's only one title, but both the cover (see here) and the title page list subtitles in four languages (it's even more confusing than that, since there are two subtitles—First results of the European Projet and Historical Archive of European Conservator-Restorers—which are each given in four languages). Perhaps just eliminating the subtitle would be the best bet in the face of this confusion; alternatively, using the second one might work, as it is more apposite when considering that the portion used in this article is about a conservator-restorer. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is Caroline Shenton's blog a high-quality reliable source?
  • Surprisingly, the answer is probably yes. She wrote a book on the subject, The Day Parliament Burned Down, which is cited repeatedly in the featured article Burning of Parliament. Though Doubleday is also mentioned in the book, the blog has the benefits of being illustrated, and free to access.
  • The sale of his library probably needs a footnote given the rough equivalent of that value in modern currency; I know there's a semi-automated template providing that service for American dollars. I'm not sure if we have one for British currency.
  • Done.

In general, this is a very thorough examination of 19th century sources, but seems like it may be light on more recent scholarship. Julian Reade's article in this conference proceeding discusses Doubleday's conservation work with bronze artifacts from Nimrud, and contrasts his (admittedly unknown) technique with those of his contemporaries. I don't have access to this paper, but I'm fairly sure that someone will be able to help you out with a copy; indications elsewhere suggest there's some retrospective commentary on his failed attempts to conserve the clay tablets. Doubleday created a fairly impressive amount of cast copies of seals and coins; is there any discussion of their fate in the modern numismatic press (that answer might very well be "no"; I certainly didn't have much luck). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Re. the article suggested above (Reade, J., 'The Manufacture, Evaluation and Conservation of Clay Tablets Inscribed in Cuneiform: Traditional Problems and Solutions', Iraq 79 (2017), 163-202.), I've emailed you it in case you don't have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those; information from both is now included in the article. I haven't seen much on Doubleday recently—the 1993 Catalogue of Seals in the National Museum of Wales considers him briefly but uncritically—and until the two articles you provided, had thought I had done an exhaustive search of the available materials; have just done another full search on jstor without turning up much. There's also what looks to be a self-published work (link) from December that has more specifics (e.g., DOB & date of baptism), but these appear to mostly be larger leaps of faith taken off the same primary documents. How did you turn up the two articles?

Thanks for taking a detailed look, Squeamish Ossifrage. Bit of a drawn out undertaking today, and sorry for that, but I think I've now responded to all your comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, have you any further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Tentative support by Cas LiberEdit

Ok, reading through now and most reads nicely. I must say I am not fond of the last sentence of para 1 of the lead - can it be reworded without quoting? e.g. "He was most proud of his 1845 restoration of...."

Otherwise nothing is really jumping out at me prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Casliber. I’ve reworded the sentence you mentioned, taking out both quotations. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok - supporting now as it seems comprehensive and lacking any prose clangers, but I concede I know little about the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord noteEdit

This nom has been open six weeks without consensus for promotion developing; I'll list it under the "urgents" but if we don't see anything more in the next week then I think we'll need to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by J MilburnEdit

Support. I had my say at GAC, and the article has only improved since then. There are plenty of gaps, but I think that this is acceptable in an article about a figure who, according to reliable sources, is little-known. My only worry is that you provide a "translation" into dollars in the final line of the article, when surely pounds would be more natural. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Josh. Good point about the sign. It looks like by a quirk of the template the numbers were in pounds, but the symbol itself was incorrect. It’s now fixed. Regarding logical quotation, the punctuation marks were actually in the quoted sources. I’ve changed the last one back (the others are now moot as I’ve changed them in other ways, e.g., by removing the quotations, for a variety of reasons). This (you moving the punctuation marks) seems to be a recurring theme, although I’ve tried to adhere to logical quotation since someone (probably you) told me about it. Is this just to be careful, or for consistency do you prefer the punctuation to always be outside of the quotation marks? No worries either way, I’m just curious. —Usernameunique (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
MOS:LQ says the following: "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if [note that this says only if, not if] it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: Keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." I may have been wrong to move punctuation outside quotemarks in a few cases, but I think it's much more common for punctuation inside quotemarks to need to be moved out than punctuation outside quotemarks that needs to be moved in! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
"I think it's much more common for punctuation inside quotemarks to need to be moved out than punctuation outside quotemarks that needs to be moved in!" True that. It’s always seemed a bit odd (coming from a system that doesn’t use logical quotation) to effectively change quotations by inserting new punctuation within the quotation marks, but conversely logical quotation looks inconsistent without advance warning. I frequently try to bridge the difference by attempting to quote material in ways that make use of the original punctuation, but of course the only way for a reader to know for sure that the correct style is being used is to check the sources. —Usernameunique (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1Edit

Indeed there are gaps, but I'd agree that these are inevitable, and likely never to be filled. You've done a grand job of gathering and sifting such sources as there are, and it's an interesting article indeed. I look forward to Supporting, but a few comments/suggestions first. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  • "he engaged in several roles with the museum," - perhaps, "He undertook various duties at..."?
  • Done.
  • "he was labelled a "Forger" - does Forger require capitalisation?
  • Changed. It was capitalized mid-sentence in the source, so I removed the quotation marks as well.
  • "Doubleday's early life, family, and education are otherwise unknown" - does this add anything to the first sentence of this paragraph?
  • I'll remove it if you think best, but it's being used to emphasize how little is know of the first 30 years of his life.
  • "left behind a wife and five daughters, all English," - not sure of the purpose of the "all English" comment. And, with an American father, is it accurate?
  • It points out (in conjunction with "the eldest daughter born around 1833") that by the early 1830s Doubleday's life was rooted in England, not America, and it suggests (though not conclusively) that Doubleday may have met his wife in England, after sailing over. There's some other information to this effect (curiosity dealer by 1832, large donation to the BM in 1830), but not in the lead. Can remove if you think it's unnecessary. Regarding accuracy, I'm not sure what the laws were then, but as Doubleday was a British subject (per 1851 census—he may have been a dual citizen), and his wife was born in London (and therefore very likely a British citizen), the children almost certainly were citizens too.
At the British Museum
  • "his death was described as vacating the museum's post of restorer" - I wonder if the second use of restorer is necessary. Perhaps, "his death was described as leaving the post vacant"?
  • Done.
  • "it was noted that "[h]e was chiefly employed in the reparation of innumerable works of art," - I think I'd put the "he was" outside of the quote, to avoid the clumsy "[h]e".
  • Done.
Portland Vase
  • "A new base disc of plain glass, polished outside and matte inside" - link "matte", I certainly didn't know it? Although the link's not great. Would "matt" not do?
  • Linked to paint sheen since that article actually explains what a matte finish is, albeit in passing, but you're right, neither link is great.
Other work
  • "Timolean Vlasto, a moustachioed twenty-four-year-old from Vienna of fashionable appearance and good family" - this reads oddly to me. What, if any, significance has his moustache? And does Wikipedia recognise the terms "fashionable appearance" and "good family"? It reads a little like a character description from a Victorian melodrama. I see it's a near quote. I'd suggest either presenting it as such, or trimming back to "a twenty-four-year-old man from Vienna".
  • Rephrased with specifics (son of a count/diplomat), and removed "moustachioed" (much as it's a cool word).
  • "had been introduced to Charles Newton (later Sir) and described as a person interested in coins" not quite getting this. Does Sir Charles's role, as BM's rep. in the Levant, need explanation, and was it Sir Charles who described Vlasto as "interested in coins"? Could it be clarified?
  • I don't think his role in the Levant needs explanation, since that was a few years after the theft, and the "(later Sir)" already indicates that his career became important. Do you think I should add his role at the time (assistant in the department of antiquities)? Other than that, I've clarified the language slightly. (If you were wondering, it's not entirely clear from the source whether the friend was a friend of Newton, of Vlasto, or of both.)
As a dealer
  • "More unique pieces he sometimes exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries of London, either himself, or by the hands of Sir Henry Ellis" - I became confused here. Does the end clause belong earlier, i.e. "More unique pieces, either his own work or that of Sir Henry Ellis, he sometimes exhibited to the Society of Antiquaries of London"?
  • Rephrased and reordered. It means that sometimes he went to a society meeting himself, and sometimes he gave the items to Ellis, who then showed them to the society.
  • "He was well known among collectors, and also sold to lyceums" - an odd term for an English language article, even with the link. Did you mean museums?
  • The word is used in the source ("He also has large orders from country gentlemen and Lyceums, in all parts of England"). I'm not sure whether it's being used in a specific or general sense in the source, which is the main reason I didn't chance it; Doubleday also took casts from (and probably sold to) foreign institutions, so the specific meaning is possible.
Personal life
  • "Little is known about the life of Doubleday, and nothing about his family or education" - do you mean "upbringing" or "background"? Something is clearly known of his "family" as you go on to talk of his wife and children.
  • Changed to "upbringing." I had meant family to mean consanguineous family, but I agree that it was unclear.
  • "By 1832 he was listed in directories as under the header "Curiosity, shell & picture dealers"" - is the "as" necessary? And "heading" rather than "header"?
  • Done.
  • "His entire estate was left to Elizabeth Bewsey, the daughter of a deceased bookkeeper; she was apparently an Elizabeth other than his wife, making it "an unusual bequest" that left nothing for his wife or daughters." - I find this confusing. What's the purpose of the "an Elizabeth other than his wife" observation?
  • Rephrased. There are three Elizabeths relevant to Doubleday: his wife (Elizabeth Doubleday), his daughter (Elizabeth Doubleday), and whoever Elizabeth Bewsey is. (There's also another daughter named Eliza Doubleday.) The point of that clause is to acknowledge the room for confusion (other people have conflated Doubleday's wife with Elizabeth Bewsey), but indicate that Elizabeth Bewsey is probably a distinct person, to whom Doubleday was not married.

Hope these minor suggestions are useful. KJP1 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, KJP1. I've adopted most of your suggestions, with responses above. Please let me know what you think. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Support from KJP1 -with great pleasure. The amendments are fine, and the suggestions were only ever minor. When you're looking for another helmet, may I suggest Süleyman the Magnificent's Venetian Helmet which Johnbod, others and I lifted from Afc. Sure, it doesn't exist anymore, but it's still much more striking than some you've worked on! All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KJP1 (talkcontribs) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, KJP1. That's a very cool helmet (and ever so slightly more elaborate than the Shorwell helmet)! I just added it to the helmets template, and will keep it in mind; definitely looks like it could be expanded out a bit. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


  • What does "variously" mean here? "who was variously employed by the British Museum for the last 20 years of his life".
  • "Variously" refers to the belief that he was a part-time employee of the BM, given work when restoration was required. I could rephrase along the lines of "employed by the British Museum, probably in a part-time capacity, for the last 20 years of his life" if you think best, but it may be unnecessarily wordy for what is a minor point.
  • The wording isn't prima facie logical: "He undertook several duties at the museum, not least as a witness in criminal trials"—were the trials held within the museum?
  • Changed "at" to "for."
  • "At the same time that he was employed at the British Museum, Doubleday was a dealer selling copies of coins, medals, and ancient seals." Always try without "that" to see if it works. But would it be possible to remove my underlined bit?
  • Changed to "While working for the British Museum, Doubleday was also a dealer..." As it's the start of a new paragraph, the mention of the BM is used as a transition.
  • "He took casts in sulphur and white metal from both national and private collections, and sold them for a fraction of the price that the originals would command."—was the cheap price the whole purpose? If so, perhaps: "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal from both national and private collections, he was able to sell them for a fraction of the price that the originals would command." At the moment it's unclear.
  • It was probably the primary purpose, in addition to creating a substitute for hard- or impossible-to-obtain originals. Changed.
  • "after his death he was labelled a forger, but with the caveat that "[w]hether he did copies with the intention of deceiving collectors or not is open to doubt"."—I'm confused as to whether that is a caveat: doubt is of the negative or positive inference?
  • The source, a bibliographic dictionary, begins Doubleday's entry by stating in no uncertain terms that he was a "Coin-dealer and Forger of ancient and modern coins." Only in the third sentence does the entry acknowledge that Doubleday may not have intentionally forged coins, but that others may have passed off his copies as originals. I would consider that acknowledgement a caveat that the original statement ("Forger") was uncertain.
  • "casting type"—why not unpipe "type" so we know what it means?
  • The source says that he had "to superintend the manufacture of the types." Movable type seems to be the most closely related article, but not necessarily a perfect fit, hence the piped link.
  • "left behind"—remove "behind".
  • Done.

I hope the rest is markedly better than the lead. There's imprecision and ambiguity just when it should be crystal clear. Imagine this on the main page ... Why has it lasted on the FAC list for so long, without withdrawal, renovation, and re-submission? Tony (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Tony1. Responses are above. As earlier discussions (see above) make clear, searching for precision and clarity in the life of a (pre-)Victorian individual is frequently a futile task. Doubleday is believed to have been a part-time employee; he is not known with certainty to have been. He is thought to have been the British Museum's first specialist restorer; again, certainty is elusive. The fact that he was entrusted with the restoration of one of the museum's gems suggests that he was among the best restorers of the day; no contemporaneous sources are available to confirm this. Stating livelihoods as certainties might make for a more satisfying read, but it would be disingenuous. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

V. Gordon ChildeEdit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent and important archaeologists of the 20th century. Childe oversaw a number of important excavations, created important interpretative frameworks, and was a pioneer in using Marxist ideas to understand the archaeological record. It has been a GA for a number of years and underwent an FAC earlier this year, but fell by the wayside due to lack of contributors. Second time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

Sorry I missed the first FAC. I recommend letting previous reviewers know about the renomination, if you haven't already.

  • Worth a category for being an academic in Sydney, given that he taught there? (Probably not...) London School of Economics?
  • I've added Childe to the "Academics of the London School of Economics" category, although his associations with that institution were not longstanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there categories for translators? Political assistants/secretaries? Librarians?
  • Oh I have no idea, to be honest. I've found "Category:Australian librarians" so I'll stick that one in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a link for T.J. Smith? I think we're OK with redlinks on people's names now if we don't have an article (which we should)
  • I don't mind redlinks although a lot of editors seem to so I nowadays I'm often loath to add them. I've done some Google searching and I cannot actually find any reference to an Australian leftist politician known as T. J. Smith, but I wonder if it actually a reference to Tom Smith (Australian politician), whose initials were T. J. and who seems to have been active in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't want to guess, but presumably it wouldn't be too hard to find comprehensive lists of MPs from the period? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A Google search hasn't helped much with this task, although there is probably a published list somewhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Schipenitz is presumably also worth a link
  • You introduce How Labour Governs twice. I also really don't link like the in-line external link!
  • Me neither. I'm not sure how that got in there. Removed the links. I've also removed the first reference to How Labour Governs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "it reflect Childe's disillusionment" Tense
  • "W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J.G. Callender, Walter Grant" Any worth linking?
  • I think that Lindsay Scott is probably sufficiently known within certain archaeological circles to warrant a link. Actually, I'm just going to link them all, and people can remove the redlinks if they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Involving them in experimental archaeology, of which he was an early proponent," Worth mentioning in the lead? (Also, you use that same "opening subordinate clause" sentence structure a few times in quick succession. I think some readers will find that irritating.)
  • I'm loath to lengthen the lede much more, to be honest, and I'm not quite sure that this is 'important enough' given that only one RS seems to mention it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Was Piggott really a "comrade"?
  • I've changed this to "colleague", which is perhaps more accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Earn's Hugh, Larriban, Knocksoghey, Wallace Thorneycroft, Finavon, Rahoy, Walter Grant... Worth links?
  • I've linked them all, but all but Finavon are presently redlinks. Hopefully those with an interest in the geography of Britain and Ireland could flesh them out at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You claim in "London and early books", concerning The Dawn of European Civilisation, that "Its importance was also due to the fact that it introduced the concept of the archaeological culture into Britain from continental scholarship". You later say about The Danube in Prehistory that "The book introduced the concept of an archaeological culture to Britain from Germany, revolutionising the theoretical approach of British archaeology". This doesn't feel consistent!
  • You're right, it isn't, so I've checked the sources and made some changes to the prose. While Childe first used the culture-historical approach in The Dawn of European Civilisation, it was only in The Danube in Prehistory that he actually set forward a definition of "culture", which is what proved so influential. I've amended the prose to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more comments:

  • Perhaps not the most helpful comment, but I found the paragraph beginning "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford" a little tricky to follow.
  • I've made some alterations to the opening sentence, which now reads "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford resigned as fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They did so to protest the selection of James Mann—keeper of the Tower of London's armouries—as the society's new president, believing that Wheeler, a professional archaeologist, would have been a better choice". Was this sentence the problem or do you think that I should take the pruning shears to other parts of the paragraph too? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "History (1947) continued his belief that prehistory and literate history" Continued to defend his belief? Or something like that?
  • I've gone with "History (1947) promoted a Marxist view of the past and reaffirmed Childe's belief that prehistory and literate history must be viewed together, " Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anthropology is mentioned several times before it is first linked.
  • The section on Marxist archaeology is a bit quotefarm-y; I think most readers will be more interested in hearing what Marxist archaeology is and what Childe's contribution to it was, rather than what lots of people they may not have heard of said about Childe's relationship to Marxism.
  • I've gone back to this section, overseen a bit of a restructuring, and added in several further sentences about Marxist archaeology. This is an issue that Maunus also picked up on (below), and I hope that my edits have sufficiently improved the section. If it still needs more work, let me know and I'll see what I can do to make it clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I was slightly surprised by how much there was a challenge to the idea that he was a Marxist archaeologist. I wonder if there is a way to get these kinds of debates into the lead?
  • I think that this is a reflection of the sectarianism that seems quite endemic in social groups (like Marxism, but also many religious formations) where people get very invested in being the "true disciple". I'm open to the idea of putting something about this in the lede, although I'm just not quite sure how to go about it. I don't really want to lengthen the lede any more. Perhaps something brief in the fourth paragraph? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe's concept of "revolutions" were not universally adopted" Do you perhaps mean "Childe's conceptualisations of these "revolutions" were not universally adopted" or "Childe's concept of "revolution" was not universally adopted"? I'm a little puzzled by the current phrasing.
  • I've changed this to "Not all archaeologists adopted Childe's framework of understanding human societal development as a series of transformational "revolutions";" What do you think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • By "particularist", do you mean "an adherent of historical particularism"? If so, a link would be good. If archaeological particularism is a distinct ideology, a redlink would be good!
  • "probably the best known and most cited archaeologist of the twentieth century" This belongs in the lead (if it isn't already there)!
  • You're right; I've amended the fourth paragraph of the lede to make this claim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Many of the conclusions about Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe that Childe produced have since been found to be incorrect" This probably does, too!
  • I've added the following to the fourth paragraph of the lede: "Although many of his interpretations have since been discredited, he remains widely respected among archaeologists." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Various archaeologists have debated and disagreed over the importance of various different parts of Childe's work." Could I recommend dropping this? I don't think it tells us anything of consequence!
  • "who did the more to develop Childe's "most innovative ideas" after the latter's death than anyone else" A bit wordy
  • I've gone with "In contrast to this American neglect and misrepresentation, Trigger believed that it was an American archaeologist, Robert McCormick Adams, Jr., who did the more than anyone else to posthumously develop Childe's "most innovative ideas"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "in which Boasian particularism had been hegemonic within the discipline" Jargony
  • "Following his death, various articles were published that examined Childe's work from a historical perspective." Again, this is super vague.
  • I've replaced this with "Following his death, various articles examining Childe's impact on archaeology were published." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe is referenced in the American blockbuster film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). Directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the motion picture was the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series that dealt with the eponymous fictional archaeologist and university professor. In the film, Jones is heard advising one of his students that to understand the concept of diffusion he must read the works of Childe." I'm leaning towards suggesting that this is dropped. I don't think it warrants a whole section!
  • I'm not sure about it either. I don't think that I was the one who originally added it, but I could be wrong. Certainly, I've never been totally comfortable with it. What I'll do is delete the section and move a brief mention of the film to an earlier point in the "Legacy and influence" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Really great read; I learnt a lot. That said, when reading the section on his theoretical contributions, I realised I'd come across this kind of thing before; presumably I was seeing Childe's influence without realising it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, I really appreciate you taking the time with this one. Sorry it took a while to get through all of your comments; as always, I've been distracted with other articles. Let me know if there is anything else that you'd like me to work on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is a very well put-together article on an important figure. To my (admittedly amateur) eyes, this looks very much worthy of support. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CarabinieriEdit

Hi, very interesting article. I've changed a few things. Here are my first comments, but will probably be adding more:

  • Was Childe's father originally from Australia? Or did he first move there in 1878? In the former case, I'd suggest "They moved back to Australia in 1878". In the latter case "a middle-class couple of English descent" seems a little misleading.
  • Childe's father was born in London and he only moved to Australia in adulthood; Childe's mother also appears to have been born in London, but she emigrated to Australia as a baby and grew up there. This being the case, I'll change "middle-class couple of English descent" to "middle-class English couple". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Schipenitz referred to in the article is today's Shypyntsi, now Ukraine (Schipenitz was its German name). I've added a link. However, in 1922 it was part of Romania and named Şipeniţi. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to change it in the article.
  • Childe referred to the settlement as "Schipenitz" in his publication, so I was following his lead here. I don't think it matters a great deal which term is used, although given Childe's example "Schipenitz" perhaps has the strongest case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm generally not a big fan of inline external links, but won't insist on anything.
  • Me neither. I'm not sure when the link to How Labour Governs got added, but it wasn't by me. I'll remove it (with apologies to whoever it was that did add it). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "This job meant that he came into contact with many of Britain's archaeologists, of whom there were relatively few during the 1920s" This is a little awkward (many vs few), maybe "most of Britain's archaeologists"?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Difficult. "many" and "most" are not quite the same thing and I am unsure if he actually did meet "most" of them. I'll try and take a look at the original RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've checked the original sources and amended the article as follows: "This job meant that he became well known in Britain's then-small community of archaeologists;" Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Some more comments:

  • "He nevertheless made friends in Edinburgh, including W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J. G. Callender, Walter Grant, and Charles Galton Darwin, becoming godfather to the latter's youngest son" That long list seemed a little excessive to me, since most people won't know who those people are. Maybe it would make sense to shorten the list a little and explain who the remaining people are?
  • "he organised the BSc degree course so that it began studying..." would that be the degree in archaeology or prehistory?
  • I've checked the source and it seems to suggest that it was archaeology (I'm not aware of any courses on prehistory per se being taught in the UK, at least in recent decades, but I could be wrong about that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • " he was particularly interested in the role of Soviet archaeology" Archaeology's role in what? In society?
  • Yes. I've gone with "he was particularly interested in the social role of Soviet archaeology". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never seen Harvard University referred to as the "University of Harvard"
  • "something he believed pivotal in providing knowledge for "the masses"" the quotation marks feel a bit like editorializing, as if you're using the left-wing terminology mockingly. I would suggest omitting the quotation marks and maybe changing it to "for a mass audience". Or was this the way Childe phrased it himself? In that case, I would say so explicitly.
  • The latter. I've gone with "for those he called "the masses"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "he had kept silent over his disapproval of government policies" This left me wondering what policies, especially since Childe's political views feature fairly prominently in the article. Are the sources any more explicit about this?
  • Unfortunately, they're not. I've looked at Green's biography of Childe, and it simple says "he felt obliged to keep silent over his disapproval of Government policies in case he prejudiced his chances of the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "called towns by their Slavonic rather than Germanic names" this confused me a little. Would this be something like saying Praha instead of Prague or Gdansk instead of Danzig? Saying that Prague is a Germanic name doesn't seem quite right, since Prague and Praha clearly have the same origin (a Slavic origin according to our article). They're just slightly different ways of spelling and pronouncing the same name. Also the name is different in other Germanic languages: Prag in German, Praag in Dutch, etc.
  • Yes, the source gives the examples of "Praha" for Prague, "Plzni" for Pilsa, and "Wroclaw" for Breslau. I've changed the prose to the following: "He further confused his students by consistently referring to the socialist states of eastern Europe by their full official titles, and by referring to towns by their Slavonic names rather than the names with which they were better known in English." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Might it be worth mentioning that Lewis H. Morgan heavily influenced Marx?
  • Hmm. I certainly have no great opposition to the idea, but I'm not sure how much this fact would really contribute to the article at this juncture, nor how it could be added to the pre-existing sentence without looking quite clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyediting you disagree with. There's one thing I was curious about: I added an "it" to "Childe's theoretical work had been largely ignored in his lifetime,[206] and remained forgotten in the decades after his death, although would see..." because it sounded wrong to me. But I think there were several instances where the pronoun was omitted after an "although", so I was wondering if this is a normal expression in British English.
  • I'm no expert on grammar and punctuation and that sort of thing, but I think having no "it" after "although" is fairly standard, at least in British English. Then again, there's nothing at all wrong with having the "it" there either, so I'm more than happy with that addition of yours. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have two more issues, which I guess are more about personal taste. First, I feel like there are a lot of excessive footnotes in the article. I understand that there's a trend towards using an increasing number of footnotes, particularly in FAs. I think this is starting to get a little out of hand and I've never seen this kind of density of footnotes with nothing but source references outside of Wikipedia. I do think that every claim in an article needs a source, but references can be combined and they certainly don't need to be repeated. Since this is in keeping with what is becoming established use on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to insist on this, but I'll edit one or two paragraphs to condense the references and you can decide whether to revert my changes or not.

The second issue concerns the weight given to various aspects in the article. I felt like the "Archaeological theory" section could do with a little more context. It starts by mentioning diffusionism, functionalism, and evolutionary archaeology without explaining those terms and, as someone who knows nothing about archaeology, I immediately felt a little lost. The same thing goes for processualism and post-processualism. Maybe those things are too complicated to briefly explain to a lay reader, but if not I think a little more explanation might be useful. I also felt like some of the biographical details were excessive (including those on Childe's personal life), while I would have been much more interested to learn more about his views on archaeology and the results of his research (and maybe a little more about his politics). But, this is probably just a question of personal taste. In any case, despite not knowing anything about archaeology I thought it was an interesting article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Carabinieri, your comments and time are appreciated. I disagree about the footnotes issue; I'm a heavy footnoter, that is certainly true, but I find that putting in a citation after virtually every statement and sentence saves time later when other editors come in and slap "citation needed" tags onto any sentences lacking them. Better to put the citations in now then have to rummage around for the original sources later. As for the issue of respective weight, I agree that it would be nice to have more about Childe's politics, but to be honest I've been constrained by what the Reliable Sources actually discuss, and none have really gone into great detail on this issue (bear in mind that he didn't actually write and publish on political issues much). Perhaps future publications on the subject will allow the article to be fleshed out more in these directions. As for a greater discussion of diffusionism, functionalism, processualism etc I again think your point is valid. I'm going to have a go at adding a brief explanation of processualism and post-processualism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I can't find any evidence that it has been published (at least in print). From what I can gather at the National Library of Australia website, it was taken in the 1930s and no specific first publication is provided. It may well be that the photograph was taken, never published, and placed in the National Library archive until being featured in their online archive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Orkney_Skara_Brae.jpg: what was the question asked of the author to get that response?
  • I don't know how to sort this issue, so I've replaced this image with another: File:Skara Brae - - 582968.jpg. This shouldn't pose any problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Bust_of_V._Gordon_Childe.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I cannot locate an appropriate tag, but have added additional information on the original work to the image and an additional tag making clear why the sculpture is covered by freedom of panorama laws in the UK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by MaunusEdit

I am copypasting my comments from the previous FA which were never responded to before the review was closed. Please let me know if you have already addressed any of my suggestions: A very pleasant and interesting read. The article is clearly well-researched and thorough - I see no POV problems or major omissions. I tweaked some wordings that I found a little too quaint, and made other minor copyedits. The only issue sthat I thought I would want to change is that I think it could be a little clearer in explaining earlier on the difference between culture historical theory (which is diffusionist and particularist in Childe's version) and Marxist theory (which is evolutionist). I think these perspectives ought to be explained in simple language when they are first mentioned. I also think that the article does not allow the reader a clear understanding of how archeology can be Marxist - and what that means. Many might think of Marxism as primarily a political commitment, but Marxism is of course different from most political ideologies in that it also includes scientific theory of history: namely Historical materialism (which probably should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article). So a descrption of how Marxism and archeology fits together would make the article more helpful for the reader who does not immediately see the connection (namely that Marxism explains historical processes as material and technological evolution that prompts social evolution, and that archeology studies material and technological developments, and therefore can use Marxism to infer social developments from the material developments they observe). This would be my only query: to be more explicit in describing his theoretical views and contributions in plain language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:J Milburn raised similar concerns about the Marxist archaeology section. I'll get onto it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Right, I've restructured the section on Marxist archaeology and added a few extra sentences about Marxist archaeology to it. Do you think that those changes are sufficient or do you think more needs to be done? Regarding the discussion of Marxist archaeology in the lede, I'm a little more hesitant to make changes. The lede currently states: "Remaining a committed socialist, he embraced Marxism, and—rejecting culture-historical approaches—used Marxist ideas as an interpretative framework for archaeological data." While it might be possible to add a sentence or so on what Marxist archaeologically actually entails, I think that the lede is reasonably at the maximum length as it is (if I added another sentence it would, for instance, become longer than the FA-rated articles on Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin) and so do not think we could really expand it without cutting something else out. As for the issue of Childe's diffusionism and Marxism's evolutionary focus, the issue is (fairly briefly) dealt with in the "Marxist archaeology" section, where we supply a Childe quote presenting his argument that diffusionism should not be seen as contrary to Marxism. I'm not really sure how to expand on this, because I don't recall any reliable sources going into any depth on this particular issue, although if you had any suggestions I'd be happy to look them up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
How about either linking "Marxist ideas" to historical materialism or else writing "using the Marxist concept of historical materialism" (or similar). That would help the reader get more out of the lead I think?. I will go on to read your changes to the Marxist archeology section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'll add a link to historical materialism, that might help some readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I really like the changes to the Marxist archeology section, and am happy with the link to Historical materialism in the lead. I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Maunus, should we be bolding your "support" immediately above, or changing your "Comments" heading (either is enough to make clear that you're happy to see the article promoted). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from JohnbodEdit

  • We have Minyan ware, which is pretty obscure, so I would link it, even in the title of a paper.
  • Oxford University Fabian Society - some sort of branch of the student wing of the main Fabian Society, which should probably be linked. Their history suggests that 1915 was far from "at the height of its power and membership" - they say "the OUFS membership was solid, standing at around one hundred every year throughout the 1900s and early 1910s" but "it’s a terrible shame to see OUFS membership collapse at the outbreak of war in 1914, when clearly its membership were needed for the front. The minutes for 1915 indicate that the OUFS was then merged into the Oxford University Socialist Society." Hmmm.
  • There is already a link to Fabian Society later in the sentence, so I wouldn't want to duplicate that. However, your concerns about the OUFS being "at the height of its power and membership" are well taken; I'll remove that prose from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks - I literally hadn't read to the end of the sentence!
  • "the government-imposed conscription" - I added the hyphen, but what sort of conscription isn't imposed by the govt?
  • "served mostly as a centre of radical labourers within existing unions" - isn't "labourers" a bit over-specific? "workers"?
  • "Fuller thought Childe's job unnecessary," maybe, but surely the job was a political appointment one would expect to change when the ruling party does?
  • Perhaps. I'm not sure that such a scenario would conflict with the present wording, though. If there is something here that you think is specifically incorrect then I'm happy to change it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "it was released when the few archaeologists across Europe were amateur and focused purely on studying their locality" - is this really true for 1925? I don't know, but it seems rather sweeping. If no one else, the museums employed professionals, and the big ones no doubt looked beyond their "locality".
  • I've gone back to Green, which states the following: "... it is necessary to realize that in 1925 archaeology was still widely regarded as an amateur pastime. There was only one Chair of Archaeology in Britain, at Cambridge, and correspondingly few people trained in the methods and literature of archaeology. Nor were museums, other than the British Museum in London, concerned with wider themes than their own localities. The only notably attempt to summarize archaeological research in Europe which pre-dates Childe's was Dechelette's Manuel d'Archeologie, the prehistoric part of which was published in 1908." Given this, I'll make some tweaks to the text in the article to more closely mirror Green's wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gone with "An important work, it was released when there were few professional archaeologists across Europe and most museums focused purely on studying their locality". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "the theory that civilisation diffused northward and westward into Europe from the Near East via an Indo-European linguistic group known as the Aryans" - a plethora of possible links here - Indo-European migrations, Corded Ware culture or Yamna culture. Though WP never uses the "A-word" if it can avoid it, versions of the theory are far from dead.
  • "established by deed poll in the bequest of the prehistorian Lord John Abercromby" - no doubt it was, and deed poll explains why this might be so (though one would think a deed poll would need to be done before death) but I'm not sure this rather abstruse point is needed. Strictly he's not "Lord John Abercromby" is he? John, 5th Baron Abercromby maybe, or Lord Abercromby.
  • "Looking into Australian prehistory, he found it a lucrative field for research" - there was money in it? "Profitable" allows a wider meaning.
  • "In the 1950s, Childe was comparing the role culture-historical archaeology among prehistorians to the place of the traditional politico-military approach among historians" - missing word - "had"?

More later Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We do use the A-word for the Aryans of ancient India and Iran, who speak Indo-Aryan languages. But yes, we should probably note that the early 20th century use of the word was more similar to Proto-Indo-European than to indo-Aryan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Resuming - a few links added, ok I hope. No more points, except that ideally it would be good to have more specifics on which of Childe's ideas and interpretations have and have not remained part of current thinking. Tricky, I know, but at present this aspect is nearly all at a high conceptual level. Otherwise, very nice job. All previous points addressed ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BrianboultonEdit

I am reading this with great interest, but without expertise so my comments are likely to be superficial. This rather stark sentence in the lead rather pulled me up: "Upon retirement, he returned to Australia's Blue Mountains, where he committed suicide." The main text gives a fuller explanation, but the lead-reader is left somewhat under-informed. You could add slightly with: "...where, apparently in fear of senilty and increasing physical incapacity, he committed suicide." Just a suggestion – I'll have a few more points which I'll post later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • " continued his research into European prehistory " You have only said before that he studied classical archeology.
  • "through various journeys across the continent" Doing what in these journeys? Also it should be Continent when referring to continental Europe. (You could add as below "in order to study prehistoric artefacts").
  • I'm not sure about switching "the continent" to "the Continent"; I know that the latter is sometimes employed in reference to continental Europe, but Childe also spent time traveling in Britain, which is obviously not part of the continental mainland. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You could say "the Continent (or continental Europe) and Britain". "The continent" could mean any continent. It is like saying the mountain without specifying which one. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the present wording ("pursued his research into European prehistory through various journeys across the continent,") should suffice because we make clear that we are talking about "European prehistory" only shortly before we mention "the conference". We could add "Europe" in there twice but I think that that would probably look clunky and repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reverend Stephen Henry " I think you should give his full name here.
  • "a second-generation Anglican priest" I assume this means that he was the son of a priest, and I think it would be clearer to say so.
  • "strange appearance " What strange appearance?
  • I've changed this to "physical appearance". If you see photographs of Childe, I think it fairly obvious that he doesn't quite fit with conventional beauty standards; indeed, many would probably think him ugly. I'm cautious about actually calling him "ugly" in the main article—beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all—but I think that this point needs to be acknowledged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe worked as a translator " I think you should have details in his early life about his philological training and what languages he knew.
  • I've looked at Green and it doesn't say which languages he was actually translating for Kegan Paul, although the text notes that he independently translated works from French, Italian, and German. As for his basis in philology, it seems that his university theses used philological data but beyond that he did not have any firm training in philology, as far as I can see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "he performed experiments to understand the vitrification process that had occurred at several Iron Age forts " You should link to Vitrified fort rather than glass making.
  • "Regularly travelling to London to visit friends, one notable colleague was Stuart Piggott," This is not grammatical.
  • "he made the decision to commit suicide should the Nazis conquer Britain" This is a bit too strong. I would say he said that he would commit suicide as he might have decided to flee Britain instead.
  • I've double-checked Green's biography. It seems that at this juncture Childe considered suicide specifically to avoid being executed by the Nazis. I'll make some tweaks to the article to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • " titular Bronze Age" Why not just "Bronze Age"?
  • "Childe's pessimism surrounding the war's outcome led" I would say "about" rather than "surrounding".
  • Agreed, "surrounding" is not the best term, but I've gone with "regarding" rather than "about", which I think works better still. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Isokon building is famous and architecturally important. It should be called that not Lawn Road Flats.
  • "the latter being intolerant of the shortcomings of others, something Childe made an effort never to be." I see what you mean, but it could be more clearly expressed.
  • I've gone back to Green and used it to flesh out this sentence as follows: "Childe's relationship with the conservative Wheeler was strained, for their personalities were very different; Wheeler was an extrovert who pursued the limelight, was an efficient administrator, and was intolerant of others' shortcomings, while Childe lacked administrative skill, and was tolerant of others." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1952 a group of British Marxist historians began publishing the periodical Past & Present, with Childe joining the editorial board" This is not quite right. It was launched by Marxist historians, but explicitly involved non-Marxists from the start. See 'Past and Present. Origins and Early Years', P&P 1983.
  • I've changed this sentence to "Childe joined the editorial board of the periodical Past & Present, founded by a group of Marxist historians in 1952." Do you think that that does the trick? I think it important to state that it was a Marxist-started publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Dudley, will you be returning to this -- sooner the better if so... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry this somehow disappeared off my watch list. I will return to it shortly but a couple of points first. 1. No reply to my reply on capitalisation of continent. 2. I am not clear that it is justified to call him a philologist. The subject is several times mentioned, but not any contribution he made so far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

  • In his DNB article he is described as a "prehistorian and labour theorist". I am not sure about "labour theorist", but "archaeological theorist and prehistorian" seems more accurate than "archaeologist and philologist".
  • I would agree about "labour theorist"; he only wrote one book on the subject and it wasn't a big part of his wider career. However, I think that calling him an "archaeological theorist" undermines the fact that the did a great deal more than just theory, including various excavations. I don't mind removing "philologist" as it seems his philological studies were restricted to his student career. "Prehistorian", I feel, doesn't really add much given that the lede sentence already states "who specialized in the study of European prehistory." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "was barred from entering the country due to his socialist beliefs" I think "due to his support for the Soviet Union" would be more accurate, though this may not reflect the source.
  • I've checked the source, and they link it specifically with his Marxist beliefs, so I've changed "socialist" to "Marxist" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "A coroner ruled his death as accidental, although in the 1980s the Grimes letter saw publication, allowing for recognition of his suicide." A bit awkward. Maybe "A coroner ruled his death as accidental, but his death was recognsed as suicide when his letter to Grimes was published in the 1960s."
  • Changed to your proposed wording (albeit with "1980s" in place of "1960s".) Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "The prominent processual archaeologist Colin Renfrew described him" I think it should be "described Childe"

Coord notesEdit

Midnightblueowl, you planning to respond to Dudley's last comments? Also it looks like you'll need to seek a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose Oops, yes I'd missed those. Thanks for the heads up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there interested in doing a source review? Unfortunately I cannot recall (nor find) the page where one can put out a request for such reviews. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about is the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be. ^_^ It's just finished going through a peer review and I believe it's ready for FA now! Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by R8REdit

Support. My comments have been addressed. Note: I actively participated in the pre-FAC peer review and a majority of my comments was dealt with then.--R8R (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • Preliminary experiments in 2017 have shown -- looks like "showed" would be better;
  • targets, and significantly increasing -- looks like the comma doesn't belong here;
  • the yields from cold fusion reactions -- I'd not use the article here;
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory -- interestingly, this laboratory is referred to by Livermore rather than its acronym LLNL throughout the article unlike, say, GSI or JINR. Is there a reason for that?
    • Not really, so I've changed it to LLNL. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • JINR–Livermore collaboration published its results -- I notice that the collaboration is referred to as a singular noun, but some time ago the GSI team was referred to as a plural one: The GSI team attempted to similarly synthesise element 113 via cold fusion in 1998 and 2003, bombarding bismuth-209 with zinc-70, but were unsuccessful both times. Consistency would be great;
    • Changed so that the GSI team is referred to in the singular. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In June 2004 and again in December 2005, the JINR–Livermore collaboration strengthened their claim for the discovery of nihonium -- it would be best not to use the name "nihonium" here as it will only be established as official in 2016. I suggest element 113;
    • I agree; I must have missed this one somehow. Changed. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Further experiments at the JINR in 2005 fully confirmed -- as is, this is seemingly too bold a claim as the JWP did not recognize that;
    • Actually, the JWP did recognise that the data was consistent: they write in their report "The first two events in each chain showed excellent mutual agreement for both decay energies and lifetimes" (on the 2007 studies), and "The 2013 Oganessian collaboration [21] and the 2013 Rudolph collaboration provide redundancy to the three 284113 chains observed in 2004 with the alpha energies being in excellent agreement among most of the events. ... Much of the minor discrepancies in energy are accommodated when sums are considered." What they did not recognise was that this data was from elements 115 and 113, because they considered that Z had not been convincingly established. I've changed it to "experiments at the JINR in 2005 confirmed the observed decay data", to avoid mentioning Z. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • halogens (the group containing fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine) -- it is important to note when talking about the superheavy elements that halogens are not necessarily a group as element 117 may not be a halogen. Perhaps you could use set of elements or the like.

Other than that, the article seems great.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One last thing I'd love to see is the three-level location introduction for LLNL (all other places have that so this would match the current writing style) and then I'll be ready to support.--R8R (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  Done Added. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DePiepEdit

  • The lede now says: Nihonium has been calculated to have some similar properties to its lighter homologues boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium, and is predicted to behave as a post-transition metal like the heavier four. I think "lighter" is not needed (distracting from the fact), and "the heavier four" is not clear right away (use "the latter four"?). - DePiep (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: I've changed this to "Nihonium has been calculated to have some similar properties to its homologues boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium. All but boron are post-transition metals, and nihonium is expected be a post-transition metal as well." Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      •  Y (N.B. per FAC procedure: as I did not "oppose", I think it better not to write "support" either, especially since I cannot FAC-judge the whole article). - DePiep (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by XOR'easterEdit

Looks pretty good!

  • In the intro, it says Nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability" — perhaps this should be At least one isotope of nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability". As written, it's a slightly confusing bit of backtracking.
    • Replaced with Some nihonium isotopes are expected to be within the "island of stability". Double sharp (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have the feeling that many readers will be more familiar with a different meaning of the term "cold fusion". (In the disambiguation page, the sense of fusion reactions "where the product nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy" comes fourth of four.) Perhaps a brief note should be added to clarify this, particularly since the term occurs early enough that fairly casual readers are apt to bump into it.
  • It looks like a couple words are missing just after footnote 47, perhaps "to reference" or "to honor".

XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to support the nomination now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: You're welcome! I still plan on addressing your well-founded criticism of our quick introduction of the term cold fusion, and have in fact been thinking about what to do about that. I'm currently leaning towards just adding an explanatory footnote at its first occurrence, since it has to be introduced very early and explaining it then means that we're already going slightly off-topic before the reader has even gotten a clear sense of what the topic actually is. Of course, I'll be most grateful if you have a better suggestion than that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
An explanatory footnote at the first occurrence sounds good to me; I can't think of anything better. XOR'easter (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: I've added an explanatory footnote, reusing text from the unbinilium article. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Comments Tentative support by Cas LiberEdit

Had a read-through. The lead strikes me as needing some sort of covering sentence, "Very little is known about nihonium as it has only been made in very small amounts." or something sort of like this. The lower paragraph just segues into predicted properties. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, it's a bit dry but then again that goes with the subject matter really...

I've added an expanded version of your sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph of the lede: "Very little is known about nihonium, as it has only been made in very small amounts that decay away within seconds." Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it is definitely comprehensive, and nothing specific is jumping out at me prose-wise so I think we're there...but my eye for detail ain't great so someone else might pick up a few things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from JohnEdit

*What spelling variant is the article supposed to be in? At the moment it seems to have both.

There were problems with prose, Engvar, and MOSCAP. This represents a first pass. Please inspect. --John (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Second pass. --John (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much for this! I looked through your copyedit and only changed a few things. Most of these are small things; I changed a few things back to the originals (because a decay chain doesn't undergo fission, a nuclide does; and because I wanted to make it clear that the new thing the JWP noted was the confirmation of consistency of the decay energy sums). In particular, I feel the detail that IUPAC alone (rather than with IUPAC) decided on the early release is important, because tensions between IUPAC and IUPAP are later mentioned. Double sharp (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question What is the "2n channel"? --John (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I've replaced this with a longer explanation. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you, I've trimmed it slightly but that's clearer now. --John (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question What is the merit of saying (for example) The syntheses of elements 107 to 112 ...? I understand the need to avoid anachronism where the names were not yet assigned to these elements but the degree to which this is done may work against clarity, and WP:EGG seems to be in doubt here. --John (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's an "Easter egg link" if we link the "107" in "element 107" to bohrium, because element 107 is exactly bohrium and so you're getting the article you would expect (even if you might not know its name before you click on it). And I think it might be less clear to give all the names when what is important here is the atomic numbers; connecting each name to its atomic number may work against clarity for readers who haven't memorised all the transactinides. That being said, if the names are generally felt to be helpful, I'm not opposed to a construction like "elements 107 to 112 (bohrium to copernicium)". Double sharp (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the sort of solution I was thinking of. It's an interesting problem. --John (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
        • John, I think we're pretty close to consensus to promote here -- do you have outstanding concerns, or want more time to review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't think my concerns rise to the level of withholding support from this fine article. It meets the standard, though it isn't perfect. --John (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
            • @John: Thank you! I've thought about the problem you've mentioned, but I still think that it would be difficult to include the names consistently. Later a lot of atomic numbers are mentioned, with the element names often anachronistic and not the main point, and I don't want to clutter up the article by saying "In 2001, his team confirmed the GSI's discoveries of elements 108, 110, 111, and 112 (hassium, darmstadtium, roentgenium, and copernicium)" or something like that later. (Even though element 108 had already been named in 1997, and hence it wouldn't be anachronistic to name only that one, it's still peripheral and just a lead-up to the main topic of Riken going for element 113.) Double sharp (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord noteEdit

It looks like we still need a source reivew for reliability and formatting -- you can list at the top of WT:FAC unless one of the reviewers above would like to take it on... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by ChetsfordEdit

Any possible issue seem to have been addressed above. After combing through this, the only minor problem I could dig up is that source 58 is a bare URL, though this might be the result of editing during the FA candidacy. I've taken the liberty of updating it but the nom may want to double-check it to make sure I did so accurately. Chetsford (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Featured article reviewsEdit

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Elaine PaigeEdit

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History

The first thing I noticed is that the article has a ridiculous amount of sourcing issues. Nearly all of the present sources are Wayback Machine links, and most of the ones that aren't are either dead or have issues:

  • Source 4, "Elaine Page, star of the stage", is an incomplete reference.
  • Source 13,, is broken.
  • Source 16, Desert Sun, is dead.
  • Source 26, Living North, is dead.
  • Source 37, What's on Stage, is a promotional site that sells tickets and therefore not a RS.
  • Source 44 is Amazon, which is not a RS.
  • Source 54 is broken and redirects to another article.
  • Source 85, Wrexham Evening Leader, is also dead.
  • Source 94, Stage Whispers, is an incomplete ref and does not appear to be a RS (no evidence of editorial oversight or reputability).

Sourcing is the main issue, but I've noticed a few other problems too:

  • The infobox is incomplete. Are there any citations for musical genre? Associated acts? {{Infobox person}} might be more appropriate since she's known for more than just being a musician.
  • [citation needed] tag in "Early career" section.
  • The 2014-present section is almost entirely composed of "In 20xx, blah blah blah happened. In 20xx, blah blah blah happened." It also seems a lot less detailed than the pre-2014 section.
  • The sentences beginning "In May 2015 Paige was part of VE Day 70: A Party to Remember..." and "She is a Vice-President of The Children's Trust..." are entirely unsourced.
  • Entire section "TV Roles" is tagged as unreferenced
  • The discography is improperly formatted. Compare Jessica Simpson discography for an example of a properly formatted discography. In addition, none of the uncharted singles is properly sourced. Finally, did she chart anywhere else besides the UK?
  • "Other albums and guest appearances", "Videos and DVDs", and "Curated albums" are entirely unsourced.

The page has clearly been neglected since its FA 10 years ago, and most of the prominent editors of it have long since vanished. There has also been no relevant activity on the talk page since 2014 other than bot notifications of broken links.

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Alright, normally we'd want some form of disucssion on the talk page before coming here, but that said, the good thing about FAR is that there is a more formal platform to check off everything as being done. In which case I'll leave it here. @TenPoundHammer: if you can find any of the dead links elsewhere that'd be great too to get this one off to a good start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Yeah, I figured the talk page would be a moot point since again, almost no one's even looked at it in four years. I tagged every other dead link I found in the article and nuked the Amazon citation, but the other issues still stand at present. I also find it concerning that nearly every single source in the article is a Wayback link. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Werner MöldersEdit

Notified: K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, Nigel Ish, LargelyRecyclable, Ian Rose, Cinderella157, Kierzek, Anotherclown, Bishonen, Assayer, Doug Weller, AustralianRupert, Creuzbourg, Sturmvogel 66, Iazyges, Parsecboy, Lineagegeek, TomStar81, Peacemaker67, Jayen466, Jake Wartenberg, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography

This article was promoted in 2009 and has not been under formal review since then. In 2017, a major content dispute (1c, stability) arose regarding the level of detail (4, length) and quality of sourcing (1c, well-researched, and possibly 1d, neutral). Some editors, particularly K.e.coffman, were concerned that the article relied too much on questionable far-right and fringe militaria sources. A dispute also arose as to whether the word "Luftwaffe" should be italicized (potentially 1a). Recently, the article was restored to the pre-2017 status quo by MisterBee1966, adding more than 20,000 bytes to the article (to give an idea of the magnitude of the content dispute). There is an ongoing ArbCom case including several of the editors involved in the content dispute, with Arbcom members expressing support for overall bans or topic bans for some of the editors.

This case was brought to my attention by Nigel Ish, who described the content dispute as "severe and irreconsilable" (sic), and supported the article's delisting. For these reasons, I think that the article should be scrutinized to see if it meets 2018 FA criteria, and if not, if it can be brought up to meet that criteria. Catrìona (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I note that my name has been mentioned above, in that I originally raised concerns about the stability of the article owing to the ongoing removal and replacement of material. I will make no comments on the case owing to the ongoing Arbcom proceedings and the resultant litigious atmosphere where Arbcom have clearly interfered in a content dispute, which has resulted in a situation where further comment or editing on some topics is not safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments I have some suggestions for where sources could be re-checked, or the article further improved:

  • " He the first fighter pilot to amass 100 aerial victories in World War II" - given the over-claiming which was common (and unavoidable) in World War II, this isn't credible as it presents all of his claims as proven. He was the first to have claimed this, but it's almost certain that he wouldn't have actually destroyed all 100 aircraft he claimed. What do post-war assessments say?
  • There were fairly strict rules for confirming claims, requiring witnesses etc, and he had another ten unconfirmed claims. A quick Google Books search indicates that Spick (2011) [22] and Kaplan (2007) [23] also credit him with being the first to 100. I don't think this is particularly exceptional. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that helps. The wording here (and elsewhere in the article) could be improved though: it says that he "claimed" kills, which is different to them being "confirmed". From memory, discussions at WT:MILHIST and similar have generally concluded that we should focus on confirmed numbers, and present them as such (e.g., to minimise use of the term and concept "claimed"). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think one of the issues is that pilots would make a claim after returning, but confirmation in a pilot's logbook might not happen until later, perhaps from ground troops or a shot down wingman. I think it is ok to list them as claims in the narrative then clarify the total number of confirmed victories in the dedicated table. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did Mölders continue to focus on flying combat sorties after being appointed to what looks to have been a key command role in 1941? (at a time when the German invasion of the USSR was failing). How do historians interpret this?: it would seem that he effectively ignored his duties. From memory, some historians note that the Luftwaffe's poor performance in the second half of the war was partly due to the lackadaisical attitude of some of the combat commanders who were appointed to command and coordination roles: many preferred to fly combat sorties when they should have been doing staff work.
  • "He was a devoutly religious individual who demanded that all Allied aviators captured by those under his command be treated civilly, and often would invite captured pilots to dine with him" - did his units actually capture many airmen? (it seems hard to see how they would have). Also, did this courtesy extend to Soviet pilots?
  • "the British intelligence agency dropped flyers over Germany " - the British had several intelligence agencies by this time, so this should be made more specific
  • This is the same faked letter mentioned in the next two paragraphs, and I have combined them. Could you please read over it to see if it flows properly? Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "As of 24 June 2005, it is the central attraction at the Navy Museum in Wilhelmshaven" - this should be updated
  • The para starting with "Evidence also demonstrates Mölders' propensity to value friendships over political expediency." needs to be re-worked. It goes into detail about Mölders assisting a Jewish family, but then concludes by stating that the MGFA regards the story as unlikely: this undercuts both the claim made in the first sentence, and the account which is the para's focus.
  • Regarding the Jewish/Mischlinge story, I personally think that it should be reduced to much shorter statement such as, "Mölders' brother claimed that he had helped a friend from school, who had some Jewish ancestry, but the MGFA ruled this assertion "highly speculative," and did not investigate further." Intermarried Jews were protected from deportation, as were German Mishlinge, some of whom even served in the Wehrmacht.[24] "Families with an Aryan husband and baptized children were part of the category classified as “privileged mixed marriages”: they received better rations and the Jewish wife did not have to wear the yellow Star of David."[25]—Mölders had nothing to do with that. Only towards the end of the war were they targeted for deportation, but then only to the less hellish camps such as Theresienstadt or to labor battalions, and the chances of survival were much better.[26] Catrìona (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that Catrìona: I agree. The mechanisms of the Holocaust for German Jews could be surprisingly bureaucratic, with Jews in certain circumstances having a degree of protection due to various regulations. The intermarriage regulations were among the most important. War veterans also had a degree of protection: both factors acted to save Victor Klemperer's life, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section would benefit from placing the removal of honours in the context of the much broader re-evaluation of Germany's wartime history which has taken place since the 1980s. Most modern Germans are not keen to honour heroes of the Nazi war effort, and the modern German military has also been at pains to distance itself from them. As such, Mölders and the people associated with the Condor Legion have not been singled out: this has formed part of a broad effort (from what I've seen in visits to Germany, only military personnel who have unequivocal links with the resistance and weren't involved in war crimes are officially honoured).
  • More broadly, the discussion of Mölders' attitudes towards the Nazi Government is difficult to follow, and uses weasel words at times. It seems that he wasn't enthusiastic about the Nazis and passively resisted the worst of the Government's actions, but didn't outright resist them (a very common approach among Germans, not least due to the brutal methods the regime used against those who explicitly opposed it). The article at times seems to be trying to inflate the extent of his resistance, despite noting that the MGFA takes a fairly dim view of the topic. It would be better to call a spade a spade.
  • The article needlessly includes the German language names for things such as medals which translate directly into English: this doesn't seem helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • G'day Nick, I've trimmed some of that. Feel free to trim some more as necessary. I think the ranks and unit names need to stay in German, as that is generally how they appear in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • By the way, in regards to concerns about intricate detail or similar, I'd suggest comparing this article to FAs on Allied fighter aces. These also go into detail on the men and their personality. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Which fighter ace bios? For WWII Allied FAs, I've only found Caesar Hull, Peter Jeffrey, and Dick Cresswell. There are also some WWI fighter ace FAs (Richard Williams, Thomas Baker, George Jones) and a WWII bomber pilot (William Brill). All of these, with the possible exception of Hull, have very little about their personal lives and focus on their careers and notability. The fighter pilot politicians (John McCain, Ian Smith) don't make a good comparison because their personality/personal life is more relevant to their politics than their military careers. Pat Pattle is a GA and says almost nothing about his personality, despite some details being sourcible to QS material relating to him. Johnnie Johnson, also a GA, has considerable information on his background but I would argue that's not comparable because it influenced his military career by not allowing him to join the RAF earlier.
I think it's important to distinguish between personal details of Allied fighter pilots, and those offered for Mölders. What the sources are trying to argue, and the article ends up insinuating, is that Mölders was ideologically opposed to the same regime that he was fighting for—a pattern in German WWII bios as many people want to be able to admire these people without connecting them to National Socialism or the crimes of the Nazi regime. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof and extra scrutiny. Catrìona (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As an extra comment, I just read through the 'In propaganda' section, and it's a bit confusing: the narrative of how the leaflet was developed is unclear. It also carries the implication that Nazis couldn't be Catholics (or vice-versa?), which was far from the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Given this has been raised as an issue, I thought I'd start a section to discuss the sourcing.

There are several issues that have been raised on the talk page and they form the justification for the article tagging. These seem to me to be of three types. The first issue is the claim that some of the sources are weak and/or dated, in particular Obermaier & Held (1996), but also Obermaier (1989, but apparently it is actually older). The second is an issue of a possibly questionable source, Prien (1997) with issues raised about the publisher. The third issue is the lack of use of the biography (what is the title?) by Kurt Bratz (2008) and a few articles on the reversal of honours, in other words a failure to use more recent scholarship, albeit most of it is in German and may not be accessible to many editors on en WP. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks (I was searching on the wrong spelling of the surname), according to Worldcat, there are no copies of this book in Australian libraries, so I won't be able to help with this one. Perhaps the next step is to look at reviews of the book to see what is highlighted as being unique to this book? That might help to narrow down a request for a chapter or two on WP:RX. There are some reviews listed on the talk page, so I'll request them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Weak and/or dated sourcesEdit

I think this depends on what is being sourced from them. If we are talking about exceptional claims about something like Mölders' alleged anti-Nazism, then these are probably not suitable, particularly if they are contradicted by recent scholarship. However, if they are being used for mundane matters of what type of aircraft Mölders shot down on a particular day, that is another matter, and I don't see a problem. The latter type of material is not likely to be updated by recent scholarship. On the other hand, if recent scholarship has uncovered information about Mölders that had not previously come to light, then recent scholarship should be preferred over older works on those matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Questionable sourceEdit

This revolves around the fact that Prien is published by Schiffer, and a claim that Schiffer is questionable because they "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". It isn't clear to me that a case has been made that Schiffer meets this criteria. Sure, they publish "popular history", but what evidence is there that they have published factually incorrect material or have no meaningful editorial oversight, for example? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Schiffer has always struck me as a mixed bag. Some of the works they publish are very good (including some re-prints of excellent works initially published elsewhere), while others are very bad. My impression is that the firm doesn't exercise strong editorial oversight, though it's not at the bottom of the heap: there appear to be at least some editors and other publishing professionals involved, though I suspect that fact-checking is not rigorous (for instance, its books are professionally typeset, illustrated and printed which is uncommon for essentially self-published works). Where books have been initially published by a more rigorous publisher and/or the author has a good track record as a historian this doesn't matter. A useful check for works which don't meet these criteria is to see if reputable historians have referenced them. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was actually thinking of Stackpole! I'm less familiar with Schiffer. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a Schiffer book about one of the Muslim SS divisions. It is thoroughly footnoted, has a good bibliography, is professionally typeset and illustrated and has no typos or grammatical problems I can recall. It won an award from Rutger's University, and also covers not only the military aspects, but also the political and social basis of the division, as well as war crimes. But specifically regarding Prien, here are reviews of two of his volumes published in Air Power History [27]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I should have added that Schiffer's website says they have a dedicated group of military history editors, and Prien is published by other publishing houses, Struve-Druck and Rogge Verlag. On the basis of that, the two reviews, and the lack of any evidence that Schiffer has "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, or has an apparent conflict of interest", I consider that Prien isn't questionable and is a reliable source for the material it is being used for. This material only relates to the naming of JG 53, an accident he had, his receipt of the Iron Cross Second Class, and the formation of III./JG 53, none of which requires an exceptional source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent scholarshipEdit

Articles should always be updated to include the most recent scholarship, and this article should be no exception. An issue for this review may be the accessibility of such sources, if they are in German. My German isn't great and is focussed on land warfare technical terminology rather than aviation stuff, but I can try. Assistance is likely to be needed from Assayer and others with German language skills, and access to the sources may be difficult as well for those whose library access is mainly English-speaking. I certainly can try to get access to the articles via WP:RX and can ask for help if I find I'm out of my depth with the German. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For a start, I've requested the article by Klaus Schmider, "German Military Tradition and the Expert Opinion on Werner Mölders: Opening a Dialogue among Scholars", which appears from the abstract to be quite critical of the work of the MGFA in providing the rationale for the de-naming of Jagdgeschwader (Fighter Wing) 74 Mölders. Here is the abstract.[28] Once I've secured a copy I'll start adding material from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Just an update: I've also requested Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134 for balance. Once I've received these two I will seek to add to/modify the "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section, which appears to be the most critical section needing updated scholarship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • If I may, the photo under the "Eastern front" subsection is a portrait of Mölders with the caption "Oberst Werner Mölders - 101 official victories in World War II". This seems hagiographic and, as it stands, out of place. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf VrbaEdit

Notified: SlimVirgin, Jewish history, Judaism, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, European history, Biography

This article was promoted in 2006, when the standards were not applied as rigorously as they are now, and has never been under review. I am nominating this article for FAR because I believe that it does not meet several of the FA criteria:

  • 1b (comprehensive): missing Vrba’s role in warning Fredy Hirsch about the impending liquidation of much of the Theresienstadt family camp (cs; de; it) on 8 March 1944, and the subsequent warning included in the Vrba-Wetzler report about the probable fate of the rest of the family camp, which sparked diplomatic protests from the Czechoslovak government-in-exile. Also missing Vrba’s role in the historiography of the 1942 deportations from Slovakia (not well covered on Wikipedia, but see Bratislava Working Group—he accused the Slovak Jewish leaders of not warning Jews)
  • 1c (well-researched): much of the article is sourced to primary sources, even where secondary sources for the information exist. Large sections of the article are sourced to Vrba's memoirs, his CV, and an autobiographical account by George Klein.
  • 1d (neutral): the article gives a misleading impression of the deportations from Hungary in 1944 and the potential for Hungarian Jews to avoid deportation, by highlighting an unrepresentative anecdote (Klein) in excessive detail. Sometimes inaccurate statements are not contrasted with the actual figures; according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and most historians, about 75% of deported Hungarian Jews were gassed on arrival at Auschwitz, not 90% as stated in the article.
  • 2c (citations): a few citations are not in the appropriate format or are missing page numbers. Page ranges for some citations are too long for optimal verifiablility. Some page ranges on this article are as wide as 10 pages or more, while I have seen comments on recent FACs that suggest that page ranges should be kept to two pages for FAs.
  • 4 (length): some irrelevant details are included; most of these sourced to Vrba or other primary sources.

For more detail, see the list I made on the talk page. I first raised these issues on the talk page about two weeks ago, but so far have only attracted the attention of the main contributor of the article, SlimVirgin, who has disagreed with some of the fixes that I tried to implement. I hope that nominating it here will draw in uninvolved editors who can help address these issues. Catrìona (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: Recommend that this be moved to FARC because it has been two weeks and no improvements have been made. Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We need more eyes on this - I am pinging those who commented at the FAC - @Jayjg, Briangotts, SandyGeorgia, MPerel, Jfdwolff, Outriggr, Tony1, Ambuj.Saxena, and Humus sapiens: - to see if we can get some more opinions on weighting, and issues raised above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a pity, but I don't think this can escape being demoted, if no one's willing to fix it. (Is there a wikiproject that could be pinged?) Just random samples: "at this stage it is only an introduction to a system that will be more fully explained in Section 4." ... no ref. "George Klein fled rather than board a train after reading the Vrba–Wetzler report." ... ambiguous caption. Tony (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: Thanks for looking at the article. I already pinged the relevant wikiprojects as listed above. Catrìona (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Beyond my previous quick scan through, I've now had time to read the article properly. I think it's excellent. If there's fixing to do, it's minor; did it really need to be brought to this forum? Tony (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Notified: Gary, Chisme, Dank, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Software

I am nominating this featured article for review because, after much discussion across the years, it has been pared down (changing significantly the content that was once promoted to featurement) and concerns of WP:NPOV have been raised. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Scene7 was swallowed by Adobe in 2007, eleven years ago. It has not been heard from since. The article as it stands now IMHO is about right considering the import and significance of the company. If anybody can fill out what happened in the last eleven years, I'm in favor of rewriting the article. But otherwise there is no point in beating a dead horse. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I think that the rampant changing of the article is a point worth addressing, but I'm not sure if FAR is the right venue for it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Interesting history here, as Chisme removed quite a bit of content in 2015 amidst requests for restraint from Bencherlite, Mike Christie, and DrKay. The principal reasons given were that it was "too long", had "too much detail" or "fluff" and that it was longer than Adobe Systems. Personally I'm not persuaded that these reasons are valid or that any meaningful examples were given. Nevertheless, the changes were made, and many months later Leefeni de Karik nominated it for FAR without further notice or discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the article no longer meets 1b, and should be reverted to its pre-reduction state and this nomination closed. --Laser brain (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping. I think I lost this from my watchlist in a general purge a while ago. Looking at the talk page I see no evidence that those objecting to the cuts, including myself, ever reached a consensus that Chisme was correct. I've reverted it to just before the cuts, and I think it should stay there until a talk page consensus is reached on what to do next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)Edit

Notified: WP Television Episode coverage, ‎WP Television, ‎ WP Comedy, Hunter Kahn, no other active unblocked significant contributors

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Note, @PresN: reviewed the images, so they should be good. I promoted this article, so will not be reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Good as in the sock didn't review the images, but not good in that it was literally 8 years ago... Anyway, sure, re-reviewed, they're fine. --PresN 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment An obvious, and significant, deficiency with this article is that the 'reception' section only presents assessments written at the time this series was first broadcast. No use is made of sources looking back at this series at a later date, including after Parks and Recreation finished up. As I understand it, the general view is that this was the worst series in the show's run, and the show was only successful after a lot of changes were made. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I was the primary author of this article when it was brought to FA review. I will look into some additional sources to add to address this, but I likely won't be able to until after the holiday. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected NickD, but I've added some new information about reviews of the first season following the run of the show (from 2015 onward), in response to your comment. In doing so I also found an additional source and added some additional facts elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you think any changes or further improvements are needed! — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Those changes look very good - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D: do you think the article is within FA status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
          • This was my only concern after a light read of the article. As no-one else has raised concerns, I'd suggest this could be closed. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Actually, as another comment the 'cast' section is currently unreferenced. I imagine that this can be quickly fixed using IMDB or similar, so it's not a reason to move to a discussion of delisting. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
              • @Nick-D and Hunter Kahn: - one of the annoying things about being coordinator is it takes me out of fixing things a bit. So if someone can do this then I can close maybe....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
                • I didn't realize this until now but the cast section has been changed since the FA review. It used to be a straight narrative with sources which you can find here, but it appears it has since been changed to a list format without sources. I can either restore it to the way it originally was, or I can use some of the sources that were removed and add them to the existing list. Do you have a thought or preference on this? — Hunter Kahn 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
                  • The straight narrative is nice actually, so that'd be fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
                    • The narrative looks good and reads well, and is a good fit for a FA. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit


Notified: WT:MCB and WT:PHARM

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it objectively fails WP:FACR criteria 1b (comprehensiveness), 2a (lead section), and 2c (consistent citations).

  • Issues with 1b: There's poor coverage of synthetic antioxidants in the article's Antioxidant#Drug candidates section, which lacks context. Notable plant-derived antioxidants are completely missing from this page (e.g., Quercetin, among many others in this topic's navbox {{Antioxidants}} and which are mentioned in general-purpose reviews like PMID 20716905). Mention of a class of dietary antioxidants (polyphenols) is, however, scattered throughout the article. There is a "Further information" link to articles about dietary antioxidants (Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols and List of antioxidants in food) under Antioxidant#Levels in food, but this is a very brief section which contains no information on plant-derived antioxidants. Some antioxidant biomolecules are entirely omitted (e.g., melatonin). Thus, the article does not currently comply with criterion 1b because these are highly notable subtopics within the scope of "antioxidants" that are not covered or even alluded to (e.g., via passing mention) in the article.
    • By far the most significant omission in this article is the lack of coverage of the transcription factor Nrf2, the master regulator of cellular antioxidant responses.[1][2]
  • Issues with 2a: The lead is very short for an article this size and inadequately summarizes several parts of the body. As an example, the 4th paragraph is a 1-sentence long summary of an entire level 2 section.
  • Issues with 2c: The citation formatting is inconsistent. This is the least significant problem with the FA criteria and is easily fixed. I mention it only because it needs to be fixed along with the 2 other issues above.

I attempted to address some of these issues on the article's talk page at Talk:Antioxidant, but was met with opposition. That said, at least one other editor (Jytdog) has indicated that they think this article no longer meets the criteria. In order to start resolving the issues this article has with the criteria, the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize and be consistent with the body, the body needs to be significantly expanded (including the creation of an entirely new level 2 section) to include the subtopics mentioned above (plant-based and synthetic antioxidants) that are missing but well within this article's scope, and the citation formatting needs to be fixed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Re 2c: I fixed the date formats in this edit; however, in the current revision (Special:Permalink/849739302), page formatting is inconsistent in the journal refs (some are truncated like 123–6, some list the full page range like 123–126), some of the web references are missing publication/update dates which are listed on the cited webpage (e.g., ref numbers: 2 and 189), and some (e.g., ref number 2) are missing publishers. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Aguilar TA, Navarro BC, Pérez JA (December 2016). "Endogenous Antioxidants: A Review of their Role in Oxidative Stress". A Master Regulator of Oxidative Stress - The Transcription Factor Nrf2. InTechOpen. doi:10.5772/62743. ISBN 9789535128380. Retrieved 15 July 2018. 
  2. ^ Vomund S, Schäfer A, Parnham MJ, Brüne B, von Knethen A (December 2017). "Nrf2, the Master Regulator of Anti-Oxidative Responses". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 18 (12). doi:10.3390/ijms18122772. PMC 5751370 . PMID 29261130. 

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Levels in food section is not up to FA quality. Vague statements about cooked versus raw, then dismisses ORAC (correctly) as flawed because it is an in vitro assessment, but goes on to name and reference other in vitro methods. I have refrained from working on the article because of COI (consultant to dietary supplement companies that market products with antioxidant claims), but in my opinion this article no longer qualifies as FA, given progress in the science literature. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Confusing and self-contradictory. The lead says supplements of beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E have no effect on mortality rate or cancer risk, while the Adverse effects section describes studies showing an increased mortality and increase in lung-cancer rates. DrKay (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Notified: WikiProject Rock Music, WikiProject Heavy Metal

Review sectionEdit

This article was promoted through FAC in 2007, and was FAR'd in the same year but kept. Looking at it now, I see lots of reasons to be concerned that this article does not meet FA standards. Its primary author that made it through FAC, User:No-Bullet, has been inactive for quite some time. I am concerned that this article fails WP:WIAFA 1a and 1c: there are several areas where the prose is what I would call unprofessional including short paragraphs and structure issues, as well as plenty of paragraphs that don't end in a citation, a bright red flag to anyone reviewing the article. Red Phoenix talk 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As a gut feeling, if this article was at B-class or lower now, I think it would take a significant amount of work to get it to GA, let alone anything else. The group's history is extensive but line-up changes (until recently) have been few and far between so there is a risk of falling into a pattern of "in 1983 they did this .... in 1985 they did that .... in 1988 they did the other" which gets monotonous after a while. It really needs a subject expert who knows what sources should take priority in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, I notice there has been some work on this - @Red Phoenix and Ritchie333:, I hope you'll keep an eye on the progress and comment on when it meets or approaches FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I will definitely keep an eye on the situation here. I am glad to see there has been some progress in edits in the last week and am hopeful the involved editors can turn this article around. Red Phoenix talk 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After only glancing at the articles, it seems there are a lot of statements without citations (as has been brought up above), and if this can't be fixed, I guess it needs to be demoted. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements include "By the middle of 1974, the band had built up a strong live reputation", "they frequently played at the Hard Rock", "some people thought it was the title track", "Young gained notoriety for mooning", "the band were at the peak of their popularity", " rebuild their finances", "gained invaluable experience", "this has been challenged more recently". DrKay (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. I just can't see any possible way that this article could meet criteria 1c in any way soon. The first two citations I looked at in the body are links to a copyright violation of a television documentary which has now been removed, so I haven't a clue whether the entire paragraph is factually accurate or relevant. The books in "further reading" are a good start, but they need to be brought in as actual references against the main prose. We've long passed the days when you could put in a vague hand wave to a book source and say "it's all referenced in there, more or less". I've got no issue with the editing that's going on, but I think it's going to need a serious pouring over the book sources before it's going to be even close to GA let alone anything else, as I said above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist for now, although I will still keep my eyes out for changes and will be willing to reverse my !vote if the issues can be fixed. I won't say it's not absolutely going to happen just because I've been that kind of editor myself who can gut and repair an article in a week's time (yes, with a thorough review of sources), but despite the improvements I haven't seen anyone go quite that deep yet into this article, and it's in desperate need of that. If someone picks that up, I'd be happy to reconsider. Red Phoenix talk 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I know from first hand experience you can, Red Phoenix; and I will concur that if an AC/DC expert turns up tomorrow and does a whirlwind blitz through the article in the next week, I'll strike my view to delist as well. I just can't see it happening, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Film noirEdit

Notified: WP Film

Review sectionEdit

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, a high score at Earwig's Copyvio Detector appears to be due to the listing of same refs etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I did the image review 8 years ago; it's mostly the same, but 3 fair-use music samples have been added. They're all pretty short, but frankly having 3 seems excessive, I'd cut to 1. --PresN 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Size also a concern for me. Look at the copyvio tool, the main element driving it up seemed to be film titles. Removed two of the audio files. Article has been heavily edited since promotion, and since the first retirement. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've read through both the promoted version of the article and that which exists today, and I don't see any major red flags in the differences between them. In fact, in some ways today's article is better; the prose has been tightened up in places, and there have been a couple of layout improvements. On the copyvio front, like Ceoil I don't see any issues; the Berkeley page similarities are down to article titles and film titles, while the other high % match appears to have cribbed from our article for a couple of sentences. Of some small concern is the slight bloat in size from the promoted version. Some of this is well-cited, and I'm not bothered so much by kB count (it's very large, but not precedent-setting), but by the occasional insertion of detail that is not cited, appears to not have fresh citation to go along with it (to all intents an purposes looking like it's cited to whichever one was there for the existing material), or has resulted in content where even with a new citation it's now unclear what's referencing what. The current last paragraph of 1980s and 1990s] is a good (bad) example of the latter two issues; without access to the original sources, it will be difficult to wrangle this into shape. I also share some of the concerns that were brought up by several people during the original FAC, most especially by Moni, regarding the structure. These concerns were brushed aside by one or more socks and consensus seemingly reached, but the problem remains. Long story short, the Identifying characteristics section does not work at all where it is now bolted onto the end. This should be tied to Problems of definition somewhere closer to the top to aid those readers unfamiliar with the subject. However, I don't know if this can be done without significant rewrites elsewhere to ensure context is kept. As Moni put it, "Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre." She wasn't the only editor to point out that on such a large subject it would make more sense to to "[start] with the basic and [get] more cognitively complex". What does everyone else think on this point? Steve T • C 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Steve, yes and my gut feeling about the socking, born by many years of experience, related and not related, is that Geist was too involved, arrogant and proud of his contributions to have made deliberate mistakes on sourcing. It just doesn't scan. I have already mentioned my concerns on focus and length. Its your area of interest, so if editorializing is needed, you would probably be the man for the job and as such you might go for it. ps, we all miss Moni. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be right about the sourcing; digging through the history, I was set to use this diff as an example of added content to multiple sections with no cite, but it turns out that DCG went back later to add the necessary (e.g.). After another read through, I think this needs less of a rescue job than did Tenebrae. To begin with, I'm going to put each section through a better diff checker than Wikipedia's, see where we might have problems with uncited or unwanted additions. That might take some time, but after that I'll have a better idea of whether we need to alter the structure and if we do, what might need to be rewritten to accommodate that. Steve T • C 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I read through this today and I agree with previous comments that the article organization is not ideal. It seems that Steve has not been active since April so I don't know where this leaves us. I believe DCG was a breed of FA writer who didn't want to compromise their vision for anyone, and used socks to help ram it through. It's a good article but not as good as it could be. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to work on this recently; work commitments have left me with very little free time these last 6 weeks. As far as the quality of the article stands, I've been through every section diff-by-diff, and have removed those unwanted and uncited additions that have crept in over the years, along with some other minor clean-up. However, this is still fundamentally the same article that passed the original FAC. It is a good article, and doesn't exactly bring shame to the gold star, but the organisational problems still exist and whichever way I imagine it, no natural structure presents itself. I had a mind to bring Identifying Characteristics to after the Background section, but that doesn't quite work either, owing to the section's reliance on examples that span several decades, which I think would then sit oddly with the strictly chronological nature of the subsequent sections. What do you think? Steve T • C 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Moving to get more input on organization and related issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Default keep. I'm not enthusiastic but the only problem identified is that the source review was inadequate (as it was done by the puppet). Most of the sources are offline, so unless someone can demonstrate that the sources do not support the article content, there is no reason to delist. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Laser brain: what or how would you reorganize? Is it within stylistic bounds or is it really suboptimal? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Casliber: At this point I think it's subjective. If no one has the bandwidth to propose an alternate organization, I wouldn't hold up the FAR on my comment. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Elvis PresleyEdit

Top six editors blocked or no longer active. Notified WP Rock music, ‎WP Las Vegas, ‎ WP Mississippi, ‎ WP American music,‎ WP Tennessee, WP Pop music, ‎ WP Elvis Presley, ‎ WP Musicians

Review sectionEdit

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • (partial, limited) image review There are no obvious issues with the images currently in the article, but about half of them are claimed as PD-US under "pre-1963/1977, no copyright renewal". Given the previous image review was performed by one of the socks, the absence of a renewal cannot be presumed accurate and should be audited by someone qualified (which is not me, sorry).
    The one that potentially raises some red flags for me is File:Girls Girls Girls Poster B.jpg. The upload is in sufficiently low resolution to preclude reading the (1960) copyright notice that is present on the original, almost as if it was intended to pass a fair use check (that it wouldn't need if it was really PD), but the given source for the image has a much higher resolution version available here (where the copyright notice is legible, including the names of the physical persons holding the copyright). The image was also uploaded by one of the socks.
    Again, I didn't find any obvious problems, but once good faith can no longer be presumed, there're enough red flags to suggest thorough checking. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment: This is one I'm not concerned about. It has a lot of (independent) eyes on it, disputes are readily discussed on the Talk page, and there is ongoing effort to keep the sourcing of high quality and stop the never-ending scope creep and trivia creep. Over time some undesirable passages have snuck in but DCGeist actually undertook a cleanup effort in early January. Despite the socking issues, he did a fine job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to dig a bit more before I make a declaration. Between the socking and Xover's evidence that there may have been deliberate copyios, I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with assuming good faith about anything this guy did. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I read through this article a while back; I wasn't in "reviewer mode" but I certainly didn't think "who on earth thinks this is an FA", so I can't imagine there's that much wrong with it. Your best bet is to ping 7&6=thirteen as he's good at fixing Elvis-related articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, I did not promote this article, but I did archive it once, so have asked at WT:FAR whether people think I should recuse from review. As with all of DCGeist's articles, the WP:SIZE issue is a concern for me, and I never saw any reason he was excused from a perfectly doable compliance with WP:SIZE. This article is HUGE, and unnecessarily so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to recuse. I recall you voicing your size concerns and they are still present. Every time someone finds an eggplant that looks like Elvis they want to add a paragraph to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Laser brain on this comment and the others. The article gets a lot of careful attention from reliable editors, so I think it merits its FA status, but it errs on the side of inclusion (though the "eggplant Elvis" crowd would beg to differ). Contributors tend to be fans, and they sometimes lose sight of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedic biographical article. I would vote that it be edited for length, but not demoted. Pstoller (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have concerns with the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) of WP:Featured article criteria: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. From a glance, this article doesn't even mention many of his film roles within article prose after Wild Country, which is a glaring omission when he starred tons of movies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This article includes a complete filmography plus a link to a second article, Elvis Presley on film and television. Even that much is arguably redundant. It is neither necessary nor productive for a biographical article to discuss details of every film in which a primarily musical artist appeared, especially when those films are formulaic and held in low critical esteem. One may as well ask why every song Presley recorded is not discussed. The answer is, it's not necessary in order to say the article "neglects no major facts or details." Pstoller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying we have to go into all of the production bits or casting process, but the films at the very least should be mentioned by name, especially when their soundtracks spawned hits for him. As for music, I'd say the same with album titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I repeat: All the films are mentioned by name at the bottom of the article in a complete filmography. This is in addition to a link to a separate article devoted entirely to Presley's films and TV appearances that also lists all the film titles. There are likewise separate articles for Presley's complete singles discography, complete album discography, hit albums only with chart information, and all songs recorded by Presley, in addition to the partial single and album discographies in the present article. The reason there are separate articles is that, without them, this article would be too long. Thus, adding that information back into this article would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Simply mentioning them in a filmography section isn't enough if they're not cited anywhere in the page. It otherwise looks like one is using WP:CIRCULAR referencing by trying to use another Wikipedia page as a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
First, the other Wikipedia page is not employed as a source: it's a separate article devoted to detail on a subsidiary subject, just as the discographies are. External sources provide the information in both articles. So, it is not at all WP:CIRCULAR, nor does it look like it. Second, if listing all the film titles within the article is not sufficient, then what would be? Again, these films are widely regarded—critically, popularly, and historically—as being without significant individual merit, either as cinema or as examples of Presley's artistry. The article text thus deals with them categorically. That is the the appropriate framework. Otherwise, an already overlong article would become considerably longer still by expanding on the creative nadir of Presley's career. An article, even a feature article, cannot go into detail on every aspect of its subject's work or life, but at best provides a comprehensive overview. To gain a decent understanding of Presley's cultural significance or personal character, it is entirely unnecessary to call out Kid Galahad, Harum Scarum, or Change of Habit. In fact, to manage this article (which, without counting filmography, selected discographies, or notes, is already pushing 100kB) per WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, I would recommend deleting the included filmography, as it's entirely redundant with the linked filmography article. Each of those films in turn has its own article, just as all the albums issued during his lifetime and over half the songs contained therein do. All that information and more may belong on Wikipedia—but not in this article. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Moving to get a better sense of current status for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Am I the only one fascinated that this has been open for nearly three months and I'm just the first to comment? dannymusiceditor oops 16:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There is very little interest in the FAR process any more. If the original nominator isn't around for whatever reason, these usually drag out for a few months and then end up being delisted. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Whatever, then. The only opinion I have is that it's mighty long and some of the article should definitely be pruned. dannymusiceditor oops 00:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor:, that's long been a concern for this article and it's come up a lot. There are lots of sub-articles we could move content into if you have any specific suggestions. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged for attribution since March 2018. DrKay (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed those tags, as the quotations are included in the cited source pages. I'm not sure what was requested there, but I think it's standard practice that if a quotation is given without "Roger said..." that it's from the cited source. --Laser brain (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (second) Media review. One fair use image replaced[29]. One image nominated for discussion[30]. No obvious problems found with the other files. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Film Booking Offices of AmericaEdit

Notified: WP Companies, ‎WP Film, no other active significant contributors ‎

Review sectionEdit

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its FAC. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes, this is a 2007 promotion, on only three supports, so should receive a full review, including images. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments. The size is manageable (atypical for this nominator), and has no