Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2019

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2019 [1].

All About That Bass edit

Nominator(s): NØ and Lips are movin 21:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "All About That Bass", the debut single by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor. It was nominated for two Grammy awards and topped the charts in 58 countries, including 8 weeks atop the US Billboard Hot 100. Despite being one of the few songs to ever go diamond, it garnered controversy for faux-empowerment and alleged skinny shaming. Thus due to its heavy commercial success as well as negative attention, I believe we have created an article that has huge coverage, neutrality, is about a really successful song and can be considered some of Wikipedia's best work. Commentary is appreciated.--NØ 21:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lirim.Z
  • There is no need to use flatlist in the infobox; see Template:Infobox song#Notes
  • prev_title = and year can be removed, as they are unused
  • Developed in September 2013 by Trainor and American songwriter and producer Kevin Kadish, "All About That Bass" was written in 40 minutes It is way easier and makes more sense to just say: "All About That Bass" was written in 40 minutes by Trainor alongside American songwriter and producer Kevin Kadish in September 2013.
  • An "All About That Bass" EP was released in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland on October 3, 2014. "All About That Bass" EP was released in German-speaking Europe on October 3, 2014
  • Are the numbers given in the Chart performance section pure sales or a combination with single equivalent units?
  • Is there nothing that could be said about the success in the Asian music market?--Lirim | Talk 12:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed these. The numbers given in the chart section are pure sales wherever chart positions are talked about, and equivalents wherever certifications are talked about. The only Asian market it charted in is Japan at number 10; which seems too less information to have a separate subsection. Look forward to more comments!--NØ 15:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the used cover for the digital version?
  • It was also regularly performed during her 2015 concert tours That Bass Tour and the MTrain Tour, as well as The Untouchable Tour (2016). Can be shortened to: It was also included on the setlist of ...
  • When was the music video pubished on YouTube/Vevo?
  • On September 4, 2014, It's better to say "Two days later"
  • Try to swtich up wording in the live performances section. Starting so many sentences with "On" sounds quite silly
  • The 10,000,000 units claim in the certification table should be changed to an exact sales number
--Lirim | Talk 18:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done all except the last one. The last reported pure sales figure for the song was in February 2015, when Nielsen reported 4.6M sales. My concern is that the number is too outdated to be substituted in the certifications box, since the song continued to sell a lot in 2015. Every recent source that I can find has reported the 10M figure (which is clearly SPS); [2][3]). Do you think we should substitute it anyway?—NØ 19:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning towards Oppose

The article now is certainly up to GA quality, but it is not up to FA quality to my knowledge. I've read through the lead and the first section, and come up with the following issues:

  • Lead
    • "All About That Bass" is the debut single by American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor. ... the song was included on her debut extended play, Title, and debut major-label studio album of the same name from 2014 and 2015, respectively, serving as the lead single from both." → too wordy, "debut single" already implies that it is the lead single from both albums; I'd suggest shortening it to something like "... the debut single by Meghan Trainor, taken from her debut EP and studio album, both of which named Title"
    • Maybe adding year of the Grammy ceremony in the lead?
    • "All About That Bass" sold 11 million copies worldwide, becoming the third best-selling song of 2014 and one of the best-selling singles of all time → the source does not support the claim "one of the best-selling singles of all time"; I'd retain "The single was the third best-selling song of 2014 with sales of 11 million copies"; plus sources should not be included in the lead
    • "pink pastel aesthetic" I'm not sure if you can describe an aesthetic as "pink pastel", maybe pink pastel theme or color tone?
    • The lead lists performances on several TV programs. While this is factually correct, I don't really recommend listing TV programs, which is an inevitable part of promotion of any song, in the lead. I'd only include the song's inclusion in tours or major award shows
    • Maybe you can add the song's impact on "The Era of Big Booty" in the lead? It's worth mentioning imo
  • Writing and production
    • "At the time the song was written, Trainor lacked a recording contract but was writing tracks for other artists" → You don't need "the song was written" because "At the time" already implies that it was during which Trainor was writing this song; "lacked a recording contract" sounds bizarre: did Trainor "lack" it as part of her job application? I'd write "Trainor had yet to obtain a contract"
    • "The pair wrote the song with the intention of handing it to another recording artist." → wordy; I'd shorten it to "The pair intended the song for another recording artist". For FA, it's important to say what it means to say in a succinct manner. So far the article is filled with wordy expressions that hindered the flow.
    • What is "thickness" supposed to mean?
    • "the genre was very catchy" → bad wording
    • "envisioned the song to feature a theme of girl power" can be "envisioned a theme of girl power for the song"; to me a sentence should contain only one verb to highlight the meaning
    • "They pitched the song to a variety of record labels, but all of them were critical of the same reason, which was also attributed to the song's lack of a synthesizer or Auto-Tune.[14][11] The song was further criticized for not having a "big chorus", a suggestion that Trainor and Kadish balked at.[7]" → "a variety of" is wordy; you can shorten it to something like "... labels, who were critical of the song's lack of a synthesizer, Auto-Tune, and a "big chorus", which were considered elements of a commercial success"
    • "Trainor recorded a demo of the song and met Paul Pontius, who was the A&R for Epic Records chairman L.A. Reid, and performed the track for him" → there are two "and"s in this sentence, which corrupts the flow

So far I'm not confident that this article is up to FA at the moment. Not taking into account sources and media, the writing is certainly not up to quality. — HĐ (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the following sections, and I have to oppose. The article does not satisfy criterion 1-a (well-written): it's filled with wordy expressions, which could be cut down to convey the meaning in a more succinct manner; passive voice is prevalent, which is not encouraged ("it was noted", "it has been described" who made such assumptions? / "it was accompanied by a music video" should only be "the music video for the song", and so on). I suggest that the nominators take this article to GOCE or PR to have a detailed read-through/grammar check before FAC. HĐ (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm going to agree with the above oppose by HĐ. The prose needs a good going over and I suggest you withdraw this, work on polishing, take it through PR, polish it some more, then come back again.

Lead
  • Three uses of "debut" in the opening two sentences
  • "Some publications praised it": use the name at the first mention of the paragraph and swap it with the name in the second sentence
  • "noted for its pink pastel aesthetic" Not sure that's the right word, and I'm not sure that was what was "noted" for. It certainly has a pastel 1950s-theme, but that's not why it was "noted".
Writing
  • "At the time the song was written, Trainor lacked a recording contract". This is a bit clunky and could be smoothed out. "At the time, Trainor was not under a recording contract" is one possibility.
  • "Suggesting the topics "booty" and thickness for the song": I have no idea what this is supposed to mean
  • "along with doo-wop since Trainor felt that the genre was very catchy." Again, very clunky and can be smoothed out. "Trainor and Kadish discussed their love for 1950s music, and decided to incorporate the style into the song[5] along with doo-wop; Trainor described the genre as "the catchiest stuff"" would be better, but that still lacks elegance
  • "envisioned the song to feature a theme of girl power" "envisioned" is the wrong word to use
  • "due to": always one to avoid. There is nothing wrong in using "because of"
  • "experiences with weight insecurities during adolescence": -> "his insecurity about his weight during adolescence"

That's all to the end of the second paragraph of the Writing section. It needs a good going over before coming back again I think and, as I said above, I'd recommend withdrawing this nom, getting it copy edited and proofed, then bringing it back again. I think you are both first-timers at FAC (forgive me if I'm wrong), but if you are, I'll bring your attention to the part of the FAC instructions: "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor". Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2019 [4].

Flag of the Sakha Republic edit

Nominator(s): Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the flag of Sakha. The article itself is developed from various sources, mainly from the collections of the National Library of Yakutia. Please consider this article for entering the group of featured articles. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Oppose for now. I suggest you withdraw this nom, take the article through a good peer review and then bring it back.

General
  • The order looks wrong to me: I would expect the history (or a background section saying where the Sakha Republic is – possibly with a map for the ignorant amongst us) and how long it has been in existence. Then go into the history, then into the legislation which brought about the new flag, then the symbolism of the flag. There is no logic the way it is structed at the moment.
  • I suggest adding a brief background section: where Sakha is, how long it has been in existence as part (or not part) of Russia – certainly enough to cover the history of the flags you want to deal with
Lead/IB
  • "From top to bottom, the stripes are light blue (3/4 of the flag's width)": if we are working top to bottom, the stripes are not the flag's width – it is depth
  • You have mixed date formats (14 October 1992 and October 14, 1992, in the lead and IB for example)
  • No idea why there is the Yakut ASSR flag in the IB when it has its own article
History
  • The current history looks like it presumes a lot of fore-knowledge of the subject ("Before and after the civil war": the English civil war or the US one? No need to pipe the link. Needs a date to give us an idea of the timeframe too. Some of this can be dealt with by introducing a 'background' section
  • Bullet points are a no-no in my book except for brief lists. If you can put it into a paragraph of prose, so much the better. (Others may differ in their opinion)
  • There is quite a lot on the Yakut ASSR flag, considering it has its own article. It wouldn't be a problem if there was more on the Sakha flag, but there is nearly as much on the Yakut ASSR one as the Sakha one.
  • "The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) has the State Emblem, the National Flag and the National Anthem.": no need to have this as a block quote – quoted within the text is enough
  • I'd expect to see more information on the designers within the "As the Sakha (Yakut) Republic" section: when were they commissioned, why them, how long did it take them, did they decide by a three-man committee, or did they have specific roles in the process.
Designers
  • Partly dealt with in the last comment above but, again, avoid bullet points
Sources
  • There are two sources cited but not used

There is some good information here, but it needs a bit more background and some details on the design etc of the flag. It needs to be reorganised a bit better and a very good polish before it comes back to FAC, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

Based on the above I'm going to archive this nom. I might add that some parts of the article appear unsourced (e.g. the Legislation section), which alone is enough to prevent promotion to FA; as a guide, at the very least every paragraph should end with a citation to a reliable source. I note also that the article appears not have been through GAN or Peer Review; while these are not required precursors to FAC, it does help to get as many eyes on an article as possible before bringing it here, and such reviews help. I think you'd also be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2019 [5].

PewDiePie edit

Nominator(s): WackyWikiWoo (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Swedish Youtuber Felix Kjellberg, known by his online pseudonym PewDiePie, who held the position of the most-subscribed YouTube channel for almost six years, and is currently the second-most subscribed YouTube channel. This article is already a GA, and, from what I can tell, it also meets the criteria for FA. WackyWikiWoo (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question I note that you haven't played a large role in developing the article ([6]) and there doesn't seem to have been a discussion on the article's talk page about nominating it for FAC. Do the editors most involved in this article believe that it currently meets the FA criteria? Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: Sorry, I haven’t nominated many articles for FA and didn’t realise this was a requirement. Should I remove the nomination for now? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd suggest withdrawal. A good path forwards would be to start a discussion on the article's talk page to propose a FA nomination, and only to return this to FAC if there's consensus there that the article is ready. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: How do I withdraw it? Just remove the link from the nominations page and from the articles talk page?
@WackyWikiWoo: This @FAC coordinators: will summon the coords who will attend to the minor details  :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: So they’ll withdraw it? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They will close the nomination soon after you request that they do so (or possibly earlier given the discussion here). Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Sorry for the stream of questions, but how do I request them to do so? WackyWikiWoo (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they've been pinged by Serial Number 54129 already, just post here that you'd like the nomination closed. It's not a bureaucratic process. As two editors have also posted to say that the article isn't ready for FAC at present, it's likely that this would also prompt a closure per the first para of the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by default: the main contributor(s) is/are still active and the nom has played only a minor part (6.5%) in the article's creation to date. Also note MOS:LEAD issues. ——SerialNumber54129 10:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2019 [7].

Saving Light edit

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 04:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 trance song "Saving Light" by English electronic music producers Gareth Emery and Standerwick. I believe that this article has sufficiently met the criteria for becoming a featured article. Although the article is quite short when compared to such articles as Stay High, I can assure you that Saving Light is "long enough" when compared to other short featured articles like MissingNo and can be defended by WP:VSFA. I have addressed all previous issues with the articles in the one good article nomination and the two featured article nominations. 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, first featured article review, and second featured article nomination, it was almost completely rewritten several times 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 currently has 28 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. I have compiled a list of every reference source used in the article in my sandbox, listing why every site used is all good for use for a featured article, citing the website's staff, editorial team and publishing oversight.
  3. Stable. The article had received only a few edits since it's second article nomination, as there is really nothing more to add or fix. My last edit (as of writing this) was on the 25th of April, before which were a minor edit done on the 11th of March. There have only been 7 edits since the start of the year.
  4. Appropriate length. The article is of adequate length, being around 25,900 bytes in size and having 1,250 words (according to XTools). The article is not too long, containing only how much the article should have without it dragging on.

This article was previously nominated to become a good article, during which it was peer reviewed and passed the GA nomination. For your information, the article was categorised as a B-class after it's peer review. It was later nominated for the status for featured article twice, though it failed both nominations. The first FA nomination failed due to the lack of people commenting and supporting/opposing it. The second FA nomination had much more interaction with other people, with three supports and one opposed. Although the three supports were short, there was significantly more commentary in it's talk page. The oppose was based on the articles previous "critical reception" part, which wasn't very good and was later replaced by a substantially better part and is good enough for a FA. The current article has pretty much been 'finale', in which it is pretty much perfect and does not need any further editing due to the number of edits done during its peer review, GAN and both FANs. The article only has one fair use image, being the cover art for the original song and its use in the article is covered appropriately in the images file page. Micro (Talk) 04:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Oppose

I see this went through a PR in 2018: I think it best if it went back through another one with 'non-dance music' people asked to help I the process. There are too many industry terms used without explanation or clarification, erratic naming and some more links needed (just for example)

Lead/IB
  • You have "Ian Standerwick" in the IB and "Standerwick" (on his first mention) in the lead
  • "Standerwick" is his stage name, while Ian Standerwick is his real name. Although confusing because Gareth Emery uses his real name as his stage name, I did this as other articles, like Habits, did this same thing.
  • "released 22 February 2017": -> "released on 22 February 2017"
  • Fixed.
Background
  • "Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery": who? And why no for Emery link this time?
  • Not totally sure what you mean by this, but looking at the thing about the writers below, I added in "electronic music producers". If there is something better to place, let me know.
  • Done.
  • " they gave to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra": who? You have Roxanne Emery linked in the IB, so why not here, and "Karra" appears to have a surname in the IB that isn't shown in the text.
  • added in "songwriters" to text.

Karra is her stage name, which for the same reasoning as Standerwick, I have left.

  • Done.
  • "The song debuted": new para, use the name, so ""Saving Light" debuted", then the second sentence becomes "The song was featured"
  • Done.
  • I have put in links to these two things, though I'm not a fan as it seems like over-linking.

That's as far as I got before thinking this was an oppose. It really needs a good peer review (from 'non-dance music' people, so I suggest you withdraw for now, have it reviewed and make sure it has a good polish before it comes back. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchroCat Thanks for the suggestions. I am not really on board to withdrawing to these kind of things and instead prefer to just do a "fix it on the way" kind of method. This way is pretty much quicker and easier than withdrawing and then waiting a month or three for A non-EDM person who is very good at peer reviewing to actually have a good look at my article. Hopefully you see what I mean and could go in further with suggestions/fixes (there weren't too many fixes with EDM people, likely not many more with a non-EDM person, like you I presume.) Micro (Talk) 23:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'a "fix it on the way" kind of method' isn't the way FAC is supposed to work. Things that come here should be almost ready for Featured status, not leaving the heavy editing work for reviewers to do. "quicker and easier" has no place here: if you want this article to be featured, you have to do the work for it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SchroCat Yea, I guess. Before this, I believed that the article was pretty much all good as most issues were fixed in the first and second featured article nominations, so I pretty much thought "yea, maybe like a few things need fixing". Main problem was that the only people who reviewed it were all EDM guys (I think?), didn't think about the general Wikipedia big boys who don't listen to electronic music. It's just 100x easier for me if instead recommending me to withdraw and request a peer review (which is a good idea, but painfully long process), instead someone, like you, could pretty much list every problem and query they have with the article. Shouldn't be too much, it did go through a peer review, a GAN, two FANs and a copy-edit. Plus most problems people had with it previously were fixed. Probably. Also, I am going to take your advice and withdraw. Don't know how to actually do that though. Once that is done, I'll submit it for another peer review, which is linked here if you want to see it. Micro (Talk) 07:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good. Ping me when it comes back to FAC and I'll have another look then. To withdraw, you just have to send the batsignal up to the @FAC coordinators: . Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2019 [8].

Eddie Gerard edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An early ice hockey player and another in my long-term series to get the inaugural Hockey Hall of Fame class to FA, Gerard played 10 years in the 1910s and 1920s, retired due to health reasons, and coached for a few more years before again retiring due to health, dying early from the same ailment. A strong smart defender, he was well-known during his time but is largely unknown today, though he is the answer to an obscure piece of hockey trivia (first player to win the Stanley Cup four years in a row). Kaiser matias (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added alt-text.
  • File:Ottawa_Senators,_1914-1915.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to do some looking, but it's copyright is expired according to Library and Archives Canada, shouldn't that be enough to make it useable? Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: In the bibliography, the link to "Canada's Sports Hall of Fame" is returning "page not found" error. Other source links are all working
  • Formats
  • "Canadian Press (April 2, 1923) is listed as a source but I can find no citations to it.
  • Likewise, "Hockey Hall of Fame: (Eddie Gerard Stats) is listed but not cited as far as I can see.
  • I suggest, for consistency with Podniaks, that the Shea and Wilson publisher is recorded as "Fenn Publishing"

Subject to the above, I believe that in terms of presentation, quality and reliability the sources meet the required FA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking those over, they've all been addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Lead
  • "he quit the sport": I'm not sure "quit" is the best word to use. "retired from" seems a bit premature, but "Left", perhaps?
  • "Well-renown during his hockey-playing career": This may be an oddity of Canadian English, but "Well-renowned" would be more natural to me.
Personal
  • "George Washington, who was born on the same day": I know what you mean, but Washington wasn't born in 1890.
  • "He was married" Who? You've listed Joliat and the four brothers in the previous sentence so it's unclear you mean Gerard.
  • "was chief engineering clerk for the survey": the last three words are superfluous
  • Any idea what the "throat ailment" was? (I presume not, as you've not stated it, but I have to ask!)
  • It's a bit odd to read about his retirements and death before we've started on his career
Outside of hockey
  • "Outside of hockey": this may well be an Engvar thing, but my British eye winces on the construction, which I would expect to see as "Outside hockey". If this is a usual CanEng thing, please ignore me.
  • "Gerard was regarded": by who? As you've given a quoted opinion, it's best to identify "Canada's Sports Hall of Fame regards Gerard as..., etc". You should also put a citation straight after the quote as we don't know which if the two at the sentence end provides it
  • That's a long first sentence – it could stand being split after "youth".
  • I'm not really concerned about it, but someone will pick up on citations being in order [7][1] should be the other way round (and worth checking the rest too)
  • Two "also"s in two sentences give the appearance that these are afterthoughts ("oh, and another thing...") Certainly the first one isn't needed
Early hockey

I haven't reviewed this section, but "C$$1,000" caught my eye

  • Oppose. I've not given this a thorough going over yet, but a quick read of the first couple of sections gives me cause for concern on the prose and whether it has been proof-read thoroughly enough. Things like "C$$1,000" suggest that this may not have been checked enough. I see this hasn't been through a Peer Review, and I suggest withdrawing, taking it through PR and then bringing it back when the prose is a bit more polished. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look. Have to say I'm a little embarrassed now, and honestly thought I had it looked over at WP:GOCE, though that would have been a different article. Normally I'd be bold and say I would go through it and clean up while the FAC is ongoing, but that is not going to work right now, so I'll ask to Withdraw it. I'll put in some work and come back with it cleaner and properly ready. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when it comes back and I'll happily review again - he looks an interesting guy. Sending up the batsignal to the @FAC coordinators: to highlight the withdrawal. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 April 2019 [9].

Setirostris edit

Nominator(s): cygnis insignis 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many hands involved and I did my best to alert them. Credit to the bat task group or mammal project, wikipedia? I've just done a bit of this and that, checking over what I found and am guessing it is close to ready. cygnis insignis 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • opinions seem to vary, I modified the captions and hope that is okay with whoever added them. cygnis insignis 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, however, the images need some sort of verification or removal. I'm happy with a link to commons if no one chases it up, I ought to have asked about getting that done beforehand. cygnis insignis 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk edit

  • Will have a look soon, but first thought, why is the title not the common name, as in most other articles about living bats? Other preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is at the common name, but moved to the genus from the binomen. Churchill, the bat expert, says they don't have common names because they are not commonly known :( There is only one source that attempted to formalise vernacular, and this has been largely ignored as workers and enthusiasts actually began serious research. Let's not beat around the bush: I know what you are getting at, and you know the position I have adopted, the taxon's name is the default, but isolating a name that is not going to cause a reaction amongst page title enthusiasts is nigh impossible. Your best bet at page hits is "Mormopterus sp. 6.". Setirostris eleryi is the common name, truthfully, and it is almost as pretty as the animal and crucial to understanding these creatures. Beyond that, if it is something I agreed to in the last review then go ahead and do it, surely easier than noting it here? cygnis insignis 21:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, common name, as in vernacular name. I see the IUCN uses "Hairy-nosed Freetail-bat".[10] I am not a page title Nazi myself, just wondering why this one sticks out, and what standards we should follow. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because I moved it there is the short answer, what I say would apply to nearly all bats in Australia and any other article on a mammal species that is elevating a name someone made up to remind them of 'Home' in mother England before explaining to authorities how to eradicate them from existence … just some context for you. Hope you enjoy article. cygnis insignis 21:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It goes against the naming standards used on Wikipedia, though, and consistency isn't exactly a bad thing. And others below seem to agree. Another issue seems to be that there is disagreement even to which genus this belongs to (IUCN uses Mormopterus), and this issue would also be circumvented if you simply use the common name. In any case, I'm waiting for answers on the other issues I brought up (more to come as I read along, once the others are fixed). FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the 'common name'? I regard this as an open and collaborative exercise, the article is open to edits and and moves, however, my personal interest in waning after doing what I can to to contribute and present the sum of information regarding this population. What are the rules here, do I withdraw the nomination until the big letters at the top satisfy some cultural bigotry? cygnis insignis 14:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply a matter of consistency across articles. And, as I mentioned, it will circumvent the issue of there apparently being disagreement as to what genus it belongs to, which makes the current title less neutral. No need to withdraw anything (I have little doubts as to the qualities of the article's information itself), but when three separate reviewers make a suggestion, it might be a good idea to take it into consideration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a good deal of duplinks, I think I linked this script to help once:[11]
  • A copy-editor added some duplinks,acknowledging that they were that. but thought it helpful as they read through for the third or fourth time. Shall I ping them? cygnis insignis 15:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could probably split the intro into three paragraphs.
  • Any reason why this doesn't begin with taxonomy, as practically all other mammal articles?
  • The images should probably have their borders removed.
  • Single sentence sections are discouraged, but perhaps there was no good way around here.

Sources review edit

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Format issues
  • Refs 7 and 8 "Csiro publishing" versus Ref 16 "CSIRO publishing"
Altered to CSIRO, don't recall it changing to lower case although that is the name.
  • Ref 20: Publisher (NSW Government: Office of Environment & Heritage) should not be in italics
Altered to publisher=
  • Security issue: I am getting a warning message from the link in Ref 12: "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead", followed by: "Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to ausbats.org.au. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details". Are you getting the same message?
That's unfortunate, it is an unpublished report that was a key source in evaluations, cited by the state and IUCN,. I will try to work around it, see if it can be wheedled out.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required FAC standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Brianboulton for doing a source check, crucial to get this right, I will address this over the next day or two. cygnis insignis 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One item pending, thanks again. cygnis insignis 10:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment from Mattximus edit

  • Quick comment, looking around it appears to be called the Hairy-nosed Freetail Bat [12]. Is there a reason this name is not included in the opening sentence, or even the title of the article? Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably okay to call the species that, if you wish, but meaningless without an 'available name' that refers to an accepted description of the article's scope. op cit L., et al cygnis insignis 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note and agree with the comment from Mattximus above
  • you have many duplicate links, consider using this scrip
  • In the lead, why go for the over-technical "molossid" and "microchiropterans" rather than the more transparent "free-tail" and "microbat" they in any case redirect to?
  • The presence of stout bristles on the thin muzzle and face of S. eleryi distinguishes them from similar genus Ozimops— "distinguishes it" unless you mean the bristles!
  • was regarded as tiny when compared to species of Mormopterus, the genus of smaller bats in which they were variously placed. this means it's tiny compared to smaller bats, which makes no sense, I assume you mean "genus of small bats"
  • Link dorsal, ventral, glans penis
  • Australian Chiroptera— how does this differ from Australian bats?
  • cattle pastoralist lease (station) — just "cattle station" with its link rather than the obscure term which I guess isn't used in everyday conversation
  • [2][11][4][10][12][13]— six refs for one sentence??
  • 3 to 4 metres (9.8 to 13.1 feet) — conversion has more sig figs than the original, should be "3 to 4 metres (10 to 13 feet)"
Otherwise looking good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

A few quick comments; I didn't read all the way through.

  • I'm surprised there's no link to bat and/or free-tailed bat in the first sentence.
  • "Earlier common names" Earlier than what?
  • Why the 'Single quotes' in the lead? And elsewhere?
  • Does the second half of the first paragraph need to be there? It feels rather specific.
  • "Mormopterus sp. 6" is not a common name - surely?

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there are a few complications, one is a heavily cited ref that is now inaccessible. I'll unpick it it all one day, but prefer to invest in building on C/B content than fiddle with FA articles; I had hoped to learn something I didn't know about editing. cygnis insignis 11:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2019 [13].

National Front (UK) edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the foremost fascist parties in British history, one which was at its heyday in the 1970s. Given the current far-right resurgence across many Western countries, this article is particularly topical. It became a GA in June 2018 and then went through an unsuccessful FAC that ended in October. The main concern of reviewers at that time was the length. Since then, I have worked to make substantial cut-backs to the prose to get the overall length down, and I now hope that it might have greater luck in becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg needs a stronger FUR, as does File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Verifiability: A sample of spotchecks revealed no issues of verifiability or close paraphrasing
  • Quality and reliability: The main sources are the same as those for the previous archived FAC, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
  • Formatting: There are no evident issues with formatting
  • External links: All links to sources are working. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

We're coming up on a month without any prose review or support for promotion. This will have to be archived in the next week if we don't see some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping some of the editors who commented on the article when it was at FAC last time to see if they have an further thoughts and/or a desire to support the nomination this time around: @Wehwalt:; @Vanamonde93:; @Tony1:; @Carabinieri:; @Casliber:. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN 54129 edit

Placeholder; on this 15/16 April. Just got to dig out my diary from the battle of Waterloo  :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The ex-LEL faction were unhappy"—was unhappy?
  • You mention the midlands a few times but don't link; suggest linking EM and WM in the Voter Base section. And "midlands" in the "Leadership and structure" section should (I think) be capitalised. And that also could be linked to Midlands generally.
  • "passers by"—hyphenate.
  • Various mentions of upper/lower middle class esp. in "Profile" section; I think strictly this should be triple hyphenated as a compound adjective. I also recognise that it's pernickity n the extreme and probably just amount to stylistic prefence, so up to you. Although if only going with one hyphen, surely it's nested as "(upper middle) class"?
  • "the main issue that led members to joining the Front"—to join the Front?
  • "instead thinking of themselves as 'patriots'"— instead of thinking of themselves as "patriots"? And to address the duplicated "of", perhaps "instead of seeing themselves as.."?
  • "vote for the Front, and that the party"—not sure if the comma's necessary?
  • "the NF's actual voter base might not have significantly increase between 1974 and 1977"—increased.
    It's clearly testament to the thorough reviews previously garnered that with a near-forensic reading, in an article this size, I could only raise the issues above. And on the matter of size, although WP:LENGTH is an important guideline, comprehensiveness is equally so. And a subject such as this goes beyond the confines of just a political group; in the context of their effect on contemporary politics and society, and the resonance it continued to have even after its collapse requires careful—and full—coverage, which it's achieved here without any relapse of WP:SUMMARY. ——SerialNumber54129 11:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit

The article is quite long for a minor party, but offers an informative and interesting read. I'm bemused that fascism still has followers after the global war against the Nazis. These are of triviality, but do you consider removing non-wiki links in the last section (there are quite a few)? Also, I would like to see wiki links to publishers in the sources (Routledge, OUP, and so on). I'm quite surprised that this hasn't got much attention yet. Good luck with the article and all the best, HĐ (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HĐ. By "non-wiki links" do you mean the red links? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I was referring to :) HĐ (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde edit

I think I listed most of my suggestions at the first FAC, but I think you haven't gotten to all of them yet; my major suggestion was about length, which has been reduced about 10% since the last time, but a little bit more couldn't hurt; see my previous comments for specific length-related suggestions. I'd be happy to support once those concerns have been taken care of. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my apologies Vanamonde. I thought I'd responded to all of your comments on the last FAC. I'll go back and take a look. Thanks for you message. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support by Cas Liber edit

I've read this through a few times. Hadn't been aware of second nom until pinged as been a bit busy. Overall it's an engaging read and comprehensive. I agree that it's significantly larger than the usual upper size limit, but I can't see what should be chopped out or moved to a daughter article. Hence consider this a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I will keep an eye on this nomination Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia edit

I put a request for quote on talk two days ago, that has so far been ignored. There are a number of instances in the article where the Front "refused" x, y or z; I would like to see wording from the sources that these were active refusals as opposed to ... they didn't respond etc.

Also, this article is quite heavily WP:OVERLINKed; whenever one encounters things like God and World War II linked, there are problems, and that problem is evidenced by repeated linking of terms like feminism.

Based on excessive length, Oppose; I can see no reason not to create sub-articles around the clearly defined areas of the Table of Contents that lend themselves to separate articles. I suggest retiring the FAC, creating two articles, and re-submitting those.

  • Apologies for the delay in responding to your Talk Page message; it's best to ping me to ensure that my attenton is grabbed. I saw the message earlier and have now responded. Unfortunately I do not have direct access to those two sources at present (I use books from the library quite a bit) so I can't provide a direct quotation for you at the moment. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paragraph begins with a reference to something prior ...
    This is a conspiracy theory,[196] part of a longstanding conspiracist tradition ...
  • The article is heavily quoted rather than rephrasing in author's own words.
  • When the subject matter is particularly controversial (as it is here) I have generally found it better to quote directly in many places rather than paraphrasing things, so as to make it clear to the reader that these statements are the opinions of experts rather than the views of myself or other Wikipedia editors. That being said, I didn't think that the use of direct quoting was any heavier here than in most other articles, at least those on similar political topics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone accessed and reviewed the hard-print sources? Considering ...
  • Sourcing issue, sample:
    The party ... supporting the reintroduction of Section 28 and the recriminalisation of same-sex sexual activity. (Pink News)
    Sourcing party platform to Pink News, which has a pony in that race (not independent, unbiased)? Please have a look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; a Featured Article should not need to rely on an opinionated source for a basic of the party platform.
  • I'd agree that Pink News is not independent or unbiased, particularly when it comes to coverage of LGBT issues, however no media source is independent or unbiased, so I'm unsure that it is fair to single it out for criticism. That being said, I have no firm opposition to that sentence being removed from the article should there be a clear consensus of editors that it is not a reliable source in this particular context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to delete text from an article while it is at FAC, so suggest you do the honors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could keep going, but some of these samples are not particularly surprising here; I suggest re-working the article to deal with length, sourcing, over-quoting, and excessive linking, and I'd like to see a third-party verify some of the sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endeavour to split off some of the sections into sub-articles. Hopefully that should help contribute to getting the word count down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've presently split off three of the sections into sub-articles and undertaken some heavy pruning too. I'll don the same for the other sections in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued oppose. The article is still 13,000 words which is still too long, the excess quoting can be dealt with via rephrasing and attribution (it is not all tricky as mentioned above). And it is troubling that I cannot get a quote to back up text in the article. Considering that I have encountered POV in some of the main editor's past work, asking for one small quote to verify one small piece of text should not be too much to ask. Could you please provide? It will surely be much more difficult for me to obtain those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try and get you those quotes when I can. As I said at the Talk Page, I don't have the books to hand and it may take me a while to get access to copies again. Nevertheless, it's not unreasonable for you to ask to see them and I will do my best to get them to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brianboulton edit

At last I've managed to read this article, having been somewhat hampered and put off by its length – I fear others may be similiarly deterred, and thus have some sympathy with Sandy's suggestion that the article be split. In general, with that reservation, I found the article unstinting in its detail and coverage, and written with an admirable clarity. I have a few issues:

  • In the section "Tyndall's leadership: 1972–1982" you refer to Kingsley Read attaining the chairmanship and Tyndall's demotion to vice-chairman. Can you give a date for this, presumably some time in 1974? Read held the chairmanship until December 1975, which rather contradicts the assertion in the adjoining image caption that Tyndall led the party from 1972 to 1980.
  • I don't have access to all of the sources cited at this juncture right now, but will look into it. As for the image caption, there is a slight problem with it (as you note), which I shall now rectify. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the final paragraph of the "Sub-groups and propaganda output" there is some repetition of content: "RAC was revived with Skrewdriver as its flagship band; they had been having difficulty finding venues willing to host them..." followed a couple of lines later by "The RAC had difficulty finding venues willing to stage its concerts..."
  • There's a repetition of theme, certainly, but the two sentences are saying slightly different things. The first is saying that the band, Screwdriver, were having trouble finding venues, and the second that the RAC musical organisation was having difficulty finding venues for its gigs (which included many bands, Screwdriver among them). I don't mind removing the second mention (or the first), but we would lose a bit of information in doing so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the first appearance of this terminology as part of my general copy edit of this section, in response to SandyGeorgia's suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Finances" section: "Branches also held jumble sales, totes, and social events..." Forgive my ignorance, but what are "totes"?
  • This has also been removed as part of my recent cut down on prose length. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Membership" section there are no numbers given later than 1989. Is it not possible to include more up to date membership statistics?
  • I'm not aware of the group's membership being discussed, at least in academic sources, after that point. Indeed, given that the party has become particularly marginal since the 1980s, there is virtually no academic discussions of the party as it has existed since that point more broadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Explanations" section there is unintended ambiguity in the sentence that begins "Husbands instead believed..." I know this is referring to the sociologist Christopher T. Husbands, but it's a little confusing. I suggest that here you break the WP surnames convention and use his forename again.
  • Agreed and added! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in hearing Midnightblueowl's response to Sandy's suggestion on splitting. One possible argument against splitting is that it necessarily involves some repetition of linking material in both articles, meaning that the total wordcount to be read will be more than the current 14,300, rather than less. An alternative approach might be to thin out some of the less important detail from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Brian. I appreciate you taking the time to read the article. I'm reluctant to start cutting it down and splitting it up, because I fear that it will be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. However, your point that the size likely puts off readers is well taken. If it the case that the article will only pass the FAC (either this time around or on a third nomination) if it is cut down even further, then obviously that is what I will do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Given the depth and breadth of comments and issues raised, and lack of substantial support for promotion since my last check-in, I think it's best to archive this. @Midnightblueowl: Please negotiate the relevant issues outside of the FAC process and then re-nominate when appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll probably re-nominate in two weeks time. There aren't many things that need to be changed at this article. It shouldn't take long. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2019 [14].

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making a second attempt to get this article promoted to FA standard, following a failed attempt last year. It is currently an A-Class article, having previously passed its GA review and being worked on by the Guild of Copyeditors. The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that fought in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over one third of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Why are File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png believed to be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the copyright section on the memorial website "Unless otherwise specified, anything published, hosted, appearing or accessible on this website (including without limitation information, data, text, images, databases, code, software, logos, publications, sound recordings, or videos) is material in which intellectual property is owned by or licensed to the Memorial." The actual photo article does not provide any additional information in regards to copyright, other than it is now in the public domain due to the copyright expired. If there is a more appropriate permission is required, please advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would read the situation as there is an "otherwise specified" in this case, which is that the images are PD. My question is around why they're PD, and thus whether the current tagging is correct. The context suggests that the photographer is likely non-Australian - perhaps British? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be the issue, we do not have any further information about the photo or who took it. Personally, I believe it was probably an Japanese photographer. As far as I can tell, the photo does not appear on the IWM nor have I been able to find any information on who took it or who had prior copyright status.
    All we know, so it would seem, is that the AWM do not otherwise specify any information on the photo, implying - per their own blurb - that they either own or have previously licensed the photo, which they have now deemed to be in the public domain. The Aus Crown Copyright tag states that it would PD due to being created prior to 1969, we know this was created in Jan 1942. With that said, I do not know what would be a more correct PD tag for the photo.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest reaching out to AWM to see if they might have more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • I did the sources review for the earlier FAC and gave a clean bill of health. The same is true now; the sources are in my view of the appropriate quality and reliability and are presented immaculately.
  • Spotchecks: I carried out a small sample of spotchecks from the very limited material available online. Ref 20: Can't find anything relevant in the cited London Gazette page. Other instances all check out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks for the spot checks and comment. In regards to ref 20, at the very bottom on the right hand side it discusses Dalby: "The undermentioned appts. are made: — Maj.-Gen. T. G. Dalby, C.B., D.S.O., ret. pay, to be Comdr. (temp.). 28th Aug. 1939" Confirming that he was retired and appointment commander. The Joslen reference specifically references him as commander, the Gazette was just to bring up the point of him being brought out of retirement (apparently a common thing for the 2nd Line Div commanders).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM edit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR last year, and have looked over the changes since then. It is in great shape, I have the following comments:

  • in the lead, suggest "Following the Japanese beachhead being established" → "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, when you say it wasn't reformed, this almost begs the question of how it would be reformed given it had been captured. Perhaps "regenerated in the United Kingdom"?
    I have went with reconstituted, but if you feel that regenerated works better I will switch it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Even better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the lead, suggest internment instead of confinement
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • annexe is the noun form, not the verb
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • first line → first-line 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division, as it is a compound adjective in this case
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The Imperial War Museums commentobserve"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "and eight 4.5-inch howitzers of similar vintage"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • for "anti-tank guns" link Anti-tank warfare
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a possible link for Second BEF?
    No such article. I could thrown together a note to provide some additional context and maybe an OOB?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A Note would be good, but I don't think a OOB is necessary. I'd never heard of a Second BEF before, and it sort of begs the question given there is no article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have gotten carried away a little, but there is now a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "administration forces" → "logistical troops"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest " I/5th Battalion of the Japanese Imperial Guards Division" as it reads a bit funny at present
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link line of communication
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second (including the 2CR and 5RNR) is probably unnecessary
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "The 18th Ddivision was ordered to remain"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • my comment about reforming applies here too
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Notes column of the GOC table would benefit from being centred, and the italics dropped
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for the review and comments. I believe I have addressed most of the points you have raised, and I have left a few comments above in reply to a couple of points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild edit

Lead edit
  • "In March 1939 following the re-emergence of Germany" This reads very oddly. Something a little more encyclopedic may work better. It may be easiest to delete "the re-emergence of Germany, and".
  • "redeployment to the North West" is not a "duty".
  • "the planned upcoming offensive code-named Operation Crusader". Optional: to my eye either "planned" or "upcoming" is redundant.
  • "After the division arrived in Nova Scotia, they switched to". "they" -> 'it'.
  • "(via simultaneous attacks on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the British colony of Malaya)" I would recommend deleting this; it strongly suggests that these were the only aggressive actions by which Japan entered the war.
  • "into Johore" -> 'to Johore'?
  • "the short Battle of Singapore" Is eight days "short"? This is not, so far as I can see, repeated in the main article. Could you either repeat it in the main body and cite it or delete "short".
  • "The rest of the division arrived shortly after" It states above that most of the division had gone to India and that only 53 Brigade was sent to Singapore. How and/or why did the rest of the division come to join it, over 2,000 miles from India?
  • "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead". "the" -> 'a'.
  • "regrouped for the final stand" "the" -> 'a'.
  • "The division was not reconstituted in the United Kingdom". Would this be a more accurate statement if "in the United Kingdom" were deleted?
  • Importantly, to my eye the lead is too long and padded with trivia. Eg, the nationality of the ships taking them to the Middle East/Singapore. It would benefit, IMO, from losing 30-40% of the lead.
  • Infobox. Who is Mike Chappell?
  • Note a: "for information on how division sizes changed over the war" "over" -> 'during'.

More to follow. Frankly, on the basis of the lead, this does not have the feel of a FA-ready article. I am surprised to see that it is A class. Perhaps it gets better as it continues.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having reread the whole article I am of the opinion that it is a long way from 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". And that the flaws are too numerous for it to be reasonably expected that FAC reviewers flag them up individually. The quality varies across the sections, but overall runs at around one issue per sentence. I would suggest that this goes to GOCE with a request that it be given the full FA treatment. I am quite prepared to be told by a coordinator that I am being over-zealous in my interpretation of 1a. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, this week, I will not have the time to address tour comments regarding the led.
As for the comment regarding the GOCE, well frankly I am confused. You have argued that their pass of this article essentially failed. There are different standards of requests? A 2nd pass will result in promotion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EnigmaMcmxc. My GOCE comment was based on their copy edit being nearly 18 months ago, but reviewing the history I can see that it hasn't changed a lot since then. I have faith in GOCE, I do a fair bit of work there myself. TFT is an excellent copy editor. But any copy edit is just one editor doing what they feel is necessary at that particular point in time. (I follow the articles I copy edit for GOCE through any subsequent reviews and frequently smack my forehead as reviewers pick up things that I have missed.)
To avoid confusion, I will point out that I skimmed the article. Then reviewed the lead in detail and commented above. Then read the rest of the article in detail and decided that it did not meet 1a and needed so much work in that respect that I couldn't reasonably be expected to flag it all up as a reviewer. Having gone through it again in even more detail (just) I am still of this opinion. I can see now how it can be considered up to the ACR "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear" even if I disagree. I do not feel it is up to FAC 1a. (Although, obviously, if there is a consensus that it is that settles the matter.) Ie, addressing all of the issues I picked up in the lead will not move my oppose to support. To be clearer, in all other respects the article is at, or near enough to at, the FA criteria; it is only 1a which I am having an issue with. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Given the substantial commentary on work needed at this time, I think it's best to archive this to allow the nominator time to hammer out the issues outside of the FAC process. It may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period and once issues are addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2019 [15].

Máscara Dorada edit

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestler who has worked all over the world and is currently for the biggest wrestling company in the world. The article has been a Good Article for a while and I have been keeping up with improvements etc. over the years and I believe it is of Feature Article quality. I look forward to everyone's feedback and address any concerns that may be raised.` MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ImmortalWizard edit

IMO, the best wrestling BLP in Wikipedia. He is my third favorite current Mexican star in WWE after Mysterio and Andrade. I will be giving my comments for the next few days. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a shame we don't have pages for wrestling top ropes or middle ropes. Readers could get confused in the section Wrestling style and persona. Also, in WWE I heard commentators calling him the "king of the ropes", I don't have any sources for that but probably that's worth mentioning?
  • I couldn't find that his name translates to "Golden Mask" in the source.
  • Not all the Japanese and Spanish source titles are translated. It would be beneficially to recruit native editors to do the work.
  • I will look for a source for the nickname. there isn't a need for a source to do simple Spanish to English translations IMO. And I thoght I had translated all, but I must have lost track of my checklist. They are all translated now. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I would say there are issues with WP:PROSELINE, which could be prevented.
  • Can you provide a couple of examples that highlights this issue please? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here:
Examples
  • On January 22, 2011, Dorada lost the CMLL World Welterweight Championship to Ryusuke Taguchi at Fantastica Mania 2011, a CMLL and New Japan Pro Wrestling co–promoted event in Tokyo, Japan.[23] On February 25, 2011, Máscara Dorada and Atlantis defeated Blue Panther and Dragón Rojo Jr. in the finals to win the Torneo Nacional de Parejas Increibles for the second year in a row.[24] On April 7 Dorada vacated the CMLL World Super Lightweight Championship, stating that he was moving up to the middleweight division.[25] After Dorada returned from Japan with the CMLL World Welterweight Championship, La Generación Dorada lost the CMLL World Trios Championship to Los Hijos del Averno (Averno, Ephesto and Mephisto) on July 15, 2011.[26] On November 11, 2012, Dorada lost the CMLL World Welterweight Championship to Pólvora during CMLL's Sunday night event in Arena Mexico.[27]
  • On June 2, 2013, Dorada defeated Negro Casas to win the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship for the first time.[28] On June 16, Dorada and his new Los Estetas del Aire ("Air Aesthetes") stable, formed with Místico and Valiente, won the CMLL World Trios Championship.[29] On November 19, Dorada lost the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship to Volador Jr.[30] On March 28, 2014, Los Estetas del Aire also lost the CMLL World Trios Championship.[31]
  • On January 2, 2015, Dorada defeated Negro Casas in the finals of a tournament to win the CMLL World Welterweight Championship for the third time.[32] Later in the month, through CMLL's relationship with NJPW, Dorada signed a one-year contract with NJPW, leaving his Mexican home promotion.[33] He returned to CMLL and had his first match in Mexico for over a year on February 1, 2016. On May 3, 2016 his fourth reign as the CMLL World Welterweight Champion was ended as Mephisto defeated him for the championship.[34] On November 11, 2016, Dorada wrestled his last match for CMLL, teaming with Atlantis and Diamante Azul to defeat Bárbaro Cavernario, El Felino and Negro Casas.[35]
  • On June 13, 2016, WWE announced Dorada, under the ring name "Gran Metalik", as a participant in the upcoming Cruiserweight Classic tournament.[82] In a subsequent interview, he revealed that he was only working the Cruiserweight Classic matches with WWE and was still full-time with CMLL beyond that. He credited Finn Bálor, who worked as Prince Devitt in NJPW, as being the reason he was invited to the tournament. He wanted to use "Metalik" as his ring name but WWE decided to go with "Gran Metalik" instead.[83] The tournament began on June 23 with Metalik defeating Alejandro Saez in the first round match.[84] On July 14, Metalik defeated Tajiri in the second round match.[85] The following day, it was reported that Metalik had signed with WWE.[86] On August 26, Metalik defeated Akira Tozawa to advance at the semifinals.[87] On September 14, Metalik defeated Zack Sabre Jr. to advance to the finals.[88] The same night, he was defeated in the finals by T.J. Perkins.[88] Following the CWC tournament Gran Metalik began working in WWE's Cruiserweight division, appearing on both the Raw and 205 Live shows.[89] On September 19, Metalik worked his first match on the main roster, competing in a fatal four-way match, also involving The Brian Kendrick, Cedric Alexander and Rich Swann, to determine the number one contender for the WWE Cruiserweight Championship at Clash of Champions, which Kendrick won.[90]
Keep in mind there are many more like this. This is a regular problem I see in PW pages, I thought it would best comment this on one of the best articles. I recommend avoiding too many specific dates, only the month will be fine in most case, unless to indicate the beginning of a new year or an important date. Phrases like, "the following week/month/year" would be helpful to create better prose. Otherwise, I am quite impressed the way in which this differentiates the fictional world of wrestling (in universe) from real world perspective. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input, I'll go over the examples and other sentences to make sure I've reduced the prose line issue, which I am sure will lead to a much better article. (and yes agreed on PW in general). MPJ-DK (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The "Máscara Dorada" ring character was the first instance of a regular luchador being given a character based on a Mini-Estrella as he was introduced after CMLL introduced Mascarita Dorada in 2007." - I couldn't get it. Probably rephrase?
  • In Lucha Libre the Minis are usually named after the regular sized ones Octagon -> Octagoncito, La Parka -> La Parkita, Mascara Sagrada -> Mascarita Sagrada. This was the first time it went the other way round Mascarita Dorada -> Mascara Dorada. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after training with Gran Cochisse and El Satánico." source? I couldn't find this at ref 7. I cannot read ref 1 though. it is sourced in infobox, but it's best to include in body.
  • Again, I cannot read ref 1, but there is no mention of Plata II in ref 7. In ref 8 in the match cards, it says "Plata" which could possibly be the original one.
  • "The title and hair wins indicated that CMLL had plans to elevate Metalik up their ranks." - how do we know?
  • "The gimmick and the wrestler proved so successful, that in the fall of 2008, CMLL announced that they were creating a "Large" version of Mascarita Dorada. Traditionally the minis were often patterned after existing Luchadors, but this time the mini was created before the "Regular"." - citation needed.
  • "that Poder Mexica had been stripped of the Mexican National Trios Championship title" this is first mention of the tag team. Probably wikilink (if page exists) and include the wrestlers of the team.
  • "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. " is it a news outlet of CMLL?
  • No it is the commission in Mexico City that sanctions and licenses all boxing and professional wrestling. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if it is appropriate to link people's official twitter/facebook accounts in external links. At least I haven't seen that in any other BLPs (I am not a fan of this anyways).
  • No clue myself, but there is both a "Facebook" and a "Twitter" template that's used, I personally don't have an opinion on it being in or out. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ImmortalWizard I believe I have either answered all questions or made the appropriate adjustments to the article, including prose line issues beyond the examples you so helpfully provided me with. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems good. I will let you know if I have other issues. Other than some of the citation issues, you have addressed them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 14 and 15 are formatted in Spanish.
  • You mean because it lists the issue as "Número 21543 Año LXII"? That's the indicator on the cover, I left it that way to help identify the issue. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest having short citations for three of the offline sources with different page number citations: (Enciclopedia de las Mascaras 2007), (Madigan 2007), and (Ovaciones 2009).
  • Since each of them is only used twice and Ovaciones and Enciclopedia are different volumes I don't see any improvement in that. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two achievements under CMLL needs citation.
  • Found both in the Andrade article and added them. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Metalik made his debut the 205 Live show, defeating Drew Gulak." grammar
  • "Máscara Dorada kept working mid-card tag team matches throughout the spring of 2008 with general success" probably needs citation? Also the term "mid-card" is not known to everyone
  • "where the Revival claimed to be "Tag team purists" and as such objected to the Lucha House Party was allowed to compete as a "tag team" when there was three of them." I checked the sources but couldn't find this claims.
  • "Over the years he has been given the nickname "El Rey de las Cuerdas" by Mexican commentators and fans, and the English version "The King of the Ropes" after joining WWE" ref 7 doesn't mention this.

I am forfeiting my review. For now, I have weak support. That is mainly because the article isn't fully checked yet. I would very much appreciate if the nominator and other editors leave feedback on my talk page, since this is the second ever FAC comments I have given. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

We're coming up on a month without much support for promotion. This will have to be archived in the next week if we don't see some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening line defines him in Spanish, with English in parens; this is backwards for en.wiki. See example at 2019 Venezuelan Amnesty Law.
  • But he is ONLY actually referred to by the Spanish names, the other is a translation of the name, not what he is called.
  • The opening sentence uses the word "currently"; need I spell it out?
  • I do not know what it means to "perform" on a "brand".
  • This sentence is twisted:
    In WWE he is part of a luchador trio consisting of himself, Lince Dorado, and Kalisto known as the "Lucha House Party".
    I suspect it intends to be:
    In WWE he is part of a wrestling trio known as "Luchas House Party", consisting of himself, Lince Dorado, and Kalisto. And there is no need to slip back in to Spanish with 'luchador'.
  • Redundant: "He has held the CMLL World Welterweight Championship four times in total.
  • We have him making his debut in 2005 twice in the lead. (In an underdeveloped lead.)
  • How can he "abandon a championship" just because he changed his name?
  • He got a new name, mask, ring character - basically pretending that he was not Metalik, so they just ignored the championship for a while.
  • Slipping back into Spanish in the lead, and obligating the reader to click out to know what Mini-estrella is.
    being given a character based on a Mini-Estrella
  • There is no English translation for "Mini-Estrella", well there is, but it's never used in it's English form.
  • Section "Luchas de Apuestas" record has no content.
  • It has a table of his record, no different than an MMA fighter etc. it's just short in his case.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • fuegoenelring.com redirects to something else that gives no indication of reliability ([16])
  • I will check on that, the latter does not seem to havev anything to do with Fuego.
  • luchaworld.com appears to be a blog.
  • What is this? If it's a book, we need more info about how to find it: "Enciclopedia de las Mascaras" [Encyclopedia of Masks]. Metalik (in Spanish). Mexico City, Mexico. October 2007. p. 38. Tomo III.
  • It is a limited series magazine that was published in the late 2000s
  • Why is there a 296 hanging out in this citation? I can find nothing to indicate reliability for this source (nor can I find any indication of text in that source that verifies the text):
  • 296 is the issue number, it's filled in the cite web template and shows up like that. SuperLuchas is a Mexican print magazine that covers all sorts of fighting sports, has an established editorial process and fact-checking/correction history.
  • "Lo Mejor de la Lucha Libre Mexicana 2008" [The best of Mexican professional wrestling 2008]. Súper Luchas (in Spanish). January 6, 2008. 296. Retrieved July 11, 2009.
  • This citation is missing an author (Omar Carrillo):
    "Máscara Dorada tretacampeón, un luchador de oro puro" [Máscara Dorada triple champion, a golden professional wrestler] (in Spanish). Súper Luchas. September 9, 2010. Retrieved September 9, 2010.
    And I don't find where it verifies the text " the first ever in the history of the promotion.[25]"
  • Skipping down:
    and vuvuzela horns with them, using them to celebrate after a victory. They also carried a brightly colored Piñata donkey with them to the
    again, lapsing into Spanish which requires the reader to click out (vuvuzela), and it should be donkey piñata without a cap.
    Is there an English word for the Vuvuzela? I mean it is the name of the article and all.

I have not attempted a comprehensive review: I merely bounced around checking a few sources for copyvio, but there is not enough text drawn from any substantive source to do a copy vio check. This article has significant prose and sourcing issues, and I suggest it should be withdrawn. Perhaps the nominator can colloborate with another editor to bring it closer to standard; the issues I raise are but a small sampling, but indicate that the article needs considerable work before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate your input, once I incorporate the improvements this will be a much stronger article. At this point I voluntarily withdraw this from FAC, to allow reviewers to focus on other articles in better shape. Is there anything I need to do for the withdrawal? MPJ-DK (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [17].

Deactivators edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Deactivators, a game that was once opined by a reviewer as being destined to be a cult classic. A short but simple article by its own right, the game itself has the player control bomb disposal robots to remove bombs from scientific research complexes before they explode. While receiving positive reviews at the time, it was not commercially successful and its developer closed shortly after. And with that I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Both FURs should be expanded, and the second is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded both image FURs and completed the second ones. GamerPro64 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment For the sake of comprehensive coverage, what do you think about including more background on the context in which the game was created? Some questions I'm left with after reading the article:
    • Was this the first/only game developed by Tigress Marketing? If not, what sorts of games had they previously made? What level of success did they achieve?
      • No they made other games like They Stole a Million, which might have been released later. Also read they made a game based on A View to Kill. Its hard to calculate the success they had but the company did close after the release of this game. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was this the first game developed by Bishop/Palmer?
    • What was the climate around gaming on the platforms for which this game was released (the Armstrad CPC 464, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum). Did these systems already have large game catalogues? Was interest in PC gaming on the rise at the time of the development of Deactivators? On the decline?
      • This was during 80s British gaming and the NES was a month old when it came to Europe. I would say the climate was fine at this time, don't think it was affected by the video game crash of 83. Not seeing how this would add to the article. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were puzzle games a popular genre in PC gaming at the time? Are there any examples of very popular PC puzzle games that preceded Deactivators?
    • Is this game notable for any features of gameplay or design that were unusual at the time? I'm interested in the note in the "Reception" section about the game's monochromatic appearance. Maybe that could be touched on earlier in the article?
      • I think the comment of the monochromatic appearance might be in reference to the Commodore 64 version. GamerPro64 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realize some of these could be verging on WP:OFFTOPIC, but just wanted to put a few ideas out there. Colin M (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Aoba47
  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the infobox image and the image in the article, but I will leave that choice up to you.
  • Would it be better to link "action puzzle" rather than just "puzzle" as there is an existing link for it?
  • I am a little confused by this part (The player controls bomb disposal robots, known as Deactivators, who must deactivate bombs placed), because the placement of the dependent clause makes it sound like the "Deactivators" are the ones "who must deactivate bombs placed" when I am assuming you mean the player instead.
  • For this part (deactivate bombs placed throughout five scientific research complexes by terrorists), I think the "by terrorists" part should go directly after "placed".
  • For this part (can be used in the game: Selecting Deactivators), I believe that "selecting" should be in lower-case rather than capitalized.
  • For this part (and was published by Ariolasoft under its Reaktor label), I would use "imprint" rather than "label" to avoid a potential Easter Egg situation since the word "label' can refer to multiple things.
  • I have a question about this part (The graphics received mixed reactions for each console.). A majority of the comments in the paragraph are positive, and I only notice one negative review (i.e. from Andrew Wilton). I am not sure if that is enough to quality as "mixed" as it still seems mostly positive.
  • Since the response to the graphics has a full paragraph in the reception section, I would add something about it to the lead.
  • I get the following error message (The requested URL /files/computer/magazines/retro gamer/Retro_Gamer_Issue_119.pdf was not found on this server.) when I try to access Reference 8. It could be a problem on my end though, but I just wanted to point that out to you. I have not check the other references as I will leave that to whoever does the source review.
    • Found a scan to the magazine through Archive.org. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very interesting read. I am somewhat surprised that this has not attracted more comments from other users. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • I believe I have addressed your comments. GamerPro64 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for addressing everything. I made a small edit, but otherwise everything looks great. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month and hasn't attracted much support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [18].

Hermano Pule edit

Nominator(s): Jollibinay (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Filipino religious leader in the 19th century who established a religious order as a protest against the racially discriminatory practices of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Philippines. Fearing an armed rebellion, the Spanish colonial government violently suppressed the order and had Hermano Pule executed.Jollibinay (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack edit

Very good, interesting article. Only two little quibbles:

  • The cofradía prohibited Spaniards and mestizos from joining without Pule's permission – This is the only hint given in the body of the article that Pule was the leading figure of the cofradía. That he was the leader is mentioned in the lead, but it should be specifically mentioned in the body as well. Was he already leader when it was founded? Which role did he play in founding the cofradia? All this does not become entirely clear.
  • Mount Banahaw, continued – not sure, but I would go without a comma here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jens Lallensack. Thanks for reviewing the article.
  • The cofradía prohibited Spaniards and mestizos from joining without Pule's permission – This is the only hint given in the body of the article that Pule was the leading figure of the cofradía. That he was the leader is mentioned in the lead, but it should be specifically mentioned in the body as well. Was he already leader when it was founded? Which role did he play in founding the cofradia? All this does not become entirely clear.
  • I can only write based on the sources that I've cited. However, please consider the following facts from the article: (1) Pule's letters were important to cofradía members that they had to be read aloud to the memebers. (2) He was the one who communicated with the Church and the State officials when he sought their recognition and authorization for the cofradía. (3) The cofradía had at least two large portraits of Pule stylized as a saint, which indicates that he was revered by them as a "saint". (4) The cofradía members wanted to crown him "King of the Tagalogs". The cofradía had other senior leaders, but it was he who they wanted to be king. (5) The Colonial Government offered amnesty to the members of the cofradía, with the exception of Hermano Pule and a few others. This suggests that the government knew he was a major figure in the movement. (6) The members of the revived cofradía claimed to have witnessed the alleged joint apparition of the Virgin of the Rosary, Hermano Pule, and Octavio Ygnacio "Purgatorio" de San Jorge. This signifies that Pule was an important figure in the cofradía; please also note that Octavio Ygnacio "Purgatorio" de San Jorge only led the cofradía when Pule was absent.
  • Mount Banahaw, continued – not sure, but I would go without a comma here.
  • Done.
--Jollibinay (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 4: Publisher name should not be italicised
  • Ref 8: Returns "page not found"
  • Ref 16: Publisher information appears incomplete
  • Ref 38: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 38: Harvard error - there is no "Palad 2005" in the biblography
  • Ref 40: Returns error message
  • Ref 44: Publisher information missing

Overall, the sources appear to be well chosen, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. A limited spotchecking exercise produced no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for reviewing the references of the article.
  • Ref 4: Publisher name should not be italicised
  • Done.
  • Ref 8: Returns "page not found"
  • Dead URL. Redirected it to its archive URL.
  • Ref 16: Publisher information appears incomplete
  • Tried to complete the publisher information, but can't find DOI.
  • Ref 38: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Done.
  • Ref 38: Harvard error - there is no "Palad 2005" in the biblography
  • It was a typographical error. The correct is "Palad 2001a", which is found in the biblography.
  • Ref 40: Returns error message.
  • Dead URL. Redirected it to its archive URL.
  • Ref 44: Publisher information missing.
  • Added all the publisher information that I can find. The original URL is dead.
Jollibinay (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without much support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2019 [19].

Catalogue of Women edit

Nominator(s):  davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fragmentary Greek epic poem that was politically and socially important during its time of circulation, and which had a lasting influence upon later Greek, Roman and Byzantine literature.  davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only a passing one at the moment, though I'll look in more thoroughly shortly if I can. A swift skim through for spelling brings up a few queries:

  • "descendent/s" is used throughout where I would expect the noun "descendant/s".
  • "enamoured" (passim) looks like English spelling in an article that is otherwise in American spelling, but perhaps this is acceptable to Webster etc.
  • "catalogue" looks rather the same, but is perhaps optional in American spelling.
  • "centered around" Some reviewers (not including me) get very hot under the collar about this construction, insisting that things centre on rather than round. I just mention it, but ignore ad lib.
  • "impius" should surely be "impious"?

More later, I hope, time permitting. Tim riley talk 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much, Tim: descendants, enamoured and impius (thanks ImmortalWizard are corrected. Catalogue is less common in American English, but since Oxford scholars dominated scholarship on this work, I've kept their spelling for the title and for the word.  davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Catalogue" for the title is certainly correct. And using either "catalog" or catalogue" for the common noun would be ok I think. Paul August ☎ 13:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting. I suppose I should with duly straight face object to the WP:EDIT adverb in "Zeus unsurprisingly had first pick from the catalogue of women", but it's far too pleasing a sentence to be tampered with. The family tree is impressive; the prose is very readable; the content is clearly expounded without excessive detail; the article is thoroughly and widely referenced; there are judiciously chosen images throughout. I'm a hopelessly bad classicist, but the article, me judice, meets the FA criteria in all regards. – Tim riley talk 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi Davidiad, there are 13 citation error messages in "Editions and translations", all "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation." I've noticed this before with {{Citation}}. If you read through the template documentation, there must be a way to fix it, or you could use {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}}. There are seven error messages in the "References" section, and a lot in Bibliography. If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you SlimVirgin. I can correct the missing ref links from the references to the bibliography, but I'm not sure what to do about the "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" in Editions and translations and in the Bibliography. Should I have used a different template for these sections? Editions and translations is a reference section of major editions of the work, so there would only be a reference to a work if needed in the body. Bibliography is kind of the same: it's a bibliography, not a list of references. I'll research the different markups for these.  davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Davidiad, I've noticed this problem before with {{Citation}}; it acts as if one had entered ref=harv. The template documentation almost certainly explains how to fix it. Or you can use {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}}, which don't have that problem. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made one edit to show you what I mean. Feel free to revert if it's not what you want. The citations are missing the publisher. I added one but you'll need to add the rest. SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • P.Oxy._XI_1359_fr._2.jpg: no need for the double tagging, the latter would suffice. Same with File:P.Lit.Lond._32.jpg, File:P.Oxy._XI_1358_fr._2.jpg, File:P.Berol._inv._9739_col._iv-v.jpg
  • File:Roubaix_Louis_Billotey.JPG: copyright tag is incorrect, reproduction of a 2D work garners no new copyright and copyright details for the original work are absent
  • File:Bauer_-_Erysichthon_Mnestra.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Seneca.JPG needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Daniel_Heinsius_-_Imagines_philologorum.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack edit

Certainly a great work, and very interesting, I learned quite a bit from it. It is highly complex though, as all those names need to be mentioned, but I think there is not much one can do about it. Still, I think the article needs just some more polishing, see comments below:

  • Some statements appear to miss a source:
  • This view was disproved conclusively in 1911 with the publication of an extensive papyrus fragment (pictured) of the episode which derived from the same bookroll that contained the myth of Europa described above.
  • (frr. 10a.83–98, 10d OCT, 15) – I don't quite understand which source I need to look at here. It can't just be the original of the Catalogue, as this citation seems to cover interpretation also.
  • not the eponym of the Magnetes – I do not understand, what is Magnetes?
  • Aeolus' extended family, via both sons and daughters, is notable for a concentration of fantastical narratives and folk elements of a sort largely absent from the Homeric poems – Hm, you are comparing a family with an author? Does this mean that these narratives appear in the Catalogue? Is this refering to the section on Aeolus' family in the book?
  • The sons who were certainly found in the Catalogue are Cretheus, Athamas, Sisyphus, Salmoneus, Deion (or Deioneus) and Perieres. A seventh son's name is obscured in lacuna – That means the other sons names are mentioned in the surviving fragments? Uf so, why say "certainty"?
  • Suggest to briefly names of central importance in a few words, such as Aeolus. Would make the article more accessible.
  • the name used in the poem for the woman later and more famously known as Iphigenia. – took me time to understand, its a bit convoluted. Maybe simplyfy by removing "later and"?
  • for Mestra does not bear children to Glaucus. – I know it is mentioned at the beginning of the article, but I think it would not hurt to repeat who Glaucus is and why he is important here.
  • Atalanta was transformed into lion – "a" lion?
  • Zeus changed all of Aegina's ants – I would explain why she has ants in the first place.
  • described by West – introduce him at first mention? Also, all quotes should be attributed to the respective authors; this is only partly the case.
  • Pindar, Pythian 9 tells – what is this, could you add explanation and/or a link?
  • another papyrus containing 21 hexameters related to the Actaeon myth was published by Edgar Lobel – maybe give a date here?
  • well after period to which Hesiod has been assigned – "the" period?
  • Martin West – was previously introduced, but not with first name. Should be with first name at first mention.
  • where are the papyri from, how got they preserved? From Alexsndria? That's important considering possible alterations
  • Pseudo-Apollodoran Bibliotheca, an early Roman-era handbook of Greek mythology – this work is introduced too late. Should be explained at first mention.
  • of Heinsius (1603) and Graevius (1667). – not standard to link these as references, and even inconsistent within the article. I would suggest to unlink and simply add the regular citation behind (e.g., Heinsius (1603)[23] and Graevius (1667)[45]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately this seems to have withered on the vine since there is no nominator response and they have not edited in well over a month. @Davidiad: This may be renominated after the customary two-week waiting period if you have further interest. I'd expect Jens Lallensack's comments to be addressed as part of that process. --Laser brain (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2019 [20].

The Infinity Gauntlet edit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1991 comic book crossover that served as the inspiration for last summer's Avengers: Infinity War film and (presumably) this summer's Avengers: Endgame film. I expanded the article about a year ago, and the first FAC attempt didn't garner enough attention. It was promoted to GA in October 2018 and has been mostly stable since then. I'm hoping this can get through the process in time to be on the main page for the release of the new Avengers movie on April 28. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheJoebro64 edit

I supported at the last FAC, and my support still stands. This is a great and informative read and a model for how comic book articles should look. I'm beginning to not feel so good, though... JOEBRO64 16:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

Despite an early expression of support, not much has happened here in the last month. Unless there is some significant commentary in the next few days, the nomination will be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I would add ALT text for the images in the body of the article.
    • I've added alt text for the Sleepwalker cover. I'm unsure about adding any to the two images of Thanos in the plot section. The purpose there is for readers to see the artistic differences for themselves.
  • I think this part (As the main piece of a crossover event, some plot elements) needs to be revised as it currently reads that the “some plot elements” are the “main piece of a crossover event”.
    • clarified
  • I have a question about this part (but she only speaks to him through her servants because he is not worthy of her attention). I am assuming that Mistress Death is viewing him as unworthy of her attention and that it is not just a fact? Would there be a way to clarify in the sentence that this is her thought/opinion? Let me know if that makes sense as I may be over-thinking it.
    • clarified
  • This is more of a clarification question for this part (When he is judged mentally unfit for power over the universe, he agrees to give five of the gems to individuals he determines to be best suited to protect them.). Do we know who these individuals are?
    • Yes, but only one of them gets mentioned in the plot summary. I've added a link to Infinity Watch, which is the name the team used. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The 2018 film Avengers: Infinity War drew inspiration from The Infinity Gauntlet and depicts Thanos collecting the Infinity Gems with the intent to kill half of the universe.), should it be clarified that he successfully gathers all of the gems and kills half of the universe?
    • clarified
  • Should the article mention Avengers: Endgame?
    • I haven't found anything specific to Endgame that's concrete enough to use. I'll update after the film's release if need be.

Wonderful work with the article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Aoba47:. Please let me know if I've clarified to your satisfaction. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Good luck with the nomination this time around. You have put a lot of great work into this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2019&oldid=894862710"