Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2017

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 [1].

Mahavira

Nominator(s): -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of Jainism who holds great significance in the history of the religion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
3D objects should include a copyright tag for the original object, not just the photo - some may be covered by freedom of panorama, others will not. For 2D works under US law the photographer gets no copyright but the original artist does.

Still pending

Needs a pass for Manual of Style issues - linking, hyphenation, italicization, etc

Still pending

Generally the article is in need of copyediting - suggest reaching out to the Guild

See that you've done this but no one has responded yet

The text is likely to be difficult to follow for non-experts. For example, the Historical section discusses "year of nirvana", but this concept is neither explained nor even linked until later in the article.

Still pending

One-sentence subsections should be avoided
The {{expand section}} tag should be addressed
Citation formatting is generally quite inconsistent, and some citations are incomplete

Still pending

Don't think a press release meets the requirements of this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: Do you plan to respond to these comments? If not, this article will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the concerns raised here. Please have a look and let me know what more needs to be done. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged the issues still pending above. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed citations, please confirm. Also I am unable to understand 3D object point. Kindly elaborate.

Better, but not nearly there yet. Similar sources should be formatted in a similar way, we shouldn't be mixing different types of full citations ({{citation}} vs {{cite journal}} etc vs untemplated), and all citations should be complete. With regards to 3D objects: if you take a picture of a three-dimensional work like a sculpture in a country like the US which does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, then there are two copyrights you need to account for in uploading the image - yours as the photographer, and the sculptor's. In most cases, the images in this article are only accounting for the photographer's copyright, and neglecting the creator of the work itself (or neglecting to reflect the freedom of panorama). Further, for two-dimensional works like paintings, the photographer actually gets no credit at all - the upload should account only for the copyright of the creator of the work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

incomplete Journal ref cleaned too, also MOS dash fixed via tool. Regarding images, I haven't uploaded any image. All the images in this article are from commons. Do we have copyright violations on commons as well? Is there any mechanism by which it can be addressed? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the image description pages to add/change tags as needed, or remove/swap images from the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any image which is in copyvio? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At present, I don't have adequate information to assess that, given the lack of details on the artworks pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then, which images were you asking to be removed? Kindly share an example. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to clarify the copyright status of all images of 3D objects (eg. Mahavir.jpg) as well as File:Mahavira_Enlightenment.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know of only one source to find out the copyright status and that is commons itself. Commons says, "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." for File:Mahavira_Enlightenment.jpg. Should I write this line in image caption in article? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. My concern is that the given tag is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I raised a request on d:Commons:Help desk#Need help in verifying copyright status for EnWiki FA. I hope the issue is addressed now? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has agreed that Mahavira_Enlightenment.jpg is potentially problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanamonde

Once again I am concerned that this article is not up to FA standard. Some hard work has clearly been put into this since the last nomination, but some key areas are still a problem. The prose is often a concern: witness paragraphs such as "After twelve years of rigorous penance, at the age of 43, Mahavira achieved the state of Kevala Jnana (omniscience or infinite knowledge) under a Sāla tree according to traditional accounts.[53][61][62] The details of this event are mentioned in Jain texts like Uttar-purāņa and Harivamśa-purāņa.[63] The Acharanga Sutra describes Mahavira as all-seeing. The Sutrakritanga elaborates the concept as all-knowing and provides details of other qualities of Mahavira.[5] Jains believe that Mahavira had the most auspicious body (paramaudārika śarīra) and was free from eighteen imperfections when he attained omniscience.[64]" Within the Jain biography section, there is still problems with the article presenting Jain beliefs in Wikipedia's voice; the section title is not enough to cover the rest of the prose. The section on his ideological influence, which is large, rests on two large quotations, and has little other substance. Overall, I am concerned that the article has too much content in the form of lists, and too little substance. Finally, Sarah Welch has clearly been a major contributor to this article; but is she aware of this nomination, and does she support it? Vanamonde (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this nom, and share the concerns of Vanamonde93. The para-text and the quote farming style he mentions above has been in the article before my first edit back in January 2017. I have indeed cleaned up the article few months ago, but it needs some more loving attention and copyedit before being FA-ready. @Capankajsmilyo: Thanks for the ping. I am busy IRL for the next few weeks, just started a visit to some monasteries in South and Southeast Asia, with limited access to internet and content resources. Can't be of much assistance. Please know I support and cheer your efforts to nominate, contribute to wikipedia, but please consider the wisdom in Vanamonde's comment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given the oppose from Nikkimaria, the concerns of Vanamonde and the lack of involvement in the nomination of the main contributor, I will archive this shortly. I would advise the nominator working with these reviewers and the main contributor on this article away from FAC before renominating. In any case, it cannot be renominated before the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2017 [2].

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment in the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Interestingly, unlike its predecessor, which was a direct sequel to the first film, FD3 was always intenteded to be a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realzes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about their impending doom. (They never learn do they?)

I got the article to GA-status back in March and had it copyedited in April. Since then I've made a few changed / additions and fixed all of the references, ensuring that there are no duplicates and all of them contain their archive links; among other things. After all of that work I believe the article has finally reached the point where it meets the FA criteria. I look forward to people's feedback on further improving the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47

@PanagiotisZois: Just wanted to let you know that you are only allowed to have one FAC open at a time. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: But Aoba, I only have one FAC open xD. OK, I wasn't aware of this rule. I'll make sure to remember it for the future. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. When I posted my comment, your Boogeyman 2 FAC was still open so that is why I put this up. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

I am not sure if the quotes from the critics are really that necessary in the last paragraph of the lead. It may be better to condense this information into a paraphrased sentence, and keep these quotes in the "Reception" section.

Done I tried fixing it. I hope its satisfactory. The main problem is that as I said during the GAN, the movie was praised / criticized for pretty much the same things; with reviewers simply having different opinions.

I do not think you need the references for the "losing control" sentence in the lead as the references and information should already be found in the body of the article. Same goes for the sentence on the "interactive movie" in the lead.

Done I have included comments by reviewers on the film's them of control in the "Reception" section. As for the "interactive movie" section I believe it is notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead considering this is a threatically released movie that had an interactive DVD release.

In the sentence "The film was a financial success, the highest-grossing film in the franchise when it was released.", I would suggest revising to avoid the repetition of the word "film" twice in close proximity.

Done

In the following sentences (Like the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver. Filming took place during a three-month period, during which, the first month was spent entirely on filming the roller coaster's derailment.), the word "filming" and variations are used three times in close proximity. Perhaps, revise this to avoid repetition?

Done Though the word is still repeated twice.

For this sentence (According to Morgan, for Erin's death at the hardware store, he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration.) in the body of the article, it may be more beneficial to incorporate this into another paragraph as the one-sentence paragraph is rather awkward.

Done As it refers to how Morgan was inspired for Erin's death, I included it with the paragraph that also discusses story concepts for the film.

Please use Wong's full name in the body of the article upon his first reference and link him.

Done I also linked Morgan as well.

It may be helpful to add a topic sentence to the second and third paragraphs of the "Critical response" subsection.

Done I tried briefly describing what it is critics found positive / negative about the film with one sentence. I'm not sure they're very good though.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: OK, I believe I've adressed all of your comments. Hopefully the changes I've implemented are satisfactory. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluesphere

Resolved comments from Bluesphere

Provide descriptive alts on images

I'm not really sure how to do them any better. I suck at ALT descriptions. :(

Just try your best on this. I believe alt texts in images are required for FA articles. Blue sphere 04:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. I'm not sure if they're much better now though I did try to be a bit more descriptive.

Substitute those <br> markups with the {{Plainlist}} template in infobox. Also, the "release date" parameter requires the earliest release date (which in this case, February 2, 2006); use the {{Film date}} template for this.

Done

Its development began shortly after the release of Final Destination 2, Try this one instead, "Development of the film began shortly after the release of Final Destination 2.

Done Should have picked up on that one.

...Wong and Morgan placed control as a major theme in the movie, movie → film (might wanna observe this accordingly on the rest of article)

Done Though I googled it and I think movie is AE, while film is BE.

Negative reviews stated that the film was formularic, did you mean "formulaic"? I notice similar typo under "critical reception" section

Done Shit you're right. Honestly, I'd never even seen the word before.

...Casting began in March, 2005... there's no need for that comma.

Done

Attention was especially given to the tanning-bed and nailgun death scenes which were favourably received, needless dash for tanning-bed (I also notice this on the rest of the article), and it should be "favorably" since this is an article about an American film, thus should be written in the US English.

Done

High-school student Wendy Christensen, needless dash in high-school

Done

Like the previous two films, characters are named after horror-film directors, actors and producers. needless dash in "horror-film".

Done

Dustin Milligan, Cory Monteith and Harris Allan had small roles in the film. I've already tagged this requesting for an alternate reliable source since IMDb is not considered one.

Done I removed their names since their characters are pretty uniportant to begin with.

According to BBC.. the BBC

Done

Needless dash in "roller-coaster". Do a spotcheck on this.

Done

...having interesting kills and delivering to audiences what they've come to enjoy from the franchise. Avoid use of contraction in "they've" per MOS:N'T

Done

IGN gave Final Destination 3, and Den of Geek called the film need attributions. Also, don't pipelink Den of Geek to the Dennis Publishing article. Try rewording it to, "Den of Geek! (a publication of Dennis Publishing)..."

Done If it's not satisfactory I can try to change it further.

Add a separate column for the references to make the table more presentable.

Aren't they already seperated, with the "|30em" addition?

I meant those refs by the table under Nominations subsection, not the footnotes. Blue sphere 04:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Done

@Bluesphere: OK, I've responded to most of you comments. I still have a few problems / questions with some of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, now Support. Blue sphere 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

Instead of using "Final Destination" in the lead, you could the first film of the series to avoid the repetition of Final Destination.

Done

"in which characters are impaled and decapitated" - not sure how this adds anything to the article, it's rather irrelevant.

Done Yeah, I'm not sure either. It had been there for years.

"Wong said that unlike the second film" - "he" would fit better.

Done

"envisioned from the very beginning for both the film" - both the film?

Done Don't know how I missed that.

"The Ring Two" will need the release year.

Done

So would "Instant Star" and "It".

Done I also reworked the wording slightly to indicate Johnson was still starring in Instant Star, as the show was still on air.

"the highest-grossing installment in the franchise" bit is not mentioned in the box-office section, you should substantiate the claim there.

Done

Information like Chris G. Willingham being the editor of the film are never substantiated in the article's body.

Done Added him in. He actually won an Emmy for 24. Had no idea. No wonder the film looks good. :P

Also, the production companies : Hard Eight Pictures, Practical Pictures, Matinee Pictures, and Zide/Perry Productions are never mention in the body of the article. You might have have to incorporate them in the body and source them as well.

I don't know if all four are worth mentioning. I did add that two of them had previously worked on either the first film or both. I'm probably gonna need some help rewording it. Also, could I reference IMDb as I haven't been able to find an article about any of these companies and the films they produced.

I think the mention of the major production houses associated with the project should suffice. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Can you also possibly mention Jeffrey Reddick somewhere in the article, to make sure that the reader is aware of the original source material?

Would it be alright if I just mentioned him in the lead section? Something along the lines of "FD3 is the first in the franchise to be written without the involvement of Jeffrey Reddick".?

Sounds good, you might need to source that though. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The rest look good, fine work. Let me know if you have any questions. NumerounovedantTalk 08:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: OK, I've changed most of the things that you wanted. I hope you like the changes. But I need some help with the last two things on the list.

I can Support this nomination, good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. :D --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Final Destination 3.jpg: Use and license seem fine, non-free rationale a bit perfunctory.
File:Corkscrew (Playland).jpg: Use and license seem fine, but the borders are a nuisance.
File:Final Destination 3 Ashley death.jpg: Use and license seem fine, assuming that this death scene is very important for this work and its wider perception. Otherwise there may be NFCC#8 compliance issues.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Resolved comments from JMilburn

Happy to take a look. I don't think I've seen it, but I may have... I watch a lot of horror and they end up merging into one.

"The film is set in 2005, the line "six years ago" is a continuity error as the first film is set in 2000." This feels like OR.

I had a discussion with another user regarding this here. The third movie takes place in 2005 as shown with the various props to be found, Jason's grave and the McKinley Tricentenial. As for the first movie, it takes place in 2000, according to both Final Destination 2 (on Officer Burke's computer) and 5 (on Sam's plane ticket). My guess is, since the third movie was filmed in 2005 and the first one in 1999, which is indeed six real-life years apart, is the reason for this continuity error.

"roller coaster derailment" It'd be ugly, but that's a compound adjective, so it should be "roller-coaster derailment". Perhaps you could rephrase to "derailment of a roller coaster". ("opening scene disaster" is the same; in the article body, you have "opening-scene disaster", which is correct!)

Done Compounded all of them where necessary.

"Casting began in March 2005 with Winstead and Merriman landing the leading roles and continued through April. As with the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver over a three-month period, during which, the first month was spent entirely on filming the roller coaster's derailment." This is not good writing.

Done Tried fixing it.

"Thinking that Kevin is making fun of her, Wendy dismisses his theory and leaves" What theory?

Done

"on the night of the accident." Which accident?

Done

"by a panicky horse" Informal

Done

"Craig Perry and Warren Zide's company Zide/Perry Productions, along with Wong and Morgan's own company Hard Eight Pictures, which co-produced the first film returned to produce Final Destination 3." This needs attention- there's too much going on in this sentence, I think.

Should I just remove it?

The information is probably important. How about (if I understand what you're trying to say): "The companies that co-produced 2000's Final Destination—Craig Perry and Warren Zide's Zide/Perry Productions, and Wong and Morgan's own Hard Eight Pictures—returned to produce Final Destination 3." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"According to Wong, the idea of using a roller coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant and dispelled rumors that it was inspired by a Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident. Additionally, he said that unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was always intended to be a stand-alone sequel with new characters.[5] Morgan revealed that for Erin's death at the hardware store, he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration." Again, this isn't good writing.

Done I hope.

"further stating that one of the reasons people are afraid of them is because as according to psychologists, "[they] have no control"." Unclear. Who stated? What is the them referring to?

Done

"Wong revealed that during casting of the film, they sought actors that were able to portray the main characters as heroic individuals with realistic qualities." Odd comma; unclear what the they refers to.

Done

"This sentiment was also echoed by Perry, who stated that for the two lead characters they wanted actors who "had the charisma of movie stars, but weren't so ridiculously rarified that you couldn't feel like you might know them"; casting of the supporting characters was given equal weight, being considered as important as the main characters." I'm also struggling with this. How about "This sentiment was echoed by Perry, who stated that [someone] sought actors to play the two lead characters who "had the charisma of movie stars, but weren't so ridiculously rarified that you couldn't feel like you might know them". The casting of the supporting characters was given equal weight, being considered as important as the casting of the main characters."

Done

"won the role because her character's emotion impressed Wong and Glen Morgan" her portrayal of?

Done

"Lemche said that Ian "spouts some interesting facts that seem to be just right there on the tips of his fingers", and the actor researched most of Ian's information. During the read-throughs, he often asked Glen Morgan about Ian's facts; Morgan wrote him notes and gave him URLs to research Ian's random insertions of odd information."[12][13]" The speech marks are off, and this is tricky to follow because Ian's facts are yet to be introduced.

I changed the speech bubbles to make it flow better with the sentence. Not exactly sure however how to incorporate Ian's fact in another way.

"Winstead and Merriman said in an interview that the film required three months of shooting; the first two weeks were spent on filming the roller coaster scene, and the rest of the film was shot out of sequence." This does not mesh with what you write in the lead.

Done

"The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement, with the roller coaster scene made up of 144 visual-effect shots. The coaster was customized, based on events in the script. Most of the model was hand-built, with MEL scripts aiding specific elements. The coaster crash scenes were filmed on green screen with a CGI background where the actors performed. Several cars were suspended on bungee cords to film the crash, and the deaths required CGI onscreen effects; each actor had a corresponding CGI double.[21]" I'm struggling.

I rewrote the paragraph. I hope it's more understandable now.

"and Digital Dimension handled the death scenes" Not all of them, surely? You name two others who are involved in death scenes (Meteor Studios and Soho VFX).

Actually they did! Mostly though. Basically, three studios were involved. Meteor Studios worked on the roller coaster scene while Digital Dimension was responsible for all of the death scenes; the one exception being Ashley's and Ashlyn's death at the tanning bed which was done by Soho VFX. Should I rewrite it to say that "Digital DImension handled the individual characters death scenes"?

Who authored the novelisation? Who was the publisher? These seem like important pieces of information!

Done

"The deleted scene is an extended version of Wendy and Kevin's discussion after they are questioned by the police." There's no mention of the questioning in the plot section

Done

"James Berardinelli of ReelViews agreed, saying that for fans of the franchise "it's unlikely that #3 will disappoint"." Is ReelViews a publication like the others you mention? A quick glance at the article on the author suggests that it's a book series. (Also- I like Den of Geek, and I agree that it's above the reliability bar, but is this really the best source you have here? I'd imagine a high-budget film like this was reviewed all over the place.)

I checked and while James has published books called ReelViews, it's also the name of the website where he posts his film reviews. Regarding better sources, aren't IGN, Variety and The Chicago Sun-Times pretty high review sources?

Nail gun or nailgun? (You have a "nail-gun", but that's a compound adjective.)

Done Put them all as nail gun.

The writing in the "Analysis" section could use some attention.
Is "Dreck Fiction" a reliable source?

They appear to have reviewed numerous films of various genres and years, having started in 2010. Would you consider them reliable?

On a similar note, have you had a look at the academic literature here? This and this jumped out at me. I may be able to help with access if you don't have access to a university library or similar.

Holy shit. These look really useful. Unfortunately I'm not able to view them. One of them is a book I'd have to buy so there's that. As for the article, I checked and apparently my college isn't listed there so I can login.

If you email me, I may be able to send you some relevant material. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried but unfortunately your e-mail address doesn't appear to be recognised. It could be because I'm using Outlook.com.

Special:Email/J Milburn. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made some copyedits as I went. There's a lot to like about this article, but the writing feels a little sub-par for FA standards. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: OK, I believe I've implemented or at least responded to all of your comments. And thank you for copy-editing the article, that was very helpful. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I have a proposition to make. I got both PDFs and they're working just fine. Thank you very much for both of them. I'm sure they'll be very useful with the "Analysis" section. The thing however is, it's going to take some time to read through both of them and write about them in the section. In a few days I'm going off on vacation and won't have WiFi around. And I'd rather not half-ass an analysis paragraph just for the sake of getting a support with this nomination. For this reason, I suggest to either leave the section as it is or remove it until I am able to write a better one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great that you're ready to spend the time to get it right. Perhaps the delegates would be willing to hold off on closing this nomination for a few weeks? I personally don't see the harm in pausing reviews like this for a time (I do it often with GA reviews). I would offer to do it myself, but I'm currently preparing for a move, next week is a complete write-off for me, and I'm not yet sure what the week after will look like! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I'm on mobile data so I'll jeep this short. I read through both books sources and was able to find some information regarding the film which I added in the analysis section. From this point on. All that remains are for corrections to be made. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! It's late here, but I'll hopefully find time to take a look soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the analysis section. Three quick comments:

What makes Dreck Fiction reliable?

That, I don't really have an answer for. Their "About" section doesn't offer much info about them. I guess what makes them better than a mere indivudal's blog is that they appear to focus exclusively on reviewing and analyzing film, video games etc. and the large amount of articles / reviews they've written.

I'm struggling to see why this helps them meet the guidelines; see WP:RS. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: I guess it doesn't really meet the requirements. Should I remove the references to Dreck Fiction and keep only Harleman

You seem to be missing a quote-mark or two in the paragraph on Brinkema.

Oops, fixed it.

I appreciate that Brinkema's prose is fairly dense, but I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the description of the deaths as "being durational in nature and not epistemological".

After rereading what she wrote I actually got even more confused by that sentence and overall paragraph from the article. Decided to remove it.

I'll try to find time to have a look and see what I can draw from it. 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits; I will aim to find time to look through the whole article again. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

Ok, I am taking a second look through the article.

"As with the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver over a three-month period" Presumably you mean that it was filmed in Vancouver, like the previous two films, and it was filmed over a three-month period. As written, you are currently claiming that both previous films were also filmed over a three-month period.

Done

I wonder if the final paragraph of the lead could mention any subsequent Final Destination films? Also, I wonder if you could add something from the analysis section to the lead?

Done Regarding the sequels. For the analysis I'm not so sure as all three paragraphs talk about different things. If I were to add in information regard analysis should I write something along the lines of "the film proved the source of analysis in regards to its underlying theme of losing control, genre in modern horror and death scenes"?

"Wendy learns that her sister Julie and her friend were also on the roller coaster" They were on the roller coaster but survived, or were on the roller coaster but got off before the disaster, or were on the roller coaster on a different occasion, or what? I'm struggling a little with this.

Done

"The idea of death omens in photographs was taken from 1976's The Omen." This is important information, but it's out-of-place; it should be mentioned alongside other information about influences, rather than between two facts about early development.

Done

"but also because they believed that fire and blood would not" Who is the they, here?

Done

"According to Wong, the idea of using a roller-coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant and was not inspired by a Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident. Additionally, unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning.[5] Morgan revealed he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration regarding Erin's death at the hardware store.[8]" This is all good, but it feels like three random facts thrown together to create a paragraph. Maybe you could move the stuff about standalone sequels to the first paragraph, and bring the stuff about The Omen into the second. Actually, I'd be tempted to merge the second and third paragraphs of this section; they are generally on the topic of themes/inspiration, which fit together neatly, and they're both very short.

Done

"perky blonde" I don't like this being in Wikipedia's neutral voice; is it a direct quote? If so, quotemarks?

Done

"Johnson said that she wore a rocker jacket for the second reading and was in a bad mood" You may want to note the comment that someone left! I also note that "second reading" is jargon.

Done

"the filmmakers called her back to read for Erin and her dialogue in the scene was sarcastic" I'm struggling to understand what is meant, here.

Done

"Lemche said that Ian spouts some interesting facts "that seem to be just right there on the tips of his fingers", and the actor researched most of Ian's information. During the read-throughs, he often asked Morgan about Ian's facts; Morgan wrote him notes and gave him URLs to research Ian's random insertions of odd information." This is a bit all over the place.

Done Tried making it easier to understand.

"A custom-designed coaster was created and customized, based on events in the script." I'm guessing this wasn't actual-size; could this be clarified? You could just call it a "custom-designed scaled-down coaster".

Done From what I remember, besides filming on the actual roller-coasters, Corkscrew, they had also created a few coaster cars of their own which they suspended with wires to film the scenes where the coasters cars are flying off and the characters die.

"The coaster-crash scenes were filmed on a green screen with a CGI background where the actors performed." This needs some attention; I don't really understand what "where the actors performed" means. I'd just lose it.

Done

"Meteor Studios produced the roller-coaster and subway crashes, and Digital Dimension handled the death scenes" I know I picked up on this before, but it's still problematic. As written, it is suggested (even if not strictly implied) that "the roller-coaster and subway crashes" are one category of scenes and "the death scenes" are another; of course, the crashes are themselves death scenes. There's also Soho VX in there somewhere. This all needs to be clarified.

Done

"Lemche acting the previous animation" Do you mean something like "Lemche imitating the chosen animation"?

Done

"Final Destination 3 is the only film in the series without a released musical score" Really? Are you sure you don't mean "soundtrack album"?

Done If only the film had been a musical. T_T

"the film grossed $105,940 for 37th place" In what rankings?

Done

You discuss the special edition of the DVD in the lead, but not in the discussion about the DVD releases. This leads to some confusion about whether the choose-your-own-adventure feature was available in the regular release or only in the special-edition release.

Done

Pausing for now; back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On Den of Geek: I agree that it is a reliable source, and actually personally quite like it. I can't help but feel, though, that for a film of this sort, there are more reputable publishers/reviewers to quote. Empire and The Guardian published reviews (the latter actually published two), for example. They're both very well-regarded and well-established sources for reviews of this sort. I wouldn't be afraid of expanding the critical response section, either.

Done Implemented both reviews.

I'm really not sold on CinemaGogue or Dreck Fiction, but I am open to being convinced that they're reliable. I wouldn't include them, if I were you.

I definitely want to see this article promoted, but I do think that there remains some room for improvement! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: OK, I believe I've responded to all your comments regarding corrections. As for CinemaGogue and Dreck Fiction, I don't really know how to make them reliable. If you deem them too unreliable I could just remove it and keep the other two paragraphs, considering they both comes from pretty reliable publications. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't tread on your toes too much, but I've started to rewrite the analysis section. There was a lot of good stuff in Brinkema, but I appreciate that it will have seemed pretty dense to anyone not used to reading that kind of thing (so I'm sorry for dropping it on you!). I'll look at Conrich soon. I have removed Dreck Fiction and CinemaGogue; I think there will be plenty to use in the academic literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm done; let me know what you think. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: I think it looks great. And you actually managed to connect Brinkema's analysis with that of Conrich's. I do feel kind of weird that the analysis section is somewhat bigger that the "Critical response" section but I'd say it's pretty good as it is. I can always just expand it in the future. Is there anything else that you want me to correct in the article? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct would be to expand the critical reception section, but if you'd rather keep it short, that's your call. I will aim to have another look through the article soon; we surely can't be far off now! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final niggle: Jeffrey Reddick is not mentioned in the article body; just in the lead. This means that the reference for the info about him is unclear. And please double-check the few more edits I have made. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: Your changes look good in regards to grammar and clarification. No problem there. I also included Reddick in the main body and was able to find a source where he briefly talks about this. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm now leaning support. Some great work has gone into this article, and it's looking very good. I do think a close source review is needed, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

@FAC coordinators: Hi, per J Milburn's suggestion, could it be possible to place this nomination on hold or something similar until I am able to read through the article/book for the film's "Analysis" section, in order to ensure it's of good quality? Not being near WiFi might make this take a little longer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "hold" process at FAC, and this one is not really in danger of archiving at the moment. But... If there is substantial work to be done, and nothing is going to happen for a time, it may be better to withdraw this for now and renominate it at a later date. Otherwise it could clog up the FAC list a little and might draw attention from other articles in the queue. I'm happy either way, but if nothing happens in the next week, it is probably better to archive. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I wrote a response to this a few days ago and thought it saved but then again it was on the mobile... ;-) Anyway, Sarastro's thoughts are pretty well identical to mine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Aoba47

Earwigs okay, there is a raised score due (attributed) quotes, but that is fine given the context.
All of the information and quotes in the article appear to be accurately taken from the sources with proper attribution; it passes a spot check.
For Reference 5, please link Parade to Parade.
Could you provide any more information in the citation for the Hollywood Jesus source (i.e. author/date/etc.)? The citation just looks a little bare.
For Reference 57, please change Seattle Times Newspaper to a link to The Seattle Times.
For Reference 50, please link Roger Ebert.
This isn't technically a part of the source review, but please switch around References 77 and 78 in the Accolades table as they should be in numeric order.

Great work with this article; once my comments are addressed above, then this will pass the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Alright, I fixed references 5, 50 and 57. I also put references 77 and 78 numerically. As for Hollywood Jesus, the PDF unfortunately doesn't include any information about who wrote it or when. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my comments, and that makes sense to me. I just wanted to double-check to make sure if there was not any further information on that particular source. Great work with this, and it passes the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Was wondering on the nomination's status now that it has passed its source review. Are more comments/supports necessary? PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but have you looked closely at the reliability of the sources used? Several comments above picked out questionable sources, and a glance through the list shows a reliance on a lot of websites that look less-than-stellar. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Thank you for your message; it is understandable. I do not necessarily see any issues with the reliability of the sources, but feel free to do another source review or list the sources that you find questionable. I do admit that I am not that experienced with source reviews so it just may be my inexperience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We still need commentary on the reliability of sources, particularly as J Milburn has raised concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not addressing this in my review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from JMilburn

@JMilburn: Could you list the sources in the article that you find unreliable so that I may replace / remove them? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong about any of these, but after a look through the reference list, I'm particularly concerned about:

"Final Destination 3". Moria. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved March 6, 2017.

Removed the source and section regarding the characters names being homages.

Bossik, Glenn (March 14, 2006). "The Screenplay For Final Destination 3". Scriptologist. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2017."

The site was created and run by Glenn Bossik, a graduate at the School of Visual Arts, who holds a degree in film production and worked with Alan J. Pakula.

"Final Destination 3 Notes" (PDF). Hollywood Jesus.

While the PDF unfortunately doesn't include an author or date of publication, I have checked their website and Hollywood Jesus has been running now for almost 2 decades. And the PDF itself is listed on the website so it is certain that it belongs to them.

A website does not become reliable purely by existing for a while. I think what you're actually citing is a press release; there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I'm struggling to find the original source. (I did come across a mention that Tommy Lee contributed to the soundtrack; is that worth including?) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the website's page featuring the PDF. As for Tommy Lee, I think his only contibution to the soundtrack is that his cover of "Love Train" was used in the end credits. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: I also copypasted some of the PDF into Google and found this. Apparently, the production notes were directly provided by New Line Cinema. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Final Destination 3 filming locations". Movie Maps. Archived from the original on February 7, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.

Replaced.

"Final Destination 3 (2006)". Movie Locations and More. April 22, 2013. Archived from the original on April 26, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.

Removed.

"Final Destination 3, Roller Coaster Scene...". Quick Movie Facts. February 21, 2012. Archived from the original on May 3, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.

Removed source and section.

Gould, Chris (June 21, 2006). "Final Destination 3". DVD Active. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
Gonzalex Jr., Felix (July 22, 2006). "Final Destination 3 (2006)". DVD Reviews. Archived from the original on November 19, 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2017.

He is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic.

"Final Destination 3 Awards". Movie Awards. Archived from the original on January 9, 2017. Retrieved January 8, 2017.

Removed.

I do think that there are also some formatting issues. I made some tweaks, and perhaps you could redo the Patrick Schmidt citation. There may be others. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: OK, I fixed Schmidt's reference and replaced or removed some of the citations. The ones that stayed are one whose authors / websites I check to see if they're reliable. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: Are there any more references that are troubling you? PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second part

Ok, looking through the references again:

I have made some tweaks; please double-check them.

I did; they seem fine.

I am struggling to understand your italicisation policy. Newspapers/magazines should always be italicised (unless you're using a very unusual [for Wikipedia] citation style). When it comes to websites, there's an open question (I personally don't like to see, say, "IGN" or "Allmusic" italicised, but that's just me). I don't mind what you use, as long as you're consistent.

I guess I still need to learn a few things in this regard. When citing I always use at the top of the edit page the "Cite -> Templates" button. Since most of my references are from articles published online I use the "cite web" template. Some time ago I realized that if the publisher isn't just a website that I should replaced it with "|publisher=". I wasn't aware that there were even more variations.

I'm just basing this on MOS:ITALIC which applies as much to the references as the prose. As a general rule: if you would italicise a particular name in the main article, it should be italicised in any footnotes; if you wouldn't italicise it in the article proper, don't italicise it in the footnotes. And make sure you're consistent! (Don't worry too much about what the templates do/don't do. They're just tools.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to accept the Hollywood Jesus source now, but I do think it needs to be better formatted. It needs to be made clear that this is a press release from New Line Cinema that happens to be on Hollywood Jesus. An access date would also be valuable.

I replaced the PDF file with the website source. For one thing, it has an access date and I can archive it. I also added New Line Cinema in the citation though I'm not sure if I used the correct format. I use |publisher=.

Hmmm. I'm not certain how to go about doing this; I'd tried an alternative, using |via=. How does that look to you? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. And to be honest, it does seem more correct too. The information itself is indeed "published" (sort of) by New Line Cinema. It was simply shared with people through that website.

"Faust, Christa. Final Destination III: The Movie. Black Flame. ISBN 9781844163199." I couldn't find it, so I note it here without too much expectation, but a publishing location would be a good addition.

I looked but I wasn't able to find the publishing location of the book / Black Flame.

Google Books was able to reveal it; Nottingham! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"James Wong. Final Destination 3 (2006) (DVD). United States: New Line Cinema. Retrieved January 7, 2016." If you're citing the DVD itself, we don't need an Amazon link. The Amazon link is only needed if you're citing Amazon (which, as it's a commercial source, will be objected to by some Wikipedians!)

Done

I wouldn't personally be too fussed about accessdates if you're archiving, but, seeing as you have them, could you add one for Weinberg?

Done

Could you please add the publication date to the Firefox News source?

Done

Your Otto sources are a bit weird. I'd spin it out as a separate source in the way you do with the academic papers and cite the pages respectively as Otto (2005), p. 1 and Otto (2005), p. 3.

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but isn't that something we do for book sources? both of Otto's articles come from IGN. Granted yes, they are Page 1 and Page 3 but they're still seperate articles with different URLs.

There's no reason to think that we shouldn't do this with non-book sources; take a look at Emily Davison, for example, which is another article currently at FAC. I think you're wrong to characterise the pages as different articles; they're different pages, but that's not all that different from articles spanning multiple pages in a book, journal or newspaper. Looking again, I suppose there's nothing all that wrong with the current formatting if you're not keen on my suggestion. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the Tommy Lee fact as it was deemed worthy of a press release; I would have thought it would be a nice line to add to the music section. (On that note, your use of the phrase "released score" in that section is a little ambiguous; I assume you mean soundtrack album?)

@JMilburn: Could you link the article on Tommy Lee? I'd love to read it. As for the released score, that's exactly what I mean. A soundtrack album contains songs that were included in the movie. A musical score is about the music, not songs, that were created specifically for the movie. None of the Final Destination film ever had soundtrack albums. However, the first two movies, along with the fourth and fifrth ones all had the musical scores released.

I can't remember where I saw the press release, but here is a nice source about Tommy Lee; Blabbermouth is a respected source for news related to heavy metal. I'm sure there will be more! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely getting there! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: Added Tommy Lee into the article. I had no idea he recorded the song exclusivel for the film. I always just assumed her provided a cover for it and the director decided to use it in the film. Thank you for the new info. As always. Is there anything else that you wish me to do? PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit concerned about the italics; I can't really work out how you're deciding what to italicise and what not to. It looks like all the newspapers/magazines are italicised, which is good, but there seems to be some inconsistency on the web-only sources. The MOS is pretty unhelpful on this: "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." Not only is this vague, but it isn't followed in practice (no one italicises the name of this online encyclopedia, for example). I suppose I would just like to see you adopt a consistent style. Just one example (and this is just one; I'm not saying "here's the problem I want you to fix"): are you italicising Metacritic or not? You don't in the article proper, you do in the references. As above: If you would italicise in the article, italicise in the refs. If you wouldn't italicise in the article, don't italicise in the refs. MOS:ITALICTITLE may be helpful, but it only goes so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having just typed that, part of me wants to say "to hell with it, life's too short". To go back to the reason I originally started this second source review: I think all of the remaining sources toe the line for reliability. My support for promotion stands; I do think that this is pretty much ready, and I commend you for your work on the article (and I enjoyed writing the part of the article that was "mine"!), even if a bit more hole-picking might be possible. I hope this review hasn't put you off, and hope you'll bring us more horror films here at FAC in the future! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JMilburn: OK, I followed your advice and checked through the references. I italicized them (or not) based on whether the titles of the websites / publishers are italicized on Wikipedia. Thankfully, most of the references have their own pages at Wikipedia, so that was easy. Thank you for bringing that my attention. I'd also like to thank you for helping with the article by adding to it; especially the "Analysis" section and I appreciate the support. I'm not sure if my next FAC will be horror related but I definately would like to improve upon further articles. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The source review is finally done. All of the references have been checked in regards to reliability and their website / publishers are properly italicized, where necessary. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

What makes http://www.scriptologist.com/Magazine/News/Final/final.html a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://bloody-disgusting.com/ a high quality reliable source?
What makes https://604now.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
What makes https://www.awn.com/about a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://scoringsessions.com/about/ a high quality reliable source?
http://www.filmmagic.com/photos/Crystal-Lowe-during-Final-Destination-3-Los-Angeles-Premiere-at/105885757 is a photo from a stock photography site - they will not have verified the information attached to the photo so it's not a reliale source, much less high quality.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-mary-elizabeth-winstead-at-arrivals-for-final-destination-3-premiere-38194301.html is a photo from a stock photography site. Alamy will NOT have verified any of the information attached to the photo so this is not a reliable source, much less a high quality reliable source.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/134743650 is an image from a stock photography site - it will not satisfy WP:RS, much less being of high quality.
Current ref 25 lacks a publication date.... so it does not verify the information in the article. For a publication date we'd need an actual page number showing the publication date ...
What makes http://www.dvdactive.com/news/releases/final-destination-34.html a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/22877/final-destination-3/ a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://www.dreadcentral.com/reviews/4238/final-destination-3-dvd/ a high quality reliable source?
What makes https://moviepilot.com/posts/3643766 a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/08/the-10-best-final-destination-death-scenes/ a high quality reliable source?
Current ref 46 goes to https://www.cinemascore.com, but this is just the main page for this site. Does not verify "CinemaScore reported that audiences gave the film a "B+" on an A+ to F scale." ... as there is nothing on that page related to the subject of the article. I suspect there's a problem with cut-paste somewhere?
What makes http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/final-destination/34499/final-destination-ranking-the-movies-in-order-of-quality a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/final-destination-3 a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://www.dvdreview.com a high quality reliable source?
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as all the things flagged are mirrors or quotations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Yeah, no. Can you like archive this or whatever? I'm not interested in going over through another source review. So, unless you plan on passing the nomination as it is, just archive it cause I'm just not interested in seeing this through any longer.

Especially from someone who asks what makes Bloody Disgusting a reliable source in regards to a horror movie. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not everyone is a subject expert. You could explain why it's a high quality reliable source ... I'm not saying it's not - but just as I wouldn't expect anyone to know all the various reliable sites for horse research ... it's not always going to be obvious why a site is a high quality reliable source to someone not interested in a specific niche field. But it's your choice to archive it rather than try to educate other editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiousity, in regards to CinemaScore, did you even type "Final Destination 3" next to "Find CinemaScore"? Or for 604, where you link the about section, see that it say the website and project is funded [in part] by the government of Canada? Or with Scriptologist, read JMilburn's source review where I tell him "The site was created and run by Glenn Bossik, a graduate at the School of Visual Arts, who holds a degree in film production and worked with Alan J. Pakula"? Or that fact that James Berardinelly is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic? As I said, I'm just not interested, nor can I go though a third source review or having to work on this article any longer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CinemaScore is a problem with the actual link ... not with the reliablity. The link should go directly to the content that supports the information. If for some reason the site cannot do that, you need to make that clear in the citation that the reader needs to do an additional step to verify the content. I can't know I need to do soemthing if the citation does not tell me that. Whether Rotten Tomatoes "approves" a critic doesn't necessarily make a source a high quality one. Just because the government of Canada partially funds something doesn't make it high quality - I don't automatically trust anything "partially funded" by the US government either. In every case where I question something, I went to the site, I hunted around for an about page (which in many cases I listed above...) and only after failing to find something that showed high quality did I question it. It's not a hopeless situation - I didn't feel that everything was so clearly not-reliable that I opposed the article - but there ARE issues with the sourcing - using stock photos to source information is just not going to work, it doesn't even meet the basic standards of WP:RS, much less the higher standard at FAC. I'm sorry that you feel that you are jumping through hoops, but... the standard is "High quality" and that needs to be shown. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for acting like such an asshole to you when you don't deserve it. But I can't do this any more. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see this review come to this conclusion. PZ: I appreciate that this review probably hasn't gone as you would have hoped, but I do hope that it can be valuable experience for you. In particular, I hope it will help you think through some questions about sourcing. While I do not think that every source Ealdgyth has highlighted has to go (and that's fine; reasonable people can disagree about these things, and I'm sure Ealdgyth is open to being convinced that some of these sources are above the bar), I do think that she was right to highlight them. You'll note that several of the sources she highlighted I also highlighted, and maybe I was a little too ready to let questionable sources slide. I recommend being a little more ruthless with your source selection, and perhaps paying particular attention to the issue (and/or asking for a third opinion) prior to future GAC/FAC nominations. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2017 [3].

Mia Hamm

Nominator(s): Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American soccer icon Mia Hamm. It recently passed GAR and was suggested as a FAC. It is a level-4 vital article in People. Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This edit is fine, as long as you put the "and" back before "Texas". Some copyeditors call this "cannabalism"; one necessary "and" has eaten the other necessary "and". Does that make sense? - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I split it up into two sentences. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition to the 34,148 fans in attendance being greater than any MLS game that weekend, the Turner Network Television (TNT) broadcast reached 393,087 households: more than two MLS games broadcast on ESPN and ESPN2.": ?

What is your question? Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"that kept her out for the first half off the pitch": ?

Edited. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"World Football Hall of Fame" (linked to es.wiki): Create a stub here on en.wiki, if there isn't one already, and link to that.

Is there a guideline you can provide to support this? Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"<ref name="Today' ": ?

Resolved. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer, with the caveat that I stopped near the end, at Personal life; my wrist is bothering me and I'd like to stop here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Dank}} Thanks for your review and copyediting. I've added a few comments/questions above. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you work. See my standard disclaimer, which is more relevant now that I've hurt my wrist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at GAN and feel it satisfies FA criteria on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

There were a few news articles that are now deadinks. I linked to the archived versions.
I don't know that you need that many citations in the lede if the information is cited in the main text. That said, it's not disqualifying to have them there.
Spotchecked fn 22, 85, and 107. Material cited was fine, but the title was off on 107 (I fixed it).
Everything else being in order, I think this is good as far as sources go. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – This is from reading about halfway through the article.

~~From a grammar standpoint, I'm not sure "the" is helpful in "She is a co-owner of the Los Angeles FC."~~

Edited. Hmlarson (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I find the lead section here to be a bit oddly constructed. Usually in FAs, authors see the lead as a summary of the article to come; some try to ensure that every section is represented in some way. Instead, this just feels like a listing of significant accomplishments and milestones. For example, a list of TV programs in which she appeared is probably too much detail for a lead section; it is enough to have a more general statement, with the details in the body of the article.

Edited. Hmlarson (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Atlantic Olympics: "The U.S. won their first-ever Olympic gold medal". Of course it was the first one; they couldn't have won it before, as the women's soccer event didn't exist before 1996. Maybe "The U.S. won the first-ever Olympic women's soccer gold medal" would work?

Edited. Hmlarson (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we need to say something in the body about Hamm being iconic, since we make that claim in the lead. My expectation was that I would see something related to this in the section about the 1999 World Cup, since that's when the U.S. women's national team really became well-known to the general population. Instead, this is a straight retelling of what happened in the tournament. For an FA on this player in particular, I feel like we need to have some mention of her popularity/the team capturing the attention of the country. That team became cultural icons for a time, and she was the leader.

Added to end of 1999 section. This is also reinforced in the In Popular Culture section. Hmlarson (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To further the point about how the 1999 section was a straight retelling of events, this book has the interesting point that Hamm was initially unsure about taking a penalty in the China shootout. Perhaps that's worthy of a sentence. That excerpt also had some details that might fit in the playing style section, on her emotions and leadership qualities.

Added dehydration element + aftermath. Feel free to add specifics as you see fit. Hmlarson (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you based the USWNT sections around the various major tournaments, as they are when women's international soccer players like Hamm get the most coverage, but there are a few gaps that result from this structure. The 108th international goal is tucked in the Honors and awards section, when it isn't really an honor or award, but a notable statistical record. The third paragraph of this section also includes statistical accomplishments, and her 100th career goal (which strikes me as significant) isn't mentioned at all. Also not mentioned is her competition-winning extra time goal in the 2002 CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup, which is probably worth mentioning somewhere even if it wasn't a World Cup or Olympics. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved 108th + 150th goals; added 100th. Hmlarson (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick sourcing comments from the last part of the article. First, reference 139 is to a book by Lulu Press, a self-publishing company that would only be considered a high-quality reliable source if the author was considered an expert on the subject (if he had previously published books, for example). I don't know anything about the qualifications of Tim Nash, but if he doesn't have any you'll probably have to replace this cite. Second, IMDB (ref 145) isn't a reliable source for much of anything, much less an FA. You should try to find other sources for her TV appearances; if any can't be sourced by higher-quality references, then they likely aren't notable enough to warrant mention anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Nash bio. I own the It's Not the Glory book - it's pretty good, though I most often recommend Beyond Bend It Like Beckham: The Global Phenomenon of Women's Soccer by Tim Grainey. Hmlarson (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Refs added to shows. Hmlarson (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator for this one, and I'm afraid I don't think the prose is up to FA standard as we have a lot of redundancy and other prose issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have references in the lead? They are usually not required as everything should be cited in the main body. The only exception is usually for direct quotations, and when we have a statement "Hailed as a soccer icon" which requires 4 references in the lead, alarm bells should start ringing.

There are references in the lead per the fourth paragraph of WP:LEAD and previous GA reviews of this and other articles where they were requested. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamm held the record for international goals, more than any other player, male or female, in the history of soccer until 2013, when she was passed by Abby Wambach (the current recordholder, as of 2017).[5][6] Her 275 international caps rank third on the U.S. national team, behind former teammates Kristine Lilly (354) and Christie Pearce (311). Her 144 international career assists rank first in the national team record books.[7]": This could be cut right back. "Hamm held the record for most international goals—for both men and women's soccer— until 2013, and she remains in second place as of 2017. She has the third most international caps for the U.S. national team, and the most international career assists (144)."

Modified Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Twice named FIFA World Player of the Year in 2001 and 2002 (the first two years that the award was given to women players)": Could be simply "Named FIFA World Player of the Year in 2001 and 2002 (the first times that a woman received the award)". Also, this has no connection to the rest of the sentence.

The connection is FIFA. I removed the references to women players completely. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamm and her teammate Michelle Akers were hailed by Pelé as two of FIFA's 125 greatest living players when he included them in the FIFA 100 to celebrate the organization's 100th anniversary": Aside from needing to say a word or two about who Akers and Pele are, there is just too much going on here. The only relevant information is that Pele chose her as one of the 125 best living players. The rest is not relevant for the lead.

Connection is FIFA. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In 2005, The Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon called her "perhaps the most important athlete of the last 15 years"": Why is this important? Some context is needed; is he a renowned expert, or just some chap with no real standing in sport?

See Dank's comments above about "icon" Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"She was the first woman ~~player~~ inducted into the World Football Hall of Fame." Redundancy

Removed "player". Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the lead to summarise her career much more than we do here. The lead should summarise all the main content, but we learn nothing other than her records and awards.

See fourth paragraph of WP:LEAD. I don't agree. We learned who she played for, what she won (a lot), about her status in sports history, etc. Is there something specific you want to mention? Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The family moved many times and resided in several places including San Antonio, Texas, and Italy.": Why chose these specific places? Why not "The family moved several times, including overseas".

Edited. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Florence, Italy, is where Hamm was first introduced to soccer. Soon her entire family became involved in the sport": Sounds a little too like a magazine article and not an encyclopaedia. Could just be "Hamm first played soccer in Florence, Italy, and her entire family quickly became involved in the sport."

Edited. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping there for now, and these are samples only from the lead and first section. I suspect the whole article may need a going over, and just correcting these issues would not necessarily lead to me striking my oppose. If the nominator has no objections, I may be able to tackle the copyedit myself in the next few days, but in any case I hope to switch to support once the article has had a bit of a polish. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Comments inline above. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro, please ping me after you've finished your copy-editing because I'd like to take a second look at the article. For now, Hmlarson, I wanted to quickly say that I am in strong agreement with Sarastro about the lead section. I felt uneasy about supporting the article because I had a few misgivings, which have been brought up by Sarastro. In particular, the lead section struck me as not covering the whole article. In fact, it just struck me as I was reviewing the responses to my previous comments that we don't even mention the years of her teams' World Cup and Olympic wins in the lead, when her performances in those tournaments form the heart of the article. I won't speak for what Sarastro would like to see, but I personally prefer the second paragraph of Abby Wambach, a GA you worked on, to what exists here. That article mentions the major competitions she played in and the major events her teams won, a style that goes a long way towards providing a good summary; perhaps the first two paragraphs here could be combined to make room for such a paragraph. Please consider giving this some more consideration, as I am itching to support this article but understand Sarastro's concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008:, @Sarastro1: Lead has been re-worked. Hmlarson (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Like Giants, I'd really like to support this, but I'm still finding issues. I've done a bit of copy-editing, but there are some things I'm still not sure of. First, we spend a lot of time describing team results in the sections on 1991, 1995 and 1996 tournaments. But other than the goals she scored, are there any comments anywhere on the effectiveness of her performance. I'm assuming she played well, but there is nothing in the article to tell me that. It's also disconcerting that in 1998 she scored 20 goals including her 100th international goal; we've only heard about the World Cups and Olympics; presumably she played games other than these, but we hear nothing about them. When did she first play for the US? When was her first goal? We only seem to be getting part of the story: what were these other games? Tournaments? Friendlies? I'm afraid we need more detail here about her, and less about the team results. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review. I find these comments rather subjective and vague, however. WP:FA? I see you both appear to be men's baseball and American football contributors. Any involvement at all in articles related to soccer? Hamm scored 158 goals in 275 appearances. If you have some specific ones in mind to highlight without writing a new book to add to the reference section, by all means go ahead. Hmlarson (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Ok then, I consider that this does not meet criteria 1a and 1b for the reasons stated above; and I have specified what I feel should be included. And for what it's worth, both Giants and I have been reviewing sports articles at FAC, including soccer, for many years; and I have never contributed to men's baseball or American football, as even a cursory check would reveal. But that is not relevant, and nor is questioning the ability of the reviewers to review. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, part of the issue is that the World Cup and Olympics are the two big events in international women's soccer for the U.S., and not much of note happens in the two years out of four that they aren't held (the European teams have a continental championship to contest, but ours isn't anything to write home about). Also, the USWNT wasn't heavily covered by the sports media for much of Hamm's time with the team. I've seen stories about how the players weren't even recognized on the plane ride home after winning the first Women's World Cup. Even in the late 1990s, when the team was receiving coverage, the level of soccer knowledge in the U.S. press was not strong, so I'm not sure how much deep analysis they were doing about Hamm's game at the time. With that said, I do think that some additions could be made to make the article more comprehensive. I would suggest adding (assuming good sources exist) info on her first appearance and first goal for the national team, and looking at the USWNT media guide for ideas. I see a year-by-year stat breakdown there, which may be helpful; even simple facts such as her scoring 18 goals in 1997, or having 20 goals and 20 assists in 1998, help fill the perceived gaps the other reviewers spotted. Her scoring four goals in one 1994 match may also be worthy of mention. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with you, Sarastro, that the article reads as a list of her (admittedly, many) achievements rather than exploring her skill and experience as a player in the sort of depth that a featured article should. I don't see as many prose problems as you do from a cursory read, but I don't think this is quite ready yet, as it doesn't seem fully comprehensive for one of the most iconic soccer players of all time. Hmlarson, what's here is certainly good; it just needs to be fleshed out and expanded. ceranthor 14:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update Gentlemen, here's what's been added:

first international cap
first international goal
another summary to lead into international section

I'll defer any year-by-year table to you Giants2008 or any other simple facts you think are pertinent to add. You too Ceranthor. I'd like to challenge you to seek the information you think I should include. Hmlarson (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the FAC to see whether the other reviewers are satisfied with your additions, as that would push me in the direction of supporting since my concerns when reading the article were basically the same as theirs. I don't think a full stat table is needed in the article, so I won't be adding one. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. ceranthor 02:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Comments from Ceranthor

the inaugural 1991 in China, 1995 in Sweden, 1999 and 2003 in the United States. - just listing the year doesn't work grammatically here
She completed her international career having played in 42 matches and scored 14 goals at these 7 international tournaments. - use of at is awkward, maybe over the course of is better?
She currently ranks third in the history of the U.S. national team for international caps - what does that mean? link or explain
She was inducted into the National Soccer Hall of Fame, Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, Texas Sports Hall of Fame and was the first woman inducted into the World Football Hall of Fame.[8] - grammar; should be and Texas
Hamm has been featured in several films and television shows, including the HBO documentary, Dare to Dream: The Story of the U.S. Women's Soccer Team. - no comma necessary after shows
Hamm played sports from a young age and excelled as a football player on the boys' team at junior high school. - should clarify whether american or international football
During her tenure with the national team, she competed in four FIFA Women's World Cup tournaments: the inaugural 1991 in China, 1995 in Sweden, 1999 and 2003 in the United States. - same issue as in the lead
She completed her international career having played in 42 matches and scored 14 goals at these 7 international tournaments. - same issue as lead... try to avoid reusing the same sentence in the lead and main text
Hamm held the record for most international goals scored—by a woman or man—until 2013 and remains in third place as of 2017.[5][6][25] - I tend to think place implies a competition; I'd just say she was ranked third
international caps - link or explain again
She also scored once in their second group stage match when the defeated Brazil 5–0.[30] - grammar
During the quarterfinal match, the U. S. defeated Chinese Taipei 7–0. - should use a non-breaking space for US
this was the first Olympic tournament that women's soccer was included.[41] - grammar
In 1998, Hamm's 20 goals marked her annual high during her international career.[51] - annual high? Rephrase
served an assist to Julie Foudy in the 73rd minute - Can you serve an assist? awkward phrasing
head coach Tony DiCicco - linked twice; only link it once at first mention
Hamm collapsed in the locker room from severe hydration - dehydration?
SARS outbreak.[72] - should clarify its location I think

Prose is almost there, but needs a little more work. ceranthor 16:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we are moving in the right direction, but I notice that a few points that Giants made have not been addressed yet. One of the problems seems to have been that, with little information available, the article has been padded out from match reports. But we really need to see more about what Hamm did. Were there really no features on her, or comments about her performances? If she was so acclaimed after these tournaments, how do we know? We currently simply state, for example, that "Her leadership and performance at the 1999 World Cup cemented Hamm as a soccer icon". But... how? What did people say? And she was carried off in one final and ended up on a drip after another; this is huge, she is obviously incredible, so someone must have said something at the time. Can we not give some reaction rather than just baldly stating what happened? I still see quite a lot to do here, and I do wonder if it is achievable in the timescale of this FAC. But I'm willing to help and see how far we can get, whether it is at this FAC or at a future one, for I think there is a FA in here, certainly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- with no response to Ceranthor's comments after almost two weeks, and other outstanding issues, I'm tending to agree with the above suggestion that further work on this article might best take place outside the FAC process, ideally in conjunction with some of the reviewers who've expressed concerns; I'm therefore going to archive this nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2017 [4].

Dragon Ball (manga)

Nominator(s): 1989 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a manga series following Goku and his adventures. It made it's run on Weekly Shōnen Jump from 1984 to 1995. The manga is recognized from its anime adaptions in the United States, most notably Dragon Ball Z. 1989 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal

Both the images have proper description templates, well-relevant, and qualify for fair use. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean one is fair use, the other is CC 2.0. In any event, all looks proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean both are appropriate, in sum.

Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

For the caption for the Akira Toriyama image, I would replace the comma between "advance" and "he" with a semicolon as they are two separate sentences. I also think that "he thought it up weekly" can be changed to "he developed it on a weekly basis" as something about the current wording sounds a little too informal to me.
In this sentence (The journey leads them to the desert bandit Yamcha, who later becomes an ally; Chi-Chi, who Goku unknowingly agrees to marry; and Pilaf, an impish man who seeks the Dragon Balls to fulfill his desire to rule the world.), the semicolons should be replaced with commas as this is a list and not individual sentences.
In the sentence (Bulma, Gohan, and Kuririn search for them to revive their friends and then the Earth's Dragon Balls), I do not believe the "then" part is necessary.
I would suggest revising the following sentence (This leads to several battles with Freeza's minions and Vegeta, the latter standing alongside the heroes to fight the Ginyu Force, a team of mercenaries.) to avoid starting a sentence with "This".
I am a little confused by this sentence (In order to be allowed to end his popular series Dr. Slump). Who is allowing him to end the series? The publisher? A little more context would be helpful here.
In the "Japanese publication" subsection, you alternate between spelling out numbers and representing them as numerals. I am specifically referencing how you spell out twenty and twelve in the second paragraph. Please be consistent one way or the other about this.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. I hope that you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 16:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Argento Surfer

from the lead, "strong comedic aspects early on." Suggest adding "in its run" to avoid ending on a preposition.
"to be allowed to end his popular series " - was he under contract or something?
"the two-part one-shot" - what does this mean? "two-part story" might be less confusing.
"he specifically aimed Dragon Ball at readers older than those of his previous work Dr. Slump" Dr Slump was already discussed two paragraphs earlier. The italicized section here seems repetitive.
"thinking about how you get in and where " suggest "a/the pilot enters and where"
"no one can tell him his original designs are wrong, as it is faster to draw" - the second part doesn't follow from the first here.
"asked Torishima for as few color pages as possible"
"The February 2013 issue of V Jump, which was released in December 2012" - I think this passage could be rewritten more clearly with a link to cover date, such as "The December 2012 (cover date February 2013) issue of V Jump..."
"have been collected into four tankōbon volumes on April 4, 2013" - "were collected"? All released the same day?
Excellent work on the plot summary. It couldn't have been easy to distill such a long story into such a brief retelling. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 17:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I support this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 122.108.141.214

Comment - has the scholarly literature been surveyed for this series? For example:
Mínguez-López, Xavier (March 2014). "Folktales and Other References in Toriyama's Dragon Ball". Animation. 9 (1): 27–46. doi:10.1177/1746847713519386.

Thanks! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have scholarly sources on refs 63 and 93. I couldn't find much that was based on the manga from where I was looking at. -- 1989 02:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added the source you recommended. -- 1989 03:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! What about book chapters, is there anything on DB in the encyclopedia we used for Naruto? & what about Japanese English-language news sources? (Due to the great popularity of DB and DBZ.) --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to scholar sources. I used Google Scholar and Trove (for searching purposes, not access) to find something, but not much. I don't know what you mean, do you mean by publisher? The Japanese English-language news sources mostly talked about the (mostly newer) anime more than the manga. The only source that were relevant to the manga were The Japan Times from what you've found. I didn't find much on Asahi Shimbun except for a future exhibit event that I was able to use for the Legacy section. -- 1989 05:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there does seem to be a lot of confounding reviews on DBZ and Dragon Ball Super in the searches I've done. Perhaps someone from WP:LIBRARY might be able to doublecheck? The book that we used for Naruto, Spanjers, Rik (2013). "Naruto". In Beaty, Bart H.; Weiner, Stephen (eds.). Critical Survey of Graphic Novels : Manga. Ipswich, Mass.: Salem Press. pp. 215–221. ISBN 978-1-58765-955-3 – via EBSCOhost. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help), has a publishers website which says the book has a chapter on Dragon Ball. I know that the articles in this book tend to duplicate what WP already has, but there might be some information that would help lift the article to further comprehensiveness. Glad to know you've checked through the available English language Japanese newspapers. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the source you recommended. -- 1989 23:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Freikorp

"but no one can say his original designs are wrong and they are faster to draw." This wording reads quite badly, at least to me. It is supposed to be in quote marks? If not, reword it.

I removed it. -- 1989 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Now, decades later, cars are so sleek and aerodynamic, he currently draws square ones." - As per WP:REALTIME, try and avoid using terms like "now" and "currently".
"while thinking if the fighters can move around in it." - I think it would be better to say "can move around in them"
"he does not draw bad guys" - "bad guys" is pretty colloquial, I'd either put it in quotes or use a less childish term, like 'villains'.
"inspired by real estate speculators, Toriyama called the "worst kind of people" - I think you could use the word "who" after the comma
"Viz began to censor the manga in response to parental complaints." - How were they censoring it at this stage?
'translating the sound effects of gunshots to "zap"' - this is confusing. What was the translation before it was zap?
Susan J. Napier could be introduced with her profession so we know why her opinion is relevant.
"In 2016, the manga has sold over 156 million" - this should be "As of 2016, the manga..."
"lots of martial arts, lots of training sequences, a few jokes" - I think this would read better if you put "[and]" in front of "a few jokes"
"became the model for other shōnen series" - this appears to be a fragment. I think you need the word "it" before 'became'
"thus starting a trend that he says continues to this day" - can you reword this considering WP:REALTIME?
"he commented that the developed" - huh? Is this supposed to be 'commented that the development'?

Well done overall, that's all I found. Freikorp (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Happy to support this now. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

The article's sources are reliable and archived. Only one thing that bothers me is the use of all capitals for some Japanese sources. Also "Shenlong Times 2". DRAGON BALL 大全集 2: Story Guide (in Japanese). Shueisha. 1995." is lacking a isbn. Just fix these two issues and I'll make it pass. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 17:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Passing this review. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Paparazzzi

"...which together were broadcast in..." I guess you meant "broadcasted"
"The companies initially split the manga into two parts, Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z to match the anime series, however...", I think that a full stop would be more appropiate before "however"
"the most recent edition saw the entire series released under its original name." Sounds odd to me, why not to change it to "the most recent edition of the series was released under its original title"

More to come...Paparazzzi (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paparazzzi: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

I think the are so many short paragraphs in the "Spin-offs and crossovers" section.
Split the "Popularity" section into two paragraphs

These are my comments. I did not find any flaw. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. If it is possible, could you take a look at my FAC? Sorry for the delay on this review. Have a wonderful day. --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the paragraphs. -- 1989 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

In the "Writing" section:
- "In order to be allowed by Shueisha to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after." sounds weird. How about In order for Shueisha to allow him to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after.

More comments later. epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I resolved your concern. -- 1989 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will comment more tomorrow when I have more time. epicgenius (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: More comments:

In "Characters":
- Paragraph 2 - "The editor admitted his concerns were unfounded" contains "admitted", which has a connotation. Would you like to change this? This is optional since Torishima's concerns were unfounded.
- Para 3 - "He created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, and said that arc was the most interesting to draw" is missing a "that", but having "that that" is kind of weird. How about Having created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, he said that arc was the most interesting to draw.
In "Japanese publication":
- Para 1 - "before Toriyama changed midway through to drawing them on a graphics tablet and coloring them with Adobe Photoshop" could be a separate sentence. How about Midway through, Toriyama changed to drawing them on a graphics tablet and coloring them with Adobe Photoshop
In "Controversy in the United States":
- "A fan petition that garnered over 10,000 signatures was created," → A fan petition was created, garnering over 10,000 signatures,
In "Legacy":
- Para 3 - "Installations included using an EEG that measured visitors' alpha brain waves to move Goku's flying cloud." Remove "using".

Overall, this is very well written. I will be happy to support this nomination after these issues are fixed. epicgenius (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm glad to see that this was resolved so quickly. Nice work! epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intermission

@FAC coordinators: Is there any more feedback that needs to be put here? -- 1989 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator on this one. Once more, we have several cursory reviews that are overlooking big problems. I'm mainly opposing on prose at the moment, but will probably look at sourcing at some point as well. There are parts that are very difficult to follow. Here are some samples, but this is NOT an exhaustive list and simply correcting these will not result in the oppose being struck. I think someone needs to look very closely at the prose. I've just chosen random parts of the article and found these issues. I could find a lot more if I looked more closely. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In order for Shueisha to allow him to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after." Who is Shueisha? Who is Toriyama. Don't expect the reader to click links to find out. At FA standard, we should have enough information, even if just a sentence or phrase, to explain who people are. Additionally, this doesn't make sense. It says that for Shueisha to finish one series, Toriyama let him start his new work once he had finished. These two items do not connect at all.
"Since it was serialized in a shōnen magazine, Toriyama added the idea of the Dragon Balls to give it a game-like activity of gathering something, without thinking of what the characters would wish for": Again, I'm struggling to understand this. What is a "a game-like activity", what does "thinking of what the characters would wish for" mean?
"Although he suspected battles would appeal more to its shōnen audience, Toriyama tried to stick to the Journey to the West adventure aspect, which he enjoyed": What battles? What is the "Journey to the West adventure aspect"?
"When asked about the distinctive machines he drew in the series, Toriyama said he enjoys designing and drawing them so much it is almost a form of escapism": Why are we switching tense here ("asked... said he enjoys")? "said he enjoys designing and drawing them so much it is almost a form of escapism" is very wordy and this whole sentence could be reduced to "Toriyama enjoyed designing and drawing the distinctive machines of the series".
"Having created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, he said that arc was the most interesting to draw.": Why "truly evil"? What arc? We haven't described an arc. As this is the start of a paragraph, we can't have "he", we need a name (I can't quite tell from the context who this is). And I'm struggling to see what the point of this sentence is.
"Commenting on the issue, manga critic Susan J. Napier explained it as a difference in culture": It's not quite clear from this sentence or the previous one what "it" is that was a difference in culture.
"Wanting to break from the Western influences that were common in Dr. Slump, Toriyama aimed for Oriental scenery in Dragon Ball, referencing Chinese buildings and photographs of China his wife bought. The island where the Tenkaichi Budōkai is held is modeled after Bali, which he, his wife, and assistant visited in mid-1985. The area around Bobbidi's spaceship was inspired by photos of Africa he consulted.": Simple redundancy in this section. "Wanting to escape the Western themes that influenced Dr. Slump, Toriyama used Oriental scenery in Dragon Ball, referencing Chinese buildings and scenery. The island where the Tenkaichi Budōkai is held is modeled on Bali, which he visited in 1985. The area around Bobbidi's spaceship was inspired by photos of Africa."

I think this article still needs a lot of work to address 1a alone, and I would recommend getting a good copy-editor familiar with FA standards. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'll have no problem withdrawing the nomination to fix this problem, but if you still insist on doing a source spot check, I'll hold myself from that, unless you prefer to address that on the article talk page. -- 1989 17:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to withdraw this (I can't action that as I'm recused here), I'd be happy to copy-edit this myself and check the sources afterwards. I don't think this would be achievable while an FAC is open but I'm happy to work on it with you away from the spotlight for a little while. I don't think it would be a huge job. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'd appreciate that. Thanks, and hopefully when you're done, we could nominate this together. @Ian Rose:

I withdraw my nomination -- 1989 18:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2017 [5].

Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)

Nominator(s): — Chad1m ^EmailTalk _Cont. 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about, arguably, the most popular American kids' TV game show ever, Double Dare. It helped jump-start the media behemoth known as Nickelodeon and, 30 years later, still has a long-lasting effect on a generation of young adults. I crafted this article from the bottom-up, practically by myself (with assists from Bcschneider53 and Twofingered Typist), taking a mess with very few citations six months ago and turning it into what I feel is a very well-crafted and cited article on how Double Dare worked, its history and current evolution, and the impact it has had on television and culture. The GA process went really well and I look forward to engaging in the FA process for the first time. Thank you! — Chad1m ^EmailTalk _Cont. 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. There is a good start to an article here, but it feels like its still a little far from FA. There is so much history in the sources you cited about the creation of the show format, the transplanting of certain messy elements from other Nick shows, the hiring of Marc Summers and Harvey, etc. that has not made it into the article. Also, the "Personnel" sections are incredibly bare bones and should probably be integrated with other content and the "Other Media" section appears to consist of a couple of random lists rather than material written in summary style. Indrian (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Indrian. I've taken a lot of them into concern and adjusted the article thusly: I added more information about the hiring of Harvey, discussed why Philadelphia, an uncommon site to shoot national TV was chosen, integrated the personnel section into the production and broadcast section, added a paragraph on the origin and implementation of slime (As it was so early, Double Dare really didn't transplant anything from other Nick shows besides slime from You Can't Do That on Television), its impact on Nick and how it still is associated today, and turned the list of media into two cohesive paragraphs about realistic depictions and parodies. — Chad1m ^EmailTalk _Cont. 16:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted you to know I have not forgotten about this; I have just been very busy. I'll look over what you have changed soon, and if it seems like the article is in much better shape, I will move on to a more formal review. Indrian (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The changes have helped immensely, so I have struck my oppose. I don't have time to do a full review right now, but one thing I noticed is that Marc Summers appears to be the only source for Soupy Sales and Dana Carvey being host candidates. Marc himself has said that he has only heard these things and does not know for sure, so he is not a very good source on this matter. If they stay in, the statements should be qualified to indicate that they were only rumored candidates. Indrian (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: How are we doing on this one? Indrian, have you had a chance to take another look? If the oppose stands, we might have to think about archiving this soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been very busy. The improvements are substantial, so I will gladly strike the oppose. I am not sure I will have time to do a formal review right now, however, so I can't quite support at this point. Indrian (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid we have not made much progress in well over a month now, so this will be archived shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2017 [6].

Fordham University

Nominator(s): Indefatigable2^talk 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Fordham University. It has recently undergone a substantial amount of reworking and became a "Good Article" about two months ago. From my perspective it appears to be at the point where a Featured Article nomination would be warranted. I hereby nominate it as a candidate. Indefatigable2^talk 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Not sure the use of galleries here is consistent with WP:IG - these could be easily replaced by lists, it's not important to see the portraits
File:Fordham_University_seal.svg: source link is dead, and is this really a "government agency? Not sure that tag is the best choice
File:John_Joseph_Hughes.jpg: one of the credited authors died under 100 years ago, and this needs a US PD tag
File:St._John's_College_1846.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, and when/where was this first published?
File:Woolworth_Building_at_night,_New_York_City.jpg: where are we getting that copyright tag from? Source claims copyright belongs to William Townand
File:Keating_Hall_1936_commencement.jpg: was the original publication Fordham News, or is that just the immediate source?
File:Assumption-hall.jpg: suggest using a different fair-use tag, and who is believed to be the copyright holder?
File:Fisherman-Fordham.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sculptural work? Same with File:Fordham_University_10.JPG, File:Ram_statue,_Fordham_Rose_Hill.png
File:Fordham_baseball_card_c._1910.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
File:Fordham_University_Rams_football_at_Yankee_Stadium,_1940.jpg: the uploader does not garner copyright here - what is the status of the original work?
File:William-Casey.jpg: source link is dead and tagged as lacking author info
File:Erzherzogin_Charlotte_von_Österreich.jpg would need a FUR for this article. Same with File:Dietrich_von_Hildebrand.jpg, File:Cardinal_dulles.jpg, File:Berrigan_brothers_cover_of_Time_Magazine.jpg, File:Erik_von_Kuehnelt-Leddihn.jpg
File:Hess.jpg: the documentation of {{PD-US}} suggests that it wouldn't apply here
File:Picture_of_Hilaire_Belloc.jpg: when/where was this first published?
File:CGJung.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
File:046CupolaSPietro.jpg: what is the copyright status of the pictured building?
File:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_New_York.svg: should include explicit copyright tag for the original design

Oppose pending some fixes and pending fixes on citation formatting, which is a bit inconsistent at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Apart from the issues raised above, there are notable deficiencies in referencing. Numerous paragraphs conclude without a citation, there are apparently unsupported statements within paragraphs, and there are whole paragraphs lacking citations.

Another issue of concern is that the article was nominated with no significant preparation after it was granted GA status in June. Moreover, unless I'm missing something, that GA seems to have been awarded after about ten seconds' consideration – I can't find any critical review or comment. I haven't looked in detail at other aspects of the article; it seems fairly thorough, and there is no reason why it shouldn't develop as a FA, but it needs more careful preparation. In my view the best course of action would be to withdraw this premature nomination, and to request a thorough peer review before resubmission. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 [7].

Jill Valentine

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a popular character from the Resident Evil video games and films. Article is currently GA, and has received a peer review and a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors . Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: @Sarastro1: I have 6 votes of support and no opposes, a source review, and an image review. Also two unfinished reviews from people who don't log in very often and are too busy respectively. Let me know if this needs anything else before it can be closed. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Bluesphere

No complains about the prose after a thorough reading; it's well-written, neutral and hardly written in-universe, engaging and complete. Just a few concerns, however:

~~In the lead, the "i" in Internet memes should be in caps since this is observed accordingly below the article.~~

Done. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think Jill was voiced by Catherine Disher in Resident Evil 3 and Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Heidi Anderson voiced her in the 2002 GameCube remake of the first game is unsourced.~~

Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also notice that the YouTube video in ref #32 is no longer available, so this has to be changed with another one.~~

Can't find a replacement. I'll continue my search tomorrow, may end up just removing this entirely. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely can't find a replacement for that. I've removed everything that was attributed to that source and have added a new source to simply confirm the actress' roles. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guillory was set to appear in the sequel, Resident Evil: Extinction, but she had commitments to other work. Instead, producers Paul W. S. Anderson and Jeremy Bolt - You already mentioned Paul W. S. Anderson's complete name in the first sentence, so in this one it should just be "Anderson".

Done. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~That note you left which talks about a mistake made by Guinness should be referenced for the sake of verifiability.~~

Somebody else made that astute observation and left the note accordingly. I can't find a source which specifically says Guiness is wrong, which is a shame since they clearly are. This source ([8]) explicitly states Clock Tower came out before Resident Evil (which itself is also obvious but still unreferenced). Do you think that will be good enough? Or do you think I should remove the note and add a sentence to the prose along the lines of " recognized by Guinness World Records 2013: Gamer's Edition as "the first female player character in a survival-horror game, though the character Jennifer Simpson appeared in the survival horror game Clock Tower the year before [new reference]"? It seems a shame to remove this information since it's easily verifiable by the simple fact that Clock Tower came out first. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That source will do nicely; I'm afraid adding the sentence will just impede the flow of the prose. Blue sphere 16:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this article! I am also a fan of the Resident Evil games, (at least the first three, and five) and this article about one of the protagonists brings back a lot of memories. I can support this once you're done with 'em. Blue sphere 05:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Bluesphere. I've now attempted to address all concerns. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the other editors, Freikorp. Blue sphere 04:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

Support on comprehensiveness and prose, which is good enough that I lulled into just reading the thing. No clangers jumped out at me. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal

Great work on the prose! It is very well written. There is a little point that I would mention:

~~"...though she did not end up featuring in the film." This could be cited.~~

That's it from me. It is a really nice article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a citation for that point. Thanks for your comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article, buddy! The prose is really cool, and interesting!

Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Homeostasis07

After spending most of the last two hours going through the entire article, I have to say it's one of the most immaculately sourced articles I've come across in quite a while. I tried my damnedest to find something I could complain about here, but couldn't for the life of me find any issues. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and all sources seem to be reliable, have been archived, and have a consistent formatting style. Earwig's tool showed no copyright violation (two sources at slightly less than 25% - and those were quotes; everything else in the 5-15% range). Well done, Freikorp. Source review passed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ProtoDrake

Support - This is one of the best character articles I've seen in a while, and that's speaking as someone whose seen and edited the best and worst of the category. Congrats for this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo

Looking good so far, just found a couple of nitpicks early on:

Demand from fans wishing to play as Jill led to two more downloadable content (DLC) scenarios (also included in the Gold Edition of Resident Evil 5): Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. Unsourced. This is especially important, as the statement about fans wanting to play as Jill is not in universe information, so there's no excuse there.
She is also one of the playable characters in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011), an action game based on "The Mercenaries" minigame from Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5. While I do see Jill in one of the pictures, I think it would be better to have the source mention her name. I was able to find this article by Siliconera, which is considered a reliable source for video game articles.

That's all I've noticed so far. I'll come back in a bit with more comments. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Famous Hobo. I've addressed both concerns, adding sources and removing the 'demand from fans' statement. Freikorp (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Famous Hobo, just following up if you have any further comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Famous Hobo, just following this up one last time as comments on prose seem to be winding up. Do you have any further comments? No worries if you don't. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been following your discussions with SarahSV for a while, and wanted to wait for her issues to be resolved before writing more comments. Let's get back into the swing of things.

Appearances

Jill is a playable character in two more downloadable content (DLC) scenarios (also included in the Gold Edition of Resident Evil 5): Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. Downloadable content has just been introduced at this point, so you can't say "in two more DLC scenarios. Also, do we really need to know about the Gold Edition of RE5? This seems like random trivia, and may confuse some readers as to what a Gold Edition even is. My suggested rewrite: "Jill is a playable character in two downloadable content (DLC) scenarios for Resident Evil 5: Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in."

Done Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link Resident Evil 4 at the end of the third paragraph

Done Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Resident Evil: Revelations (2012),[19] set in 2005... You haven't mentioned the year any of the other games take place in, so why bother including the year for this game?

Because it's the only game not set in the present day, setting it apart from all the others. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the fourth paragraph, Rely on Horror is not a reliable source. To be honest, do you even need to include her absence in RE6? I'm sure fans are displeased when any major character is not in a new game from the series. For example, I'm sure that fans were unhappy when she wasn't in RE4. After checking through the first 8 google pages, no reliable source even mentions Jill's absence in RE6, so it's probably not that big of a deal.

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character and Capcom producer Jun Takeuchi said Jill's unlockable "classic look" STARS uniform from the original game was his favorite extra costume in Resident Evil 5. I'll be completely blunt, why should I even care about these two statements. So Voth cosplays as Jill, okay. Cool I guess but ultimately not important. Same goes for Takeuchi's favorite extra costume, every developer and fan are bound to have their favorite costumes, why should I care? You should just remove these two statements since they don't add much.

I've removed the statement about Takeuchi's favorite costume. In retrospect that wasn't important. I do like the statement about Voth, mainly because it appears next to a public domain image of exactly what is being described. This is the only public domain image of 'Jill', and assuming this nomination passes it will be the image that it featured on the main page when this is Wikipedia's article of the day. I'd strongly prefer that the free image is given some context within the article. Also I do think it's extremely cool. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link Clair Redfield in the In films section.

Done Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Gamingbolt is not considered a reliable source. Both instances should be removed. For the Jill Sandwich meme, just source the specific scene in the game, although no reliable sources discuss this scene, so you may want to consider removing it entirely.

Removed both instances. Freikorp (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a more in depth look at this section soon, but this section appears to suffer greatly from listicles. Why do I care that Complex ranked her as the 30th greatest video game heroine? I want to know why they thought she was a good heroine (as a side note, you might want to look at the Complex source again, since they straight up call her one of the many idiotic female characters in the game, and that the only reason she's endearing is that she was the original idiotic female character. I'm not saying remove it, I'm just saying build upon these statements and explain why Complex thought she was endearing.) Even though I don't personally agree with some of Sarkeesian's views, I at least appreciate that these paragraphs discuss the specific aspects of the character, and not just that she's a great heroine.

Alright, here's more comments. I'll take a closer look at the reception section hopefully tomorrow (though knowing me, I more than likely will forget about it. So just ping me, and if I don't respond, just keep pinging me. The little number above the bell icon is really the only way of getting my attention). Famous Hobo (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Thanks for your comments. I've responded to all your issues in the appearances section, looking forward to your full review of the reception section. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: I've now attempted to address your points so far for the reception section as well. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Just pinging you one last time. I understand you haven't been editing Wikipedia recently. Just giving you some warning that considering I have 5 votes of support, as well as separate image and source reviews, I'll probably ping the coordinators to this nomination soon to try and have the discussion closed, and thought I'd give you some notice to finish your review before that happens. Freikorp (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, if you do ask the coordinators to close it, please ping me beforehand, as I'd appreciate the chance to comment. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: No worries, I was planning to. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV

Comment. The article quotes someone calling her a "cock tease" because of her clothes. That needs to go, along with anything similar. Also, there should be some discussion of the sexism. Anita Sarkeesian mentions the character in Body Language & The Male Gaze and possibly also in Women as Reward. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Why do we need to remove the words 'cock tease'? It's sourced. I've even added quote marks around it now to highlight this is the case. Freikorp (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- She's triggered, that's why... Bluesphere 00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added the information from those sources by Anita Sarkeesian; thanks for finding that it improves the article and was very interesting. Look, I'm going to assume you don't like the 'cock tease' comment because it would rightly be considered by a good chunk of the populace to be in poor taste. I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, but I'm not going to remove it unless consensus rules against me, and not just because I giggled like a schoolboy for an embarrassing amount of time when I stumbled across it. I think it's important to convey to the reader how feminists comment on the character, but also how chauvinistic male gamers talk about her as well. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cock tease" is a misogynist insult and should be removed.

The article reflects the sources' sexism, rather than contextualizing it or simply not repeating it so much. I can find only two other FAs that focus on female characters in games. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII manages to avoid sexism almost entirely. Cortana (Halo) has problems, but fewer than in this article. Both have much shorter reception sections.

I'll trim down the repetition of sexualisation. Being somewhat of a subject matter expert on gaming, neither Cortana nor Characters of Final Fantasy are a good comparison to this article. My perception of the Final Fantasy series is that the female characters in it are designed to be cute, rather than sexual, and coverage on that article is spread out over several characters anyway. And Cortana isn't even human. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses the word "hottest" seven times (in one paragraph); "sexy/sexier/sexiest" seven times; "babe" five times; "attractive" four times; "beauty/beautiful" three times; "hottie" twice; "vixen" twice; "gorgeous" once; "cock teasing" once; "slutty" once; and "douche bag's girlfriend".
Another example of it speaking to a heterosexual male readership: "In the 2011 GameZone poll that asked 'who would you rather?', Jill was pitted against Tomb Raider's Lara and won." The source: "Every week we will put two lovely ladies against each other, and it will be up to you to vote on...well, Who would you rather obviously!"

Regarding the above two points, and the term 'cock tease', your issues seems to be less with this article and more with society in general. I don't disagree that it's a shame people focus more on Jill's attractiveness and less on her skill, but that's a reflection of society at large. Sure we can trim down coverage from the less notable sources, but the terms 'hottest', 'babe', 'vixen' etc appear multiple time's because that's how she is received within the gaming community. Are you suggesting we pretend that Jill wasn't pitted in a sexist 'who would you rather?' competition? If we remove all the terms that are perceived as sexist, this article will cease being an accurate reflection of how Jill is actually perceived within the gaming community. I am not going to pretend sexist things don't happen. Also Wikipedia is Not censored; I'm not going to remove the term "Cock tease" purely because it is misogynist. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That Anita Sarkeesian was absent has made me wonder, given her prominence, whether there are other sources missing that could offer context.

When I work on an article on a video game character, I search for information on things inherently associated with video game characters. Design, appearances, reception among gaming websites etc. It didn't cross my mind to search for what feminist websites had to say about her. Quite frankly I was quite surprised to see any coverage at all, but thanks again for finding it. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reception section is too long.

I've trimmed several sentences out of it. Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "acclaim" sub-section is 1,239 words, plus the long quote box; two of the paragraphs are c. 450 words each. It should be cut to one paragraph, focusing on the best sources. It's currently a quote farm, full of "me too", low-quality sources, including the Daily Record. "Bad ass" is used three times in one paragraph.

I've removed sources that would be considered lower quality, including 'Cheat Code Central', Wirtualna Polska, The Daily Record and Thanh Niên. Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "memes" sub-section seems long-winded.

I'm not seeing a problem here. Can you be more specific? Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article mixes up logical quotation and aesthetic, e.g. "50 hottest game babes", but "babe in games,". Please check them all and make them consistent. The MoS favours LQ; see MOS:LQ.

Good find. Done Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few, e.g. "hottest pics". but "fetishizing their lithe bodies." SarahSV ^(talk) 15:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've got all of them now. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article by Stephen Harper, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies at the University of Portsmouth, discusses the fetishization of Jill Valentine's body. It's cited in Nick Lacey, Introduction to Film, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 327, also mentioning Jill Valentine. I can see quite a few similar sources. These all need to be mined. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added info from both of these sources. Freikorp (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history, the current version, including the problematic reception section, is very similar to this version of December 2014, before you began editing the article in January 2015 (see WikiHistory). That means you're trying to clean up someone else's writing and choice of sources, which is always difficult. In your shoes, I would rewrite the reception section from scratch, keeping it tight, using only the best sources and making full use of any scholarly sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I adopted this article after the previous writer was permanently banned from editing (for something unrelated to this article), recognising the potential it had underneath all the chaff that had been added to it. If you think the article had a few lower quality sources in it when you first reviewed it, take a close look at how many it had before I started editing it :). It was pretty ridiculous. Anyway I think I did a pretty good job trimming it down before I nominated it for GA, let along FA, and after reading it over again and trimming a little more I am quite pleased with it, so I'm not seeing a need to start from scratch. I've removed several more sentences and sources today. Have a look over all my replies and the article as it stands now and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding Harper and Sarkeesian. You summarized them well.

The problem is that the article acts out the sexism, rather than contexualizing it. It's as if the last 10–20 years of scholarship on women in games doesn't exist.

The current FAs on video-game characters are: Arbiter (Halo)], Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Cortana (Halo), Flood (Halo), Lightning (Final Fantasy), Master Chief (Halo), MissingNo., Tidus. None have quote farms in the reception/cultural impact sections. The argument that a source said something and therefore it must be included—because NOTCENSORED—is never valid, least of all at FAC. One 343-word paragraph consists entirely of things like she's 26th of the 50 hottest babes, 43rd hottest woman, 12th-hottest girl, etc.

The article contains 71 instances of deadurl=yes, 38 in the "cultural impact" section, which seems a lot. Does that suggest that the sources are low quality and out-of-date? Have you checked them all? Picking one at random (citation 68, supporting that GameDaily "used her as an example for the archetype of a 'smart and sexy heroine'"), I can't find her name in it.

Part of the reception section was in place by 2009, [9] and much of it by 2012. [10] It should be rewritten, and the acclaim/criticism division should go (calling someone a "vixen" and asking "who would you rather?" isn't really acclaim, by the way). Is "who would you rather?" addressed to female gamers too? How would the female zombies be "cock-teased to death"? The article seems to exclude a lot of readers.

The reception section should show familiarity with the scholarship on women in games, and ideally should be framed by it. What was the cultural impact of Jill Valentine? There's something about her in Grimes (from the 2003 DiGRA conference). The following doesn't mention her, but it's an interesting overview: "Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years". I got it from WP:RX and can send you a copy if you like. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I archive all sources before nominating an article for GA, let alone FAC. I always use Archive.is. If you look at the version of the article you linked to before I first edited it, you'll see the current citation 68 is one of only seven archived sources at the time, and when you mentioned it, was the only source archived to webcitation.org. Somehow it must have slipped through the cracks while I was archiving everything else. I am very confident all the sources I archived myself (being well over 100) accurately back up what is attributed to them. You seem to have found the only exception at random. As indicated above this article has already received a rather thorough source review. I've removed citation 68 now.

I don't think any of the sources remaining in the article are low quality. I understand that a high number of them are dead. This may be because I simply found an archived version of the original page rather than where the URL was moved to. Also several formerly prominent video game website, such as 1UP.com, have since been closed down. In my experience video game sources are frequently going down or being moved. It's very frustrating. Does that suggest the sources are out-of-date? Probably. Does that suggest the information they once contained is no longer relevant to the subject? I don't think so. Granted a high percentage of sources are dead, but I've never heard anyone suggest dead urls (that are archived) present a problem before.

What is and isn't acclaim and what is and isn't sexist is completely open to interpretation. When I originally started trimming less-notable mentions I specifically left the 'who would you rather' source in because I think its a fantastic way to demonstrate Jill's overwhelming popularity to the reader. She was pitted against Lara Croft, arguably the biggest sex symbol in video gaming, and won. Incidentally the rather large 'Sex symbol' sub-section at the Lara Croft article is an interesting read. Is the 'who would you rather' question addressed at female gamers? It doesn't specifically say male voters only. Granted I believe responses would have been overwhelmingly from males, but I'm absolutely certain some women would have voted in it. One of my best friends happens to be a lesbian gamer and now I'm curious to ask her if she'd prefer Jill or Lara. As the reception section states, Sarah Warn and Lisa Foiles both rank Jill as one of the "hottest" characters. Is it still sexist for women to find women sexual? Would you prefer instances of women sexualising her to be removed also? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually honestly quite curious.

I was quite happy to trim the section down, but I'm going to have to wait for a third opinion before I consider completely re-writing an entire section that four other FAC reviewers effectively gave a tick of approval to. Same deal with the cock-tease comment. I might end up pinging all the other reviewers back here as none of them specifically commented on either. I'll probably do that once I finish looking at the sources you've provided and ones like them; I hope I find good information in there to further improve the article. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydokey. I've added information from the source you provided. If nothing else, the section on gender issues now rivals the size of the paragraph on her attractiveness. I've reorganised the 'Criticism' section, during which I removed the cock-tease comment, purely because it didn't fit well with how the paragraph is now structured. Can you suggest a new title for this section? I was thinking something along the lines of 'Gender role and sexualisation', but I'm sure there's something more appropriate and catchy. Thanks for offering to send me the other source, I have access to it via my university though. I downloaded a copy and have added it to my reading list:). Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making those changes. It would help if you would mark your minor edits as minor; e.g. [11]. Lots of unmarked minor edits give a misleading impression of authorship when the page history is checked.

As you said, most of the article has been written by other editors over several years, and it hasn't changed that much for FAC. Here's the diff of the reception section on 18 Dec 2014 (before your first edit), and the version promoted to GA in January 2015; and the diff of GA and the version you brought to FAC. (I removed the quote boxes because they'd been moved and would have made the diffs unreadable.) The three versions are very similiar; most of the difference is related to citation style.

I would get rid of the acclaim/criticism headings and merge the sections under "reception". Remove the paragraph beginning "Jill has been often regarded as ...", which is unreadable, and summarize it in a couple of sentences in your own words rather than quoting, or highlight the most notable sources and leave it there.

Re: sources. It's unlikely that I randomly found the only problematic source. Have you checked all the offline sources? For example, 31, 34, 44, 62, 77. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sources. I don't think it's fair to assume other sources are 'problematic'. There's never been any accusation that the sources are misleading. The issue with the one you picked at random was that it was dead and the archival program used didn't appear to save the version properly. No I haven't checked the offline sources, I have assumed good faith of the editor who added them. He had a reputation for accuracy. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who did add the offline sources? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SNAAAAKE!! was the previous 'custodian' of this article. Here is him adding one of the offline sources: [12]. I'm a bit concerned about why you're even looking into this. I mean, are you suggesting someone would add over 100 accurate online sources and then try and sneak in something maliciously via an offline source? The offline sources are not used for anything that is libelous, outrageous, or inconsistent with what other sources say. It strikes me as bad faith. Also just for the record I've never claimed to have written the reception section. I claim to have trimmed, tidied and formatted it consistently to a level I believed was FAC worthy. I don't take credit for other people's work. My userpage clearly states Jill Valentine was a B class article before I touched it.

Can you please explain why you removed the Dave Cook source? [13] I think it's relevant to convey to the reader how popular the memes were.

I'm also concerned you removed information from the 1UP.com source regarding the Resident Evil 3 outfit. You appear to be bowdlerizing the article of anything you perceive to be sexist, and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be considered to be making contested edits to an article as a reviewer. I think it's relevant to convey to the reader that while the male writer found the costume attractive, he still thought it was inappropriate. This shows that even the target audience for her sexualisation thinks she is being over-sexualised - not just feminists and academics. I think this offers unique insight into her reception that academic sources simply cannot provide. Also calling it a 'Slutty-cop' costume isn't putting the character down, if anything it's a badge of shame on the people who came up with it. Freikorp (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "14th-greatest video game meme in 2014" because it's silly, and the article is full of it: "'43rd-hottest' woman in video games"; "ninth on their list of top 'video game vixens'", on and on for whole paragraphs. But you're welcome to restore anything. I'm going to leave it there for now. Feel free to ping me if you make substantial changes and if you want me to look again. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: What's your opinion on this kind of restructuring? [14] Freikorp (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, but it needs to be cut down further. Some of the sources seem odd choices, e.g. Daily Record, Thanh Niên, Wirtualna Polska, especially when it's so repetitive (hot, hotter, hottest). SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did a very quick copy edit of the Reception section. That's roughly how I would do it if I had to copy edit that section (without being too radical) rather than rewrite it. I reverted the edit, but note that there are a few LQ errors in the text (LQ doesn't mean always outside), some other punctuation errors (e.g. video game needs a hyphen in "video game mascots"), and some awkward writing. And too many quotes. It's written as if for a tabloid newspaper or press release. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated your edit, with a couple minor tweaks. If the issue of sex appeal was oversized before, conversely I think it's undersized now, which undervalues the character's overwhelming reception in the area. I'll probably trawl through all the old sources later and pick the most relevant quote and source combo I can find and add it in there as well, maybe two at most. I've replaced a couple of the direct quotes with prose. Do you have any other concerns about this article? I'm not good at copy-editing, which is why I always run articles through the Guild of Copy Editors prior to FAC nomination; unless you explicitly point a copy-edit issue (or where you think the wording is awkward) out to me I probably won't find it. Freikorp (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, are you making progress reading the scholarly sources? Also, the first two paragraphs of the Reception section need to be merged and tightened considerably. There are still too many low-quality sources saying almost nothing, and too many "deadurl=yes" (50 in the whole article; 14 in Reception). SarahSV ^(talk) 03:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me about scholarly sources last week in the section below and I replied there.

I'm waiting on a review of the reception section from Famous Hobo. Four people gave this article support before you started commenting on it. Considering this I'd like the opinions of somebody else on the matter before the article is rewritten anymore to comply with the wishes of one person.

You're going to have to point out which sources you consider to be of low-quality. I'm not seeing a problem here, and the article has already received a source review.

You're also going to have to show me the official guideline that states I cannot use deadurls that are properly archived once they get to a certain number. I don't see what the problem is. You can still clearly access what the source said before the link went dead. Keep in mind you also said you couldn't see how the split image could be justified whereas our expert on the matter said the justification was sufficient. I really think this deadurl thing isn't a problem on any level whatsoever. Freikorp (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your response. The version brought to FAC made no mention of the scholarship or of Sarkeesian. You added some sources that I found during a 10-minute search, but I can't devote more time to researching this. The article has to be a thorough survey of the sources, per WP:FACR 1(c): "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources".

As for which ones are the low-quality sources, I've pointed out examples several times. It's also a problem that you haven't checked the offline sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, there may be more sources here:

Find video game sources: "Jill Valentine" video AND character AND gaming – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up the fact I didn't check what Sarkeesian had to say on the matter as if I've violated some kind of long-standing agreement that her opinions needs to appear in every video-gaming related article. Quite frankly, its insulting.

The sources you mentioned as being low quality were The Daily Record, Thanh Niên and Wirtualna Polska. The only one still remaining is Thanh Niên. What exactly is your problem with it? Is it because it's not in English? I deliberately left it in as its pretty much the only source from outside the Anglosphere. I think it subtly conveys to the reader Jill's popularity reaches other cultures. But if you absolutely insist, I'll remove the damn thing just to keep the peace.

As I've explained, there are only about a half dozen offline sources, and they are used sparingly. They are also not used to say anything that is controversial, libelous, or inconsistent with what the live sources say. It's not a problem that I adhere assume good faith of experienced editors.

Over a third of the reception section is now the opinions of feminists and academics. This is fine. I think it improves the article. I also think it is good coverage from said areas and I don't want to see this article turned into someones coatrack for perceived injustice regarding the sexualisation of female video game characters.

Look, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm going to ping the other editors back here to see what they have to say on the disputes. @Slightlymad: @Casliber: @Adityavagarwal: @Homeostasis07: @ProtoDrake: @Famous Hobo: I'm pinging you all as you've all commented on this nomination. The conversation here seems to be repeating itself, so I think we need fresh input. Commenting on any or all of the disputes is welcome.

In your opinion, is it a problem that only about 35% of the reception area is the opinion of feminists and academics? Have a look at the section. Do we need more coverage in this section from there types of people?
Are any of the online sources too low-quality to be used?
There are about half a dozen offline sources; I have not personally checked them. Is this a problem? I have assumed good faith of User:SNAAAAKE!!, who wrote the majority of the prose and added said sources. His online sources added all turned out to be accurate, and the offline sources are used sparingly and are not used to say anything that is controversial, libelous, or could be considered inconsistent with what the live sources say.
Is it a problem that so many of the online links are dead (keeping in mind that 100% of links that are no longer live are still completely accessible through archival websites like Archive.is and are formatted and tagged accordingly)? Freikorp (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: OK, it looks like no-one else wants to touch the above conversation. Can't say I blame them. I've also given up on Famous Hobo finishing his review but since I now have six votes of support and a separate support on sources I don't think I really need any further comments from anyone. That being said, I think it's only fair to ask for closing comments. I do think the article is better due to your review, however, I can't help but think you're being overly critical, and I suspect it's because you just plain don't like the article. To put things in context, in over nine years of editing I've never come across someone challenging an offline source that was added by an experienced editor to support a completely non-controversial statement (Incidentally I've since removed one of the existing offline sources and replaced it by citing the film itself as the information appears in the film also. I thought this might be more to your liking as it's more easily verifiable - just download the film if you want to check). I've never seen someone challenge a properly archived dead URLs either. Granted this article has a lot more of them than the average article does, but I honestly do not see a problem with it. I noticed something in your editing also. Bob Mackey had a couple things to say about Jill that could be considered sexist, however in your suggested change you removed all his 'sexist' comments though expanded on his comments that support your point of view. There were over a dozen male editors who made sexualised comments about Jill, but you chose to keep only the two female reviewers who sexualised her. Personally this did not bother me as as far as I'm concerned there's absolutely no difference between a man sexualising a women and a women sexualising a women, but it didn't go un-noticed. Your edits do strike me as a bordering on biased, though I'm willing to accept this may have been unintentional, just as I can assure you I didn't deliberately leave out feminist reception of the character because I don't think their views are important. I honestly didn't even think to look for them, and since the sources are not specifically about Jill (only mentioning her in an overall assessment of female characters) I don't think there's any shame in the fact they weren't already being used. Anyway, I am genuinely interested to know if you have further suggestions. I'm also happy to remove that Thai source if you really don't like it. I do believe that the article has enough sources from people who think it's not appropriate that Jill has been treated as a sex object, and don't want to add anymore for the same reason we don't need a dozen people saying shes the 'hottest babe' in gaming. A couple people saying this is enough. Freikorp (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'll read through the article again. It will take a couple of days before I get round to it, but if I'm not going to leave another comment, I'll say so at that point. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, just to follow up, I may not have time to get back to this. I'm reviewing another article with a TFA deadline, and it's taking longer than I expected, so I may have to leave things here as far as this one is concerned. If that changes, I'll let you know, but please don't wait for it or let me hold things up. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for letting me know. I'll ping the coordinators; we'll see if they get around to closing it by the time you're ready. Feel free to leave comments on the actual article talk page if you have any concerns once this is closed. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp, you wrote below that you wanted me to continue the review. I don't have time to continue, but I did write up a draft oppose a few days ago, so I'll post it in case it helps.

Oppose, mostly per 1(c).

The article was written by a variety of editors over the years, rather than by the nominator. There isn't much difference (apart from citation format) between the 27 June 2017 FAC nom and the January 2015 version promoted to GA (diff), or between the latter and this version of December 2013 (diff).
Lacks analysis. The nomination made no mention of the scholarly literature on female characters in games. Even Anita Sarkeesian, a prominent critic who discusses this character twice, was missing. I found several academic sources and Freikorp added them, but they should be added carefully after a thorough search. For example, Lynch et al. (2016), which examines the development of female characters from 1983 to 2014, could be mined for sources and used to offer an overview. It "found a pattern of change in sexualization over time that indicates the industry might have reacted to its critics". [15] Perhaps there could be a summary-style section summing up the relevant parts of Gender representation in video games.
Little character development. There's little sense of how the character developed from 1996 to the latest appearances in c. 2012, and whether that development was responsive to the scholarly criticism. For example, the article describes one costume as a relic from a period in which game producers concentrated on the teenage-boy demographic. Did the character change as that demographic became less dominant? What year were the nurse's and pirate's outfits, criticized by Sarkeesian, offered? The timeline could be relevant and interesting.
Sexist language and trivia. The Cultural impact section as nominated was a long quote farm and very offensive. It called her a "cock tease", "no dick and a set of tits", a "douche bag's girlfriend", "slutty", a "vixen", and, in one paragraph, "hottest" seven times. It compared her to other female characters and asked "who would you rather?". It was also full of trivia: e.g. that she was 26th of 50 hottest game babes. The section did improve during the FAC but only after repeated exchanges, and it would be better to rewrite it than fiddle with it.
Unchecked sources. The offline sources haven't been checked. Two examples of unchecked text: this and this, both added by 88.109.27.239 in January 2010. The book sources should all have page numbers (e.g. citation 45).
Citation 26, an offline source in Japanese, is used to support: "In the original game, Jill plays differently than Chris as she runs more slowly, can absorb less damage, and is less accurate with firearms." Does this source really say that the creators deliberately made her less capable in every way? And does "less accurate with firearms" in section 1.3 contradict section 1.1., which says she was made "physically weaker than the game's male protagonist", but "was given more skills and weapons to compensate"?
Outdated sourcing? When nominated, the article contained 76 instances of deadurl=yes out of 124 references. That density of dead links suggests a pattern of low-quality and outdated sourcing.

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out to the coordinator that the above draft opposes due to several issues that have already been fixed.

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for your draft, though I'm a little confused by it. I can only assume it's a bit out of date as several of these issues have already been fixed. Citation 45 was removed before anybody actually questioned it. You suggested a rewrite of the sexism issues, and I agreed to implement it. You chose the wording, yet you're still opposing over it? All of the quotes you mentioned above ("cock tease", "douche bags girlfriend" etc) don't even appear in the article anymore. The quote farm section did not simply "improve", it was drastically shortened from fifteen sentences to two sentences. This is completely fine, but I don't understand how you're still opposing over this particular issue. Also the article did contain 76 instances of deadurl=yes, however, as I've recently discovered, these were simply incorrectly tagged. The article currently only has eight dead urls, and these are all archived properly. For the record, three of the offline sources have not been checked by myself, and none of them are used to say anything out of the ordinary. If this nomination insists on assuming bad faith from other editors, I will happily remove all three of them if doing so will result in you not opposing the nomination. Also it's not an FAC requirement for the nominator to have written everything, so I don't understand why you keep bringing up this fact which I have always been open about. I'll continue to address the concerns of the other two reviewers below and get back to the concerns of yours that remain outstanding if anyone else feels the same way you do. Freikorp (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to order two of the three sources I haven't checked on eBay; estimated delivery time within 2 weeks. I'm not ordering the third one (Biohazard 3 Last Escape Official Guide Book) since it's in Japanese and my Japanese isn't good enough to translate accurately. I can assure you regardless of whether this FAC is promoted or not I will check the sources and in the extremely unlikely event that something is inaccurate I will correct it. Also I'd just like to point out there's no contradiction as per point 6 of your last post; Jill is less accurate with firearms, though she is given one at the beginning of the game, whereas the male character only begins with a knife. She is also given skills the male counterpart doesn't have, such as lockpicking. Freikorp (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll butt in here and point out that one reason for concern about not checking all the sources in the article/not writing it all is not that we think you need to ABF about previous editors deliberatly inserting bad information/bad sources/etc... its that we've had too much experience with how an article can slowly drift away from the information being correctly sourced. If editors do not watch with an eagle eye, it's very easy for copyediting/etc to move stuff around, change meaning slightly, or just generally make problems without ANY of the editors doing it meaning to make things worse. It's often the cumulative effect over time and many small edits that cause issues. So, best practice when starting to bring an already existant article up to FA quality is to check every single sentence/word against the sources to make sure the information given is still supported. Doing this isn't ABF about the previous editors, it's just making sure that the foundation of the article is sound before doing the polish/etc work. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That explanation is very helpful, thanks. I wish that had of been explained as the reasoning in the first place. Freikorp (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Three of the four images are fair use.

The free image, File:Julia Voth as Jill Valentine crop.jpg, is fine; it's from Flickr and is cc-by.
It's fine to claim fair use for the lead image, File:Jill Valentine.png, and the page has an appropriate fair-use rationale.
I can't see how File:Jill valentine battlesuit.png, a second fair-use image with a similar costume, would be justified, and the fair-use rationale doesn't explain.
File:Sienna and Jill.png are two fair-use images in one (Jill Valentine and an actor). The source for one is a YouTube video, but with no indication where the image is, so that should be fixed. The source for the other is a dead link, which should be fixed too. If reliable sources have discussed this clothing or this particular image, those sources should be added to the image page and the discussion should be made clear in the text around the image. Otherwise it isn't clear why fair use is being claimed for both images next to the paragraph that discusses the actor, or why these images were chosen and not some other.

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the image review. I've removed the battlesuit image. I've updated the dead sources for the fourth image (it wasn't actually sourcing a YouTube video, the old link was just redirecting there). I've also relocated said image to the discussion about the costume and added additional sources and text into the caption. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the battlesuit and updating the links. File:Sienna and Jill.png is now next to the quote-farm paragraph, which doesn't mention Sienna Guillory. To claim fair use you have to show either that the images (both of them) are the subject of commentary or that their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding". See WP:NFCI. For what to include in the rationale, see WP:FUR. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so considering that I've moved it back up to the 'Films' section, adding commentary on how it was a faithful adaptation of the original. I can add information back in on the costumes reception as well if you like. Freikorp (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fair-use hardliner by any means, but I'm having difficulty seeing how both images (her and the actor) could be justified, and I'm not sure even one could. The issue is that she was supposed to be a cop but was wearing a short skirt and tube top. That's easy to explain in words. Was this her regular uniform or was she going undercover or something? The article doesn't say.

If I were writing this, I would probably have a section called "Costumes", where I'd explain what she wore and when (including the alternative costumes Sarkeesian mentions), whether the outfits were controversial, and whether they differed from other female characters, using scholarly sources about the representation of women in games to frame the discussion. Also, whether they differed over time, and how that fits with the development of other female characters. How is your reading of the scholarly sources progressing, by the way, and do you intend to add more from them? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a 'Costume' section is certainly interesting. I had a bit of a look around and I can't find any other video game character that has one. This does not to suggest in itself that it shouldn't be done, but I think it does suggest that such a section is not a priority for an article on this subject. I read through all the sources you provided. I thought I'd harvested enough out of each one to a point where any more might be considered undue weight. I wasn't planning on searching for any more. More may exist, but that's beside the point. There are well over 20 articles that sexualise Jill as one of the "hottest" or sexiest characters, that are now not being used in that manner. I think we can both agree an article should just have an adequate sampling of the sources available on a particular issue, and I think the article has good coverage from feminist and academic sources now. I've actually previously been criticised for adding too much coverage to feminist views in an article before.

Back to the issue at hand, I'm no expert on image licensing. Normally my image portion of FAC reviews just consists of me complying with whatever Nikkimaria says (Incidentally if you could weigh in on this Nikki that would be appreciated). Considering the amount of coverage in the article about both the costume, the costume reception, the live-action adaptation of it, and the response to the live-action adaptation, I certainly think the image improves the article. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there's sufficient commentary there to justify the inclusion of the comparative image. However, the lead image needs more detail in the FUR - "all OK" and "n.a" should definitely be replaced, and purpose expanded. It would also be far better to provide original source details for both parts of the comparison rather than a third-party site with no such details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've added better FUR for the lead image. I did some serious digging and actually found the original source for one of the images, archived from June 2004 [16]. I can't find the original source of the other one. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aoba47

This is more of a clarification question, but I was a little confused by the phrase “the game character's various incarnations” in the lead. I have actually never played this franchise (as a huge lover of pretty much all video game genres, I should definitely get to at least one of them), but this phrasing, specifically the “incarnations” part, makes me think that each of the characters’ appearances in each of the games is new rather than a straightforward continuity (i.e. multiple incarnations of Zelda and Link over the course of the Legend of Zelda series). Do you think “incarnations” is the best word here? I might just be overthinking this part though. I am not entirely sure if the (and based on the game character's various incarnations) part is even entirely necessary as the sentence as a whole would still make sense without it.

You're right. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the phrase (Described as "a classic example" of a female horror-game character), attribute who is describing the character as this.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would include the years in which the films mentioned in the lead were released (either in parenthesis after the title or in the actual sentence itself).

Done. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possible add more context for this sentence (Jill's outfit in Resident Evil 3 was added as an optional costume in the remake at the request of staff members who were "crazy" about it.)? It is a good sentence with a good citation, but it is not really made clear what the costume that they were crazy about actually is or looks like. I apologize if this information is present in another part of the article already.

I don't have access to that offline source, but the context is given in the paragraph above. The outfit was rather skimpy, and reception of it (both positive and negative) is later covered in the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the phrase (In a separate scene Barry), I would add a comma between “scene” and “Barry”.

Done. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this article; once my relatively minor comments are addressed, I will support this. I hope you find these comments helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47. Thanks so much for your comments. I've replied to all your points, and have also made a couple unrelated tweaks in the meantime. Let me know if you have any further concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing all of my comments; you have done a wonderful job with this article. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Either way, good luck with getting this promoted, and with any of your other current projects. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by 1989

"and instead preferred" Remove instead.
"and featured on many top character lists" Missing a word.
"dispose of remaining STARS members" Replace of with the.
"Resident Evil 5: Lost in Nightmares" "Desperate Escape" This isn't in italics.
"Whenquestioned"
"eroticising" Is the article in UK language?
writes female "characters who I'd move the quotation move.
"based on that of" Remove that of.
"Ruff said of her role" Could be phrased better.
"Jill was one of the first two player characters in the Resident Evil series." was?
"will enter" enters?
"the second film in series" Missing a word.
"While giving negative reviews of the film itself" Doesn't sound right (read the previous sentence).

I'm not seeing the problem here. Feel free to just reword it yourself or point out exactly what is wrong with it . Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I thought Jill was giving negative reviews. It jumped to what she was doing negative reviews. The sentence could be phrased better.
Oh I getcha. Fixed. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Jill did not feature" Replace did with was?
"In <year>" Add a comma after the years.

When my concerns are addressed, I'll check back. -- 1989 17:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 1989. Thanks for your comments. I've addressed all of your concerns except one, which I have highlighted above. Freikorp (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Reply above. -- 1989 23:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Done. Thanks again. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Freikorp: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 23:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

I'm afraid I don't consider this ready for promotion just yet. Of the six supports, the first four were quite cursory and did not really engage much with the article. This would not be a problem, but for the fact that the most in-depth review has come from Famous Hobo and SlimVirgin. These two users have raised several valid, actionable points, and neither of them have supported yet. The final two supports, posted after the in-depth comments, were concerned mainly with prose or content clarification but do not really address the deeper issues raised in the earlier reviews. Additionally, issues with sourcing were raised after the initial source review, which makes me think that we probably need another, deeper source review. So, despite the number of supports, I really want to see more commentary on the FA criteria, specifically 1b, 1c and 1d. And given the concerns raised above, I'd like reassurance how it meets these criteria, not just a quick "support 1c".

I think we can get there quickly, but I really would like that reassurance. As an aside (that I seem to make quite often), it would benefit the nominators of video game articles if these FACs did not attract superficial review; there are too many that attract one line supports, and this does a severe disservice to both the article and the nominator. When closing, we do not judge the number of supports, but the depth of review. Finally, it is a pity that Sarah's comments were dismissed a little (which is how it reads to me; although I'm sure that was not the intention, it certainly comes across like that) so hastily and in quite a defensive manner. She does raise some points which would concern me in closing this, which I consider actionable, or at the very least deserving a more detailed rebuttal. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I would have loved Famous Hobo to have finished their review. I literally pinged them six times trying to get them to finish it before I gave up. It is not fair to expect me to have support from someone who did not finish their review. I also asked SlimVirgin for any outstanding concerns, but she said she was busy and didn't want to hold the nomination up. While I will admit I was keen to get this nomination closed so I could focus on other articles, I would have preferred for her review to have been finished as well. I am happy to wait for more comments from her now.

I pinged several people to weigh in on Sarah's review as I was, and remain, very reluctant to do such a drastic rewrite of an article to address the concern's of only one person, and especially since that one person clearly feels extremely passionately about the particular issue they were addressing. Nobody joined the conversation. I also firmly believe Sarah's concerns about sources are not valid. As I stated in my rebuttal, in over nine years of editing I've never seen someone challenge an offline source added by an experienced editor to back-up a completely non-controversial statement. I think this is particularly overly critical as only about half a dozen of the over 100 sources are offline; it's not like a difficulty in verifying sources is a systemic problem within the article. Accordingly, I'm not going to do anything about the offline sources unless other people weigh in and consensus rules against me.

I've gone to great lengths trying to get people to review this nomination, and gone to greater lengths to get neutral people to weigh in on contested points so a clear and unbiased consensus can be reached. I'll happily wait for further comments in the hopes that these things will occur. Freikorp (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

~~What makes http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com a high quality reliable source? I'm not seeing that sources are cited for the information nor is there a readily identifiable editorial group.~~

Replaced all uses, mostly with citing the credits of the game's themselves. Freikorp (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.qj.net a high quality reliable source? Again, I"m not seeing a lot of information on who is the "QJ net team"~~

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://www.siliconera.com a high quality reliable source? Nothing about their editorial process or fact checking.

Two uses have been replaced, the third has been removed. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One with IGN [17], the other with Kotaku [18]. Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason we need three cites on "In addition, she makes a guest appearance in Under the Skin (with Carlos and Nemesis), and has a character card in the SNK vs. Capcom: Card Fighters Clash series. She appears as a playable character in the crossover tactical role-playing games Project X Zone and its sequel, wearing her costume from Revelations,"? The Kotaku seems rather unnecessary here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://bloody-disgusting.com a high quality reliable source? Not seeing anything on their site about their editoral process.

I'm confident this source meets WP:RS, however, I'm willing to accept it might not be considered high-quality. I've replaced or removed all the other sources you've listed here (with two specific exceptions as noted). Accordingly, is there any wiggle room on this? The sources are not used for anything controversial or likely to be contested. Freikorp (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might find Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches helpful, but note that it predates the upgrading of the FA requirement from "reliable sources" to "high quality reliable sources". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes https://residentevil.com.br a high quality reliable source?

Replaced. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Convention Scene. [19] Freikorp (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two problems. One... the new source is sourcing "Kari Wahlgren assumed the role in Marvel vs. Capcom 3; Michelle Ruff lent her voice to the character in Resident Evil: Revelations." but the new source does not mention Kari Wahlgren at all. So that needs to have a source. Second, given Convention Scene's about page, it sounds like its a personal website, what makes it high quality? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://collider.com/sienna-guillory-resident-evil-5-retribution-interview/ a high quality reliable source? Note that according to our wiki article on the site, it wasn't bought by a magazine until 2015, and this article dates from 2012.

Have you considered it was probably bought because of it's established reputation? Of all the sources you've questioned, this is only one of two (the other being the afterellen source) that I am going to challenge as being high-quality. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for it being bought for that reason? Otherwise, that's just speculation and doesn't show that it's a high quality source. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that prior to 2015 they shouldn't be considered high quality? Or that they didn't have a good reputation at the time? Don't you think that kind of argument goes both ways? This source in question is an interview. Are you suggesting that prior to becoming a high-quality source, their interviews were inaccurate? Or falsified? Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to have one - the onus is on the nominators to show that the article meets the criteria. It would be helpful, since this interview predates their purchase, if we could see an "about us" or "staff" listing for when the article was originally posted. Just because something is an interview doesn't make it instantly reliable. It is only as good as the person/website/etc publishing the interview, and we need to know what their reputation was BEFORE they were purchased. They very may well be reliable and high quality now, but this is under a different management. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... this source is ... just plain offensive as a female. And all for "Footage of Jill is featured in a Resident Evil-themed pachinko machine." which is only barely supported by the "article". REALLY?

The article is crude, yes, but it's only used for a completely neutral statement so I didn't see an issue with it. Fact: footage of Jill is featured in a Resident Evil-themed pachinko machine. If you insist though, I'll remove the statement and the source. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is "high quality". I can't say that any source that uses such images (and in fact gives off the vibe that the whole point of the "informational post" was to let them post the images) is going to make me think it's "high quality". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fussed either way, so I've removed it. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I removed the source, I also removed what it was sourcing. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.denofgeek.com/us a high quality reliable source? It at least lists an editorial team but what makes them a GOOD editorial team?~~

The source is only used to support that a certain video game came out a year before another one. How good does the editorial team have to be to figure that out? Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they kinda need to have some expertise in the subject area or as journalists. Since they don't post their sources, we have to judge reliablity from the people putting out the information. And keep in mind the requirement at FAC isn't just WP:RS, but that the sources be "high quality". You need to take it a step beyond just barely making the grade as far as reliable. To be quite frank, I could have challenged most of the sources used - many of the sources are not really up to "high quality". The only pure video game sites I'd consider really high quality are IGN and the various prima guides. Most of the rest are just barely meeting the RS standard. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not interesting in contesting this one further either. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes https://www.tomsguide.com an important site to feature their opinion on Jill Valentine?~~

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same for http://www.afterellen.com, why is their opinion important?

Sarah Warn is a notable writer commenting on the character in a notable source. What makes her opinion unimportant? Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... we have a wikipedia article on them... and? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.psu.com/news a high quality reliable source? Just saying they are experts doesn't make them ones...~~

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=6997 a high quality source? It looks like some random guy's opinion, why do we care?~~

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences "Stephen Harper, senior lecturer in media studies at the University of Portsmouth, notes that in the film Resident Evil: Apocalypse, the camera frequently follows Jill and Alice from behind. Jill's first appearance in the film shows her legs—in a miniskirt—rather than her face. The next scene, shot from below, focuses on her legs and buttocks as she walks toward the police station.[42][91]" are sourced to the actual article by Harper and this google books snippet. The way the footnotes are placed it says that the snippet sources BOTH sentences, which I can see pretty clearly that it doesn't. Did you actually get the book? Using google snippets is a very unreliable thing to do for sourcing - you don't see enough to get the full context. I'm not seeing what the Lacey citation adds here - you're citing the original source for Lacey's information. Harper's article sources this information fine - we don't need Lacey's repeat of the information just to pad the sourcing out.

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~TV Tropes is a wiki. It is NOT a high quality reliable source and it needs to go.~~

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information was backed up by other sources as well, so just the source in this case. Freikorp (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.eeggs.com a high quality reliable source?~~

Happy to remove this one without contesting as there are alternate sources which back up the statement. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes http://www.cheatcc.com a high quality reliable source?~~

Removed. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove the information it was sourcing also? Or just the source? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found these sources that may have information of use:
- http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/11312.58174.pdf

Jill only features in one paragraph here: "Jill‘s reappearance [in RE5] is significant since she is the only character that is restored from the controlling parasite, and does not need to be killed. Like the woman in White Zombie she is not held accountable for her actions when infected because Jill, like the Western woman in White Zombie is, although also essentially generic, assumed to be generically good." I can't see a way to use this paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find the fact that a scholar considers Jill's character is this way is very relevant, actually. This is an article about the game character - if we need to be told that some sites consider her character sexy or similar, surely opinions on the character that do not deal with her sexuality are also relevant? If we're only putting in "sexy" characteristics, we've got an issue with comprehensiveness. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What gives you the impression only sexy characteristics are in the article? And please don't link to a former version of the article, I'm talking about the article we have now. I'm hardly seeing any coverage remaining in that area. I'm seeing more coverage of people being upset she's sexy. Anyway, can you suggest where I should add this information? And what I should add from it? Freikorp (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is useful information. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I still don't see how I could use it. Any suggestions on how I can will be given serious consideration. Freikorp (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412011402676~~

Jill only gets one mention in this one: "[In contrast to Sheva], Chris' relationship with Jill Valentine, his former partner from the original Resident Evil game, is articulated as loyalty, rather than romance." I'll use this to expand the paragraph about Chris' relationship with Jill. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://www.participations.org/volume%204/issue%202/4_02_lay.htm~~

This gives an account of the narrative of the first game, which is already in the article. Other than that is only briefly mentions that in comparison to the film versions, Jill as she appears in the first game doesn't have much depth. "The only thing we know about Jill Valentine for instance is that she is the ‘master of unlocking’." I don't see this as helpful at all. Freikorp (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again - this speaks to her character.... surely we can include non-sex-related characteristics? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added information from this source to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/view/27/0~~

One mention here: "Jill Valentine and Claire Redfern of the Resident Evil series (1997, 1998) also exemplify the ways in which a female protagonist with slightly different skills from a male counterpart can be used to alter gameplay of the same scenario." I've used this to add a sentence to the 'Gameplay' section. Freikorp (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- https://pure.itu.dk/ws/files/80594879/HarrerPichlmair_PCG15.pdf

This source is very interesting, but not overly relevant. Jill only gets three passing mentions as being part of a much larger problem purely because she happens to be White. "[W]hen Sheva is introduced and talks for the very first time about “partnership”, it triggers Chris’ flashback of Jill - the white woman that ought to be on his side", "[C]haracters like Excella, Wesker, and Jill Valentine represent us with the powerful impact of a white world of science, technology", "Upon Chris’ command, [Sheva, a negro] is willing to eradicate all things black from her home continent, until white blonde Jill is resurrected towards the end of the game and Sheva is history." I'm not planning to use this at this stage. Freikorp (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- https://search.proquest.com/openview/8b6cbda1f2f38cb69df9dcc7e37ac4d3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=506319

I don't have access to the full article and the preview doesn't mention Jill. Will happily read through this if someone can send it to me. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- http://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=15474348&AN=86285787&h=96ERa25isAA%2ffHgY6GtdtiawZsf43E8piiE4X6wiPIq1VhMgYxzrgp4haNZiQi8rUo5lCziV48WNB06iSdBpCQ%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d15474348%26AN%3d86285787

As above. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-49331-6_8

Same again. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1555412015575363

This one only mentions that Jill is a playable character, then just talks about what made the series so successful. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- http://www.kinephanos.ca/Revue_files/2017_Trepanier_Bonenfant.pdf

This source is good. I've used it to add two sentences to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=XENXAwAAQBAJ&dq=%22jill+valentine%22+%22resident+evil%22&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s which would seem to be almost a necessity to consult.

Boy that book had some interesting analysis. I've added a couple sentences to the reception section accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think there would be more than just a couple of sentences - how did you access the book? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I purchased it via Google Play. "Valentine" gets seven hits within the book's prose, and nothing that focuses entirely on her. The first just mentions her in a list of several characters. The second mention is the one I have added to the article. The third time mentions her in passing, specifically noting that Chris seems more concerned with saving Jill than with saving the people of the fictional African nation they are in. The fourth is a passing mention of what Chris thinks when he looks at Jill and Sheva together (that the world is worth saving). The fifth mention is extremely brief, simply listing Jill's mind control device in Resident Evil 5 among several other things as examples of medical brutality. The sixth mention briefly mentions that the "protective nature" of both Jill and Claire Redfield contrasts with the temperament of the Resident Evil character Alice. The final mentions just states that Alice rescues Jill and her group of survivors in Resident Evil: Apocalypse, and notes that Jill is impressed with Alice's skills, considering them to be superhuman (which they are). Freikorp (talk) 22:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing. There are just too many sources that are iffy along with some that are outright not reliable. And there appear to be a number of sources that have not been consulted. Quite frankly, it's not well sourced, even for a video game article. I did run earwig's tool and it's fine. I didn't do a spot check of any sources to see if they fully support the information, because so many of the sources are questionable that I didn't want to waste effort. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thorough review. I've made some replies already, and will address all of your others concerns shortly. Freikorp (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to all your concerns about questionable sources. I'll start going through your list of potential sources shortly. Also you mentioned you haven't done spot checking yet. I thought I'd just point out in case you didn't notice that the original source review said that they did that quite thoroughly. Freikorp (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the original "source review" let TV Tropes pass as well as a number of other very questionable sources, I'm not going to take a thing for granted here. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Just trying to save you some time, there's a difference between not noticing a source is unreliable and going through and checking each source actually supports what it is said to. Anyway, I've now made a reply to each one of your listed questionable sources and potential sources. I've also expanded the article with several sentences based on the new sources. Also as I've stated above, if I removed the source, I also removed the information it was sourcing, unless said information was also backed up by a separate reference. Looking forward to your reply. Freikorp (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I understand the newer discussion below has probably taken up most of the time you would have wanted to dedicate to this review; I wasn't expected such a long debate to take place in my absence. That being said, I had already responded to all of your concerns above, yet there is only one strikethrough. Is there any chance you could go through the rest of my replies, and at the very least, strike any issues you believe are addressed? I put a lot of effort into reading those sources you provided and adding information from them that I thought was relevant. Freikorp (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat - it was my husband's birthday. It was also one of the regularly scheduled meetings for the online gaming company I work for. I have to attend those. This weekend I had my high school reunion AND a funeral. I will TRY to get to it when I can, but frankly, this is getting insane. How many more times do I have to say I'm busy.... and will get to it when I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're busy. I appreciate the time you took out to do the review in the first place. As I said, I wasn't expecting a long debate to happen yesterday. I hope it doesn't detract from following up your review. If things are that hectic take your time though, I have regularly experienced Wiki-related stress and did not wish this review to add to yours. Freikorp (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Thanks for following up my replies. As you've probably noticed, this nomination has been closed, however Sarastro1 recommended I continue to work with reviewers, which I intend to do. I have made a couple replies to you above, and will make more later. Just wanted to let you know I am still working on addressing your concerns, though I won't ping you back here again or hold it against you if you don't reply now that the review is closed. Freikorp (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that some of these 143 newspaper results may have useful information or may be used to replace sources under question above. Was a newspaper source undertaken? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I searched some newspapers looking for sources on how Sienna Guillory's portrayal of Jill in the films was received, though I could do a more in depth search. I'll take a look later, though based on my experience a significant amount of those hits if not the overwhelming majority are just going to mention Jill in passing as a main character in two of the films; i found a lot of that in my searches. Freikorp (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

My main concern has to do with the sources, their positioning in the article, and, in places, their apparent redundancy, and their questionable quality. The over-sourcing or over-lapping sourcing makes it difficult to find things in edit mode or to conduct a rational source review. Below, I've suggested ways to make the sourcing more clear, and I've tossed in a few suggestions about prose or MOS issues. I share the concerns expressed by SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth, and I appreciate that you've begun to address them. It will be difficult, though, to adequately address all of these concerns quickly since deepening the analysis will require research, which takes time.

In video games

¶1 "as they inspect the mansion and battle its undead residents" – Although the mansion is mentioned in the lead, this is its first mention in the main text. It's not clear whether the Arklay Research Facility biological warfare site includes things other than the mansion or whether the mansion is the whole site.
¶1 ~~Link undead or explain it?~~
¶1 ~~"Bravo team's sole survivor" – What does "Bravo team" refer to? This is the first time it's mentioned.~~
~~¶1 and ¶2 There are two sets of sentences in each of these paragraphs with two back-to-back citations apiece. Are both of them needed in each case? If so, are they situated in the right places?~~
¶3 "In Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007), she works with Chris Redfield to expose and destroy the Umbrella Corporation by raiding their research facility in Russia, defeating Umbrella's newest bioweapon creature, T-ALOS.[8][10][12] – Do all three citations support all the claims in the sentence? If so, could you choose the one from the most high quality RS and just use it? If not, could you insert the citations right after the claims they support? This would de-clutter and would make it easier to check sources.
¶3 There are three more sets of sentences in this paragraph with two back-to-back citations apiece. I have the same questions about these. Are they all needed? If so, are they situated in the right place?

I've removed one of the sources as being unnecessary. The reason I have two sources in other places is because one is an Official Youtube video, which is unarchivable and may be deleted at any moment. In the event that the video link goes dead I want the article to still be adequately sourced. Anyway, I think two sources is completely acceptable. Freikorp (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I find citation 14, which forms one of the pairs mentioned above, puzzling. It links to Resident Evil 5 on Wikipedia, but the source seems to be elsewhere. Not sure how to interpret this.~~ Finetooth (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was citing a scene within the video game Resident Evil 5. It isn't necessary though so I've deleted it to reduce confusion. Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶5 ~~Ditto for the back-to-back citations in this paragraph.~~

Gameplay

¶2 ~~"She can also heal the player's active character if she is used as a support character." – To make this more clear, add "game" before "player"?~~
¶2 "In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Jill is available as a DLC character, and was given a complete overhaul, with her appearance and move-set being based on her Resident Evil 5 incarnation and using teleportation moves reminiscent of those employed by Albert Wesker." – I'd suggest replacing with "with plus -ing" construction by splitting the sentence, thus: "In Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Jill is available as a DLC character, and was given a complete overhaul. Her appearance and move-set are based on her Resident Evil 5 incarnation, and her teleportation moves are reminiscent of those employed by Albert Wesker."

Reception

¶1 "She has often been viewed as one of the most attractive women in video games, and has been featured in numerous lists ranking female characters by their sex appeal."[72][73][74][75][76] – Five citations for the minor claim that she's attractive seems unnecessary, and the long string of citation parameters clutters the article in edit mode. Why not pick the highest quality RS from the group and use just that one?

Just using one wouldn't support the statement that she has been featured in numerous lists. Have a look at paragraph four of this version of the article to see what this has already been reduced from. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current version is much better than the earlier one. I would take it a step further by altering the sentences in question to read, "She has been viewed as one of the most attractive women in video games. In 2010 and 2011 respectively, Sarah Warn of AfterEllen.com and Lisa Foiles of The Escapist placed her in the top five "hottest" women in gaming, with Foiles describing her as "one of the hottest female character designs ever".[74][75] The two citations support all of the claims in both sentences, and [72], [73], and [76] can be deleted. The images in the article make clear that some of the attraction is sexual, as do the "hottest" claims. More proof is redundant. Finetooth (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶1 "In 2010 and 2011 respectively, Sarah Warn of AfterEllen.com and Lisa Foiles of The Escapist placed her in the top five "hottest" women in gaming, with Foiles describing her as "one of the hottest female character designs ever".[77][78] – One of these would be enough, I think, since they both say "hottest". Could you pick the one from the highest quality source and just use it instead of both?

I'm inclined to leave both, partially because both commentators are notable but also because this coverage has already been reduced significantly. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Finetooth (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memes

¶1 "The line "You were almost a Jill sandwich", spoken by Barry Burton in the first Resident Evil game after Jill was almost crushed by a falling ceiling trap, sparked an Internet meme of "Jill Sandwich".[90][91][92][93] – To reduce clutter, use just one high quality citation that supports the claim. If you actually need more than one, each supporting a different claim in the sentence, insert the citations where they are needed so that readers can tell at a glance which citation is supporting which claim.

I've removed two of the sources. I'm worried if there's only one someone will contest the meme as not being popular enough to mention. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better. If anyone says the meme is too insignificant to mention, you might cite "Dawn of the Digital Dead: The Zombie as Interactive Social Satire in American Popular Culture", which mentions the Jill Sandwich. Finetooth (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶1 "Barry refers to Jill as the "Master of Unlocking" – The Manual of Style advises against linking from within a direct quote. You could solve the problem here by removing the quotation marks, which don't seem necessary.
¶1 "In a separate scene, Barry refers to Jill as the 'Master of Unlocking', leading to a 'Master of Unlocking' meme; the dialog was removed in the remake of the game."[93][94][95] – Do you really need all three citations?

Removed one mention as above. Freikorp (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¶1 "...and in 2014 Dave Cook of NowGamer ranked "Jill Sandwich" as the 14th-greatest video game meme." – This seems like one example too many. Your point is well made by the rest of the sentence. I would just delete Dave Cook.
¶2 "The memes were referenced by Capcom in the mobile game Resident Evil: Uprising, and in the unrelated game Dead Rising, which featured a sandwich shop named 'Jill's Sandwiches'. In 2012, Complex included the 'Jill's Sandwiches' shop on a list of the best Easter eggs in video games."[93][99] – Do both citations support all of the claims in the sentence? If so, pick the best one and delete the other. If not, insert the citations right after the claim(s) they support.

References

~~Citation 93 links to a page that is essentially blank.~~

Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Finetooth. I've just finished addressing Ealdgyth's concerns about questionable sources, and all of your concerns as well. I've put strikethroughs through anything I think I have unquestionably addressed, and have commented under anything that I believe may need further attention from you. Looking forward to your feedback on these changes. Freikorp (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your strikes: it's always best not to strike the comments of reviewers, and it makes it harder for the coordinators to see if the reviewers' concerns have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I only really did that cause I thought the section would get a bit long if I put in new lines in just to write "done" under everything. Anyway, in that case if something doesn't have a comment directly underneath it, that means its been fixed. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed the final two remaining points Finetooth. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response to my questions and suggestions. I'm prepared to support on criteria 1a (prose), 1d (neutrality), and 1e (stability). About 1b, I'm a little less certain, but the article seems to me to be comprehensive. That leaves 1c (well-researched), and here I defer to Ealdgyth, whose judgments on research and sourcing I trust more than my own. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your review. I appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sexism and Sources (comments from Homeostasis)

OK. So certain aspects of this review need to be addressed ASAP, in the interests of moving this along.

@SlimVirgin: I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good, in terms of criteria 1b and 1c. Jill Valentine is one of the most high-profile female characters in video gaming history, and some of the critical commentary made about her since the mid-90's has definitely been sexist. This was fairly and accurately represented in the article as it was, but the bulk of your arguments seemed to stem from sexism in the video gaming industry and the role of female characters in video games, generally, and had little to do with the article itself. This is a major, current, high-profile issue within the industry, and should never have been raised in the context of a featured article review for one individual character. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games can address the issue. It was never Freikorp's responsibility to do so. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Freikorp has removed/replaced many of the sources you considered questionable, but has rightly contested some of your other claims. Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: "What makes X a high-quality reliable source?" or "What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?". Much earlier in the review, another user posted a link to this, which established that Quick Jump, Siliconera and Tom's Guide – all sites you continue to question – ARE reliable sources; you additionally went on to question the use of Collider, Den of Geek, Bloody Disgusting, and also the work Sarah Warn. The latter is a distinguished author, the former are longstanding publications with a dedicated editorial staff. So your continued opposition seems strange to me. On that basis, will you reconsider your opposition? Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: It's coming up to a month now since you last contributed. Since Sarastro1 suggested that they're taking your non-involvement to mean a tentative oppose, do you wish to quickly comment on whether that's the case, or have your issues been dealt with? Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- To address your point - It took me over an hour to do this one source review. It isn't my job to add that to my already rather heavy workload of doing source reviews. I do about 15 or 20 a month. All the articles I review get the same questions - it isn't my job to do the justification, it's the person nominating who needs to show that their sources meets the FA criteria. I actually went to the bother of hunting through Google Scholar for other sources - that's not something I usually do. But, hey, just make me MORE motivated to do more video game source reviews... and I haven't had a lot of time to return to this because .. .hey, I'm a volunteer. It was my high school reunion this last weekend and today is my husband's birthday. Forgive me for being not at someone's beck and call. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And further... telling Sarah that she's made the article worse is just plain insulting. I get that you think the article was better before but Sarah's one of our better reviewers and while we do not always agree (we've butted heads in the past over FACs I'd brought up) ... the idea is to have a better article. It isn't to have an article that sounds like a videogame website's review - it's meant for a broad audience and needs to reflect ALL the scholarship, not just videogame journalism. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get offended. That wasn't my intention. I understand you're a volunteer – we all are – but I think I raised some genuine issues with some of the criticisms being directed at the article, and why I think they should never have been brought up, or are no longer an issue at this point. I never said Sarah made the article worse, just that some of her criticisms have damaged the article's comprehensiveness and representativeness. Do you have any thoughts about the sources I've mentioned above? Do you still think it's right to oppose this nomination because of them? Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" sure reads like "the article is worse" to me. If you didn't intend that, it might be a good idea to rework your phrasing. As to the sources, I'm still waiting to be shown how they are high quality reliable sources. I helpfully dug up a Signpost article I did on thow to demonstrate that a source is reliable. Nothing has addressed that actual issue - just a link to the videogame project saying the sites are reliable. But, AGAIN, the requirement at FAC isn't just WP:RS, but high quality. To be utterly frank, most of the sites on that list from the VG project are at best borderline reliable. They do not meet the high quality bar at FAC. IGN and Eurogamer are barely meeting the high quality bar. And, yes, I DO game, and I AM familiar with much of gaming journalism. So I do have a clue. For the moment, my oppose stands because I'm not being shown anything that makes these questioned sources high quality. And the more time I have to spend repeating this and answering questions, the more you're dragging me away from my husband on his birthday. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That page I linked to clearly illustrates – and links to – multiple conversations on how consensus was formed on each and every one of those sources. Wikipedia considers them reliable. You don't? This isn't a good time for you, but I'm clearly not forcing anyone to be on their computer on their husband's birthday. I'm going offline now. I won't respond here for another 24 hours. Enjoy your day. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria at FAC are not simply reliable but "HIGH QUALITY". I cannot emphasize that enough. It is a step above just plain reliable. It's right there in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria at 1.c. "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate" and I'm not seeing that some of these sources have been met. And to be honest, the fact that I was able to turn up several sources that had not been consulted prior to me digging them up doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "well-researched" part being met either. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Straight away, I have to say that it is extremely unhelpful for reviewers to post comments such as "I believe your review has done more damage to the article than good" and "Surely it would have been speedier/more appropriate to take the 30 seconds required to investigate for yourself if a source met the notability requirements, rather than simply asking multiple times: "What makes X a high-quality reliable source?" or "What makes X writer so important as to have their opinion featured on the article?"." No-one is required to do anything here, we are all volunteers. Alienating reviewers is an absolutely certain way to make sure that others steer clear of these articles at FAC, and without reviewers, nothing is going to pass. Simple. Another point that I am repeatedly labouring is that video game reviewers are often their own worst enemy, both in terms of cursory review and in what appears to be happening here: closing ranks. I'm absolutely sure that this is not the intention, but it is certainly coming across that way. And I would recommend not trying to tell source reviewers how to do their job: Ealdgyth has been doing this for years and years, and you will not find a better source reviewer here. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up how I see this at the moment: We have six supports, which I have noted before. There are now two opposes and Finetooth who is happy on most things but defers to Ealdgyth on the sourcing issue, and the incomplete review from Famous Hobo (who I might add, is under no obligation to reply further here). I would judge some of the response to the opposes (and not necessarily by the nominator) to be less than optimal, but they are valid opposes which the reviewers do not consider to have been fully addressed. Where does this leave us? There is certainly no consensus to promote here, and I consider it unlikely that we are going to reach such a consensus. Where does that leave us? Unless I see that we are moving towards that consensus, I'm likely to archive this fairly soon. That would require the usual two-week cooling-off period, away from FAC, for these issues to be thrashed out. Given how untidy this is starting to get, I really think this might be the best option, but I'm prepared to hold off for a little longer to see what happens. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely amazing. My entire point all along was that SlimVirgin brought up the issue of sexism in video gaming when it clearly wasn't appropriate to do so. Ealdgyth has been arguing over "high-quality" when the term is "purposefully vague" and can be determined at random by each individual reviewer. Also, in this case, it appears that "high-quality" is being used to disregard community-based consensus. Famous Hobo is, of course, under no obligation to reply further here but – on the other hand – is it then fair of you to use his unfinished review as one of the reasons for not promoting the article? If two users who've opposed go AWOL, how is it possible to constructively address their criticism? Freikorp bent over backwards to address many of the points raised by these users, implementing the vast majority of them, although contesting just a handful of Ealdgyth's.

Regarding Ealdgyth's opposition, please read her source review, Sarastro1—particularly the part where Ealdgyth suggested multiple links and Freikorp went through each individual one and explained if they were used or not, and why—primarily if they turned out to be irrelevant, or if they were inaccessible. After Freikorp did all this, Ealdgyth then opposed, saying that "Given that the original "source review" let TV Tropes pass as well as a number of other very questionable sources, I'm not going to take a thing for granted here." Freikorp had already removed the TV Tropes reference, and the majority of the others which were mentioned. Ealdgyth is even being vague about where the goalposts are at this point: "And to be honest, the fact that I was able to turn up several sources that had not been consulted prior to me digging them up doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the "well-researched" part being met either." Freikorp had already incorporated the sources Ealdgyth found, or explained why they couldn't be used, so why is this even being raised as an issue?

That's why you need to take a step back and look closer at this, Sarastro1. This nomination has been going around in circles for over a month—hence why I started this debate in the first place. How can it be possible to reach a consensus when the coordinator is using the opinion of two users who won't update their stance on addressed issues, and when another user keeps using out-of-date, conflicting arguments about what they're actually looking for? Freikorp has implemented the vast majority of the suggested improvements from opposing users, but this nomination is circling the drain. It's time for some investigative work, wouldn't you say? Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT using conflicting arguments nor am I changing the standards. These are the same standards I apply to all the source reviews I conduct. It appears I haven't done enough pop culture or video game source reviews lately, because it appears being held to the standards the rest of FAC has to meet is causing problems. My oppose stands. I do not see any thing showing that shows that the contested sources have been demonstrated to be high quality reliable sources. I will try to get back and strike the resolved issues but the non-replaced sources need to be shown to be up to the FAC criteria. And I remain concerned that the research was spotty, although I am (not yet) opposing on that ground because I haven't had time to dig further on that subject. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, @Ealdgyth: Look, I never meant for this to get this messy, and it was never my intention to cause anyone any offense, or to attack the validity of their work. It just seems incredibly frustrating and unfair for someone like Freikorp to go through all this work, implementing – it seems to me – practically every single suggestion that has been recommended, but to then be confronted with criticism that seems ever-expanding in scope: ie, he solves one issue like replacing a source, then is told that the article is unfit because other sources have "not been consulted". He incorporates the work of Anita Sarkeesian into the article [there are actually 3 others there at this point, as well], then is told there are other scholarly sources available. Is the availability of other – unidentified – sources genuinely the issue here? Maybe we can take a step back from the mess I've created here (sorry), take a fresh look at the sources as they are now, and collectively figure out what has to be done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Homeostasis07, I opposed on the basis of 1(c), which Ealdgyth quoted above ("well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."). When I first read the article, there were no scholarly sources; Sarkeesian was missing (the editor who apparently wrote much of the article was topic-banned from Anita Sarkeesian—discussion here); and it contained lots of poor sourcing and sexist slurs. In an article about a black character, would editors simply repeat racist slurs because some sources used them? I found a few scholarly sources during a five-minute search, and they were added to the article, but that's not what's meant by "well-researched". I don't want to be put in a position where I'm effectively writing parts of the article.
The article needs a better structure, some analysis, a sense of the character's development, a full use of high-quality sources, something about the scholarly debate on sexism and female characters in video games, and the writing could be clearer. I suggest that it be archived so that the nominator can work on it without the pressure of an open FAC. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the article as it currently stands? Every one of these issues has been resolved! Structure, clear and engaging prose, an entire paragraph detailing not only the sexism received by Jill, but the diametric use of sexuality by another female character in the series—anymore on this issue than a paragraph would be overkill and unnecessary for this article, and would be better placed elsewhere. Regarding sexism/racism: yes, if a movie character was insulted in broadly racist terms by mainstream media, then I would consider it an essential part of a featured article to be representative of that. I would also disagree that the article ever had an abundance of sexist slurs, and suggesting that the banned users' history is somehow indicative of the quality of this article is a serious overstep, and pretty damn unfair. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I wasn't expecting such a long debate to take place in between me logging into Wikipedia. Sarastro1, I noticed you approached both Finetooth and Ealdgyth asking for them to weigh in here. I really appreciate you doing that. The most frustrating thing at this FAC has been people not finishing their reviews. We're all volunteers, and nobody is under obligations. That being said, if you don't finish your review, and don't reply back once the nominator has attempted to address all your concerns, then your opposition or undecided stance shouldn't be given any weight at all. I had the same problem at my first FLC. Two people opposed on certain grounds, then disappeared. I attempted to address all their concerns and pinged them back, but they never commented again. Eventually the coordinator appeared to agree with me that their opposition was accordingly not valid, and promoted the article.

You'll notice there's a reoccurring theme among reviewers. Everybody single reviewer who has followed up my replies is supporting the nomination (noting of course that Finetooth has referred one point back to Ealdgyth). The only opposes and neutral stance, have come from people who haven't yet responded to my rebuttals and attempts to address their concerns. If you go through the discussion, and take note of my rebuttals, you'll notice that SlimVirgin frequently ignores counter-points I make to her concerns. She also has not responded directly to my attempts to address all of her noted concerns. To be fair, she has clarified that she does not have the time to complete her review; her 'oppose' draft is exactly that, a draft, and as I have noted above it opposes due to several issues that have unquestionably been resolved, and on several other points that I have at least attempted to fix. I have also addressed/replied to 100% of concerns raised by Ealdgyth. I don't think it's fair to count her vote of opposition until she replies to all the work I have done and clarifies whether it's still not good enough or not. Freikorp (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so above, I'm told no pressure but here my oppose should be discounted because I haven't gotten back to it? Which is it? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Take your time replying if you're busy. But considering I've attempted to address all your concerns it's my opinion your oppose shouldn't be given much weight until you do. That's all. Freikorp (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, the history of the article is relevant because the nominator isn't the author. The author was criticized many times for exactly this kind of article: an overfocus on sexuality in articles about female characters; adding any source to support that focus, regardless of quality or repetition; and producing "fan fiction" sections with too much detail that are hard to follow. The article has improved during the FAC, but it needs an improvement in kind, not degree. For example, there really isn't any sense of the character's evolution, and that's not something that can be fixed during an FAC because it takes time to research it, decide how to structure it, and write it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin can you give me an example of an article with the kind of 'character evolution' section you think this article should have? I don't understand what you want. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by Finetooth

Freikorp, there is another possible solution here. You could take charge of the situation by withdrawing the article and working on it over the coming weeks. If you do that, you would save everyone involved in this FAC from spending more time on this particular nomination. If I were you, I would replace lower-quality sources with high-quality sources before re-nominating. I found one high-quality source, which I mentioned in my comments above, by searching on JSTOR. SlimVirgin and Ealdgyth have suggested others. I think it likely that even more exist, but it will take time and effort to track them down. I'm not a gamer, hence my hesitation about 1b (comprehensiveness), but research is research no matter what the subject; you never know what you might find. Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your suggestion Finetooth. The issue with that is that I don't see any major work that needs to be done. If I withdraw the nomination, I'd pretty much just be waiting the standard two weeks before I nominate the same version again. I already added all the sources suggested by SlimVirgin, and read all the ones Ealdgyth suggested (at least the ones I could access) and added anything I thought was relevant. I replaced 90% of the sources Ealdgyth complained were not high quality; the last I contested and will continue to contest as I believe they are of an accepted standard. I will admit this article lacked coverage from academic sources when I nominated it, but I think it has adequate coverage now. It seems that two sources is more than enough to say Jill is perceived as one of the 'sexiest' characters, even though literally dozens of extra sources support this. Using that comparison, I don't see why I need, for example, any more than the current four academic sources complaining Jill is over-sexualised. I'm not doubting there's another academic source out there that shares this complaint. My argument is that if I add any more it will not only be unnecessary, it might be undue weight. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Adequate" is not the same as "the very best", and six supports is not the same as consensus. Finetooth (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant adequate by the standards of FAC, not in general. To put things in context, I thought I already had enough coverage from feminists before I added material from Ealdgyth's sources, but I added it anyway. My point is I didn't add this additional content because I thought the article was lacking coverage in this area, I added it in order to address the specific concerns of a reviewer in the hopes this would help get their support. I do not think the article is lacking comprehensiveness in any particular area. Freikorp (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I see no further benefit in this remaining open, as we seem to be going round in circles somewhat. No matter which way we look at this, there is no consensus to promote here and we’re not realistically going to get that consensus in this FAC. We all need to remember that an article will not be promoted without the consensus of reviewers, not just how many supports there are. I think the best idea I've seen in Finetooth's. I'm going to archive this shortly. After the usual two-week wait, this can be renominated; I would recommend working with the reviewers here to achieve a consensus of what should be in the article. Given that it is unlikely that will happen, at the very least I think we would benefit from a fresh start. However, the nominator should bear in mind that the same issues could arise again at the next FAC; just because a few editors disagree with the issues raised here does not mean that they can be ignored in a FAC. I realise that this is unlikely to be a popular decision, but I think it is the best way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh @Sarastro1: grandma, what strange timing you have". You close this just as Ealdgyth said: "It appears I haven't done enough pop culture or video game source reviews lately, because it appears being held to the standards the rest of FAC has to meet is causing problems." She was provided links to a list of sources considered reliable by the rest of Wikipedia, but grew stubborn and dug her heels in when she was confronted about her lack of knowledge. And I put that quote in green because it appears you had trouble recognizing that two quotations in one of my previous responses – that you used as fodder when you attacked me for being an "extremely unhelpful", "alienating" and "less than optimal" contributor – were direct quotations from comments made earlier by the same user, ie: "What makes Bloody Disgusting a high-quality reliable source?" and "What makes Sarah Warn so important as to have her opinion featured on the article?", repeated ad nauseum. Sorry, Freikorp, this was on the verge of turning around, but one of the coordinators used it as an excuse for doing what they wanted to do several weeks ago, "it is a pity that Sarah's comments were dismissed a little (which is how it reads to me; although I'm sure that was not the intention, it certainly comes across like that) so hastily and in quite a defensive manner. She does raise some points which would concern me in closing this, which I consider actionable, or at the very least deserving a more detailed rebuttal."—said in reference to Sarah's complaints about sexism in video gaming: which had no business being brought up in this review. It seems some people took issue to the brevity of my initial source review: a mistake I won't be making again. When you renominate, I'll be the first responder, with the most detailed damned source review this page has ever seen. And I'll make sure to stick around to personally respond to every single criticism those two users could conceivably make—if they care to show their heads again. That's a promise. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I was half expecting this nomination to be closed, but I must say I was hoping you'd at least wait for Ealdgyth to finish her review first. She just made her second round of replies, and struck more than half her concerns in the process. Nevertheless I'm not going to make a bid deal out of this. As noted above, I ordered two offline sources to address Sarah's concerns that I hadn't checked them personally. I'll wait for them to turn up in the mail and check whether they are accurately sourced in this article, and will expand from them if I can. In the meantime I'll continue fixing or at least replying to any suggestion that gets made here, as I always have. As I believe the article already meets featured standards I'll renominate this in two weeks or after my I finish reviewing my ordered offline sources, whichever comes last. Freikorp (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 [20].

Melbourne Storm

Nominator(s): Anderch (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Melbourne Storm Rugby League Club, it's history. It previous has been rated a Good article but it is comparable to other Featured articles in particular the "Sydney Roosters". I have been a contributor over the years to this page and have tried to keep it stable and fortmatted correctly. I think it is time it was nominated.Anderch (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal -- Thanks for your nomination but just a brief scan of the article shows serious deficiencies in referencing; around half the paragraphs are uncited, which is not satisfactory for even a GA-level article, let alone an FA. Given the amount of effort that I think would be necessary to bring the referencing up to scratch, I think the best thing to do is withdraw this nom, work on the sourcing, and then take to Peer Review, after which you can make another attempt at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Echoing Ian above. I would recommend getting some more input for this before renominating, and maybe look at the FAC mentoring scheme. In any case, please wait for at least the minimum two-week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2017 [21].

Pru (album)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! Following the promotion of "Shine" (Gwen Stefani song), I have decided to nominate another music-related article for FAC. This article is about the eponymous, debut studio album by American singer Pru. It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records. Music critics described the album as crossing multiple genres, with several commentators connecting the singer with a movement of neo soul performers. Apart from the sound, Pru was also noted for using poetry as an inspiration for writing music. After its release, critics wrote generally positive reviews of the album, praising its composition and Pru's voice. The album peaked at number 176 on the Billboard 200 chart. Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)".

I have looked through other featured articles on albums to prepare this article for the FAC process. I am not entirely sure how I heard about this record (I think I just randomly found it while browsing the iTunes Store), but I enjoyed working on an article about a relatively unknown/overlooked work. Just for clarification, I do not believe that a separate article is necessary for Pru, as this album appears to be the only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) aspects of her career. Following the release of the album, she has appeared to drop from public attention.

I believe that this fulfills all aspects of the featured article criteria. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire more people to put up more obscure music-related articles through the FAC process. I look forward to everyone’s feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Adityavagarwal

There are two images in the article (one in infobox). Both of them are well-relevant and have proper description templates. One is under CC and the other qualifies for fair use. No issues anywhere; ~~good~~ great to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. Same to you! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hello again. I was wondering if I could withdraw this nomination as I will be extremely busy with real life work/personal projects for the foreseeable future, and will not have the time to fully commit to an FAC, especially one that is just starting from scratch. Thank you in advance, and I am very grateful for the FAC community as I learned a lot about writing and revising and interacted with a lot of cool users. Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 [22].

Akira Kurosawa

Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for the Akira Kurosawa biography which is currently listed as of top importance for Wikiproject:Japan. It has previously been nominated for FA status in 2010 though failed and is presently at GA status following recent updates and related article development. The article is comprehensive, up to date, and with an improved outline for the biography. It should be more readable and accessible for readers and editors of this article who appreciate the contributions made by this filmmaker. This is my first GA article here and first time to try to promote it through the FA nomination process. Comments from those experienced editors reading this article and participating in this assessment are welcome to help in refining it by constructive and critical comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article review

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in good shape but there are somethings that could be fixed:

Avoid quotes in the lead.

The sentence making that quote has been rewritten. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, try to balance the lead. The first and last paragraphs are too small.

Lead section paragraphs should be more balanced now with some further short summary of Kurosawa's influence. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references 33-37 seem like an overkill. I would reduce some of them. There are other similar cases, so I suggest separating them across the paragraphs.

Reducing down to three citations now to support that sequel's reception. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"However, it would be Kurosawa's second film of 1950, Rashomon, that would ultimately win him, and Japanese cinema, a whole new audience." is completely unsourced and small.

That sentence was meant to be part of the paragraph before it and has been merged there, with Rashomon elaborated in the subsequent section in chronological order of films. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that I see no issues. Ping me or mention me when you think you fixed the issues. If you have free time, could you check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3? Regards.

All right, giving you my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a large number of changes just now to the article's lede and to the basic structure of the article and I intend to do more. I am a Kurosawa expert and was the editor responsible for the entire long biographical section as it now exists, as well as most of the rest of the content as it existed until recently, so please don't undo my changes before I complete the major ones I envision and have had time to justify my changes on this page. Thank you! Dylanexpert (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: "A teenage Alejandro González Iñárritu remembers being spellbound when he first saw Ikiru at the age of 19" -- tautology: delete "A teenage" or "at the age of 19". --Gertanis (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gertanis: That is now included. Are there any other sections to support or oppose or revise in the article? JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Note: All images in this article are currently in good standing on Wikicommons and are shared by over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia at present as being images in good standing. If you have reason to believe that there may be any issues with any of the images used in this article then add your comments in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akirakurosawa-onthesetof7samurai-1953-page88.jpg: when was this first published? Same with File:Kajiro_Yamamoto.jpg

The image in the infobox is used from the Japanese Wikipedia article, and was taken during film production of his film Seven Samurai from 1953. The Kajiro Yamamoto image is shared with his English Wikipedia biography page. If there is an issue with either of these images then they can be replaced with other public domain images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale being given on the Wikicommons page for this Kurosawa image is that there is no copyvio because: "...It is also in the public domain in the United States because its copyright in Japan expired by 1970 and was not restored by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act," making the image unobjectionable for copyvio for the six English Wikipedia pages which currently share this image. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order to assess whether that tag is appropriate for these images, we need to know when and where the images were first published. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Kurosawa is identified as being from Japan with copyright expired by 1970. More information about the production of the film and when the photo was taken is presented on the Seven Samurai Wikipage for the film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to know, which I don't see there, is when these images were published, not created. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best information we have at present is the identification by another editor that the image is "from Japan with copyright expired by 1970". If you have new evidence that this is a wrong rationale as currently published then since you are a sysops representative for Wikipedia you may remove this rationale so that other editors using it will not continue to be misled by it. I am not able to remove that currently published rationale written by another editor since I am required by Wikipedia policy to assume good faith and I have no proof to the contrary. Nonetheless, if based on your new evidence you wish to remove that rationale from Wikicommons as put there by another editor in good faith, then please remove it or remove the image as compromised, and then I and the other thirty editors on Interwiki using this image for the exact same purpose on their Interwiki Kurosawa articles can happily change the image immediately for an alternate image. If you wish an alternate image of it for your own personal reasons, then I can also happily provide one. The current image is now used by about 30 Interwiki pages for the same purpose. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sugata_Sanshiro_poster.jpg: confused by this. The date field says 1943, but the description says 1952 and tagging suggests it was not PD in the US in 1996

This was the marketing poster for the film from 1943 and is shared with the English Wikipedia article for this film. Promotional material used in marketing films is usually public domain in terms of newspaper and magazine fair use. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain and fair use are not the same thing. Which is it in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional posters used to promote and market films are considered public domain. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not by default, although some are for other reasons. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. Promotional poster art is used as public domain throughout Wikipedia and Interwiki usage even doubles that high usage. Presently, Kurosawa's film Drunken Angel uses the poster art on nearly two dozen Interwiki versions of the article, and his film Stray Dog uses it on another two dozen Interwiki versions. Kurosawa's film Seven Samurai uses promotional poster art on nearly four dozen Interwiki articles, including the « article de qualité » at French Wikipedia which is peer reviewed. Please clarify, or do all of these Wikipedia articles and Interwikipedia articles share the same image protection issue you raise for the use of promotional poster art. If you prefer, I could offer to help address this by using the peer reviewed promotional poster art from the French version of Seven Samurai if being extra careful is important here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PD. In a nutshell, being made available to the public - as with any poster, news photo, art display, etc - is not synonymous with public domain, which has as a particular meaning of "copyright-free". Some promotional poster art is public domain due to its age - copyright expires after a period of time, which varies from country to country. In other cases Wikipedia uses poster art under fair use, which requires that all of the non-free content criteria apply. In this particular case, if the poster was published in 1943 it likely is in the public domain because the copyright would have expired; if it was published in 1952 that is likely not the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link about copyright protection. I've just read the articles for the current Academy Award winning films Moonlight and La La Land both of which use promotional poster art prominently and I see no difficulty there with the use of promotional poster art in those articles which were released for the purpose of promoting and marketing those films. Possibly you could explain why the use of promotional poster art on the two current Oscar film articles is fine in the eyes of all the editors at those Wikipedia articles, but the use of promotional poster art for Kurosawa's films forms an issue for this article. If you need to see some special annotation for the use of this promotional poster art in this Kurosawa article, please indicate what you would like to see here on the basis of these two current Oscar winning film articles which prominently use promotional poster art. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First we need to clarify the publication date of this poster, to determine whether a fair-use claim is needed at all. If it is, take a look at the description provided at File:Moonlight_(2016_film).png: it includes a breakdown of how the use of the image meets each of the non-free content criteria, as well as a tag indicating the poster is under fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drunken-Angel-1a.jpg: the given tag is meant for cases where there is critical discussion of the film, not for biographical images

This film was a breakthrough film for Kurosawa and Mifune, and is discussed in this article as to its harsh thematic content for the time of its production, as a controversial artistic choice of material by Kurosawa. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the fair use rationale provided states that the purpose of the image is to show Mifune, not to discuss the film. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of Mifune images from the film Drunken Angel used on many other pages in Wikipedia which could be used in the article based on preference and use of image standards. Here is one of many others. If you prefer this one, it can be used with the same caption presently being used in the current article's image or a modified caption can replace it as an enhancement to the article. The current image in the article was placed there by a previous editor. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dostoevskij_1863.jpg: when/where was this first published?

This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for Dostoevski. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Badsleepwell.jpg is lacking a fair-use rationale for this article

This was the marketing poster for the film from the 1950s and is shared with the English Wikipedia article for this film. Promotional material used in marketing films is usually public domain in terms of fair use in articles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DavidLean1965.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?

This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for David Lean. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:An'yo-in_Kamakura_Kurosawa_Akira's_Grave.jpg: what is the copyright status of the memorial?

This image is used from the Japanese Wikipedia article. If there is an issue with its use there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ingmar_86135a.jpg: source link is dead, date is missing, and what is the status of this work in the US?

This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for Ingmar Bergman. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending fixes, and pending some attention to citation formatting which is at the moment rather inconsistent and incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cite templates you had left in the article earlier today I can try to address tomorrow or the next day and ought to be fairly straightforward to rewrite. Your images questions above appear mostly concerned with images shared with other Wikipedia articles. They can generally be removed or replaced as needed. My responses are interspersed with your comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it really doesn't matter whether the images are shared with other articles. Nominations for featured status must meet the FA criteria, which includes a point about images. That means we need to be able to demonstrate that these images in this article are in accordance with the details of that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation templates from yesterday in the article are now taken care of with some added links I placed in the article this morning. My responses to your follow-up image comments are interspersed with your image comments above. Promotional posters used to promote and market films are considered public domain. The other images you have listed as needing attention can be replaced or removed based on your responses to my interspersed answers to your useful image comments above. I'll try to follow your indications of which images ought to be replaced and which to retain in order to further enhance this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After your last comments above I spent the afternoon reading through the copyright notices on the articles and think that I can summarize them succinctly for all the images you identified, though the reasoning applied to justify each image varies somewhat from image to image. For the first three photographs you list, the Kurosawa at Seven Samurai, Kurosawa's mentor, and still photo of Mifune, then the relevant date for Japanese copyright is 1958 which can be summarized as: This photograph is in the public domain in Japan because it was first published in Japan and its copyright has expired according to Article 23 of the 1899 Copyright Act of Japan and Article 2 of Supplemental Provisions of Copyright Act of 1970. Photographs prior to 1958 are in the public domain. All three of these photos are from before 1958 and therefore may be used. For the two posters you identify as a concern, the reasoning is from fair use which can be summarized as: This image is of a poster, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher or the creator of the work depicted. It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of posters to provide critical commentary on the film, event, or associated activities in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. For the image you question of Dostoevski, the photo is from when he was alive in the 19th century and there is no claim to copyright for such old photographs which may be summarized as: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. The David Lean photo is public domain under the law of Finland where it was taken which states: This photograph is in the public domain in Finland, because either a period of 50 years has elapsed from the year of creation or the photograph was first published before 1966. The §49a of the Finnish copyright law of 2005 specifies that photographs not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created. The high resolution image of his grave was donated for use as public domain by a Wikipedia user named Urashimataro on WikiCommons. Finally,the Bergman photo is under Swedish law prior to 1967 and therefore: This Swedish photograph is in the public domain in Sweden because one of the following applies: The work is non-artistic (journalistic, …) and has been created before 1969. The image use for each of these items placed in your list is justified for inclusion in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the relevant date for Japanese copyright is 1958 in terms of publication - images published, not just created, before that date are in the public domain in Japan. Further, we need to consider whether it was in the public domain in Japan as of 1970, which determines whether it is in the public domain in the US. For the two posters you identify as a concern, the reasoning is from fair use - in which case you would need a fair-use rationale on the image page to address the non-free content criteria as they apply to this specific article. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. Can you demonstrate that this occurred? Not all old photographs have been published. Thr David Lean photo is public domain under the law of Finland but we also need to consider its status under the law of the US. The high resolution image of his grave was donated for use as public domain but what is the status of the grave itself, independent of the image? See freedom of panorama. the Bergman photo is under Swedish law prior to 1967 but again, what is it under US law? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full rationale is given on the WikiCommons page for each one of these images which I summarized above for ease of access. If there is a faulty rationale which previous editors have logged there for the multiple pages which share these various images used on English Wikipedia and Interwikipedia, then the previous editors need to be challenged on their rationale at WikiCommons. You can read these statements of rationale by clicking of the individual images and then clicking again on the detail tab which comes up at the bottom right of the screen to find the details of each of these rationale statements. If you are challenging them then please realize that some of these images have been in shared use on multiple Wikipedia pages for several years without issue by readers and editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, I know how to find the image description on Wikimedia Commons. Since you are putting up this particular article for FA status, you need to ensure that those pages are correct and complete, in accordance with FA requirements around images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link and let me know if there are items which require attention on the images. The current images used look ok on WikiCommons and I have offered to change the Mifune image to the one in your discussion with me above if this is preferred or preferable to readers and editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

See my initial comments for the items which require attention on the images. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale provided for each of those images on WikiCommons appears adequate to the many readers and editors who use those images daily at multiple pages on English Wikipedia and Interwiki for use on both regular articles and peer reviewed articles. If an image is not justified for use on a peer reviewed article then it is not justified for use anywhere else on Wikipedia. As you are in sysops, you may have some responsibility to move forward to challenge and remove those images at Wikicommons, with my support if it helps. If the rationale currently provided for those image is poorly formulated in your view, then they should not be used on either regular articles or peer reviewed articles. My own option is to change and replace the current images, and spend time finding peer review quality images, possibly including the ones used on the fine peer reviewed Seven Samurai article on French Wikipedia. I am assuming that you will allow the use of the Kurosawa gravestone image which was donated by a Wikipedia user at WikiCommons as being unencumbered as to copyright. The alternate Mifune image I presented above also looks like a good substitute for the one you pointed out as having suspicious rationale on WikiCommons. Thanks for alerting me to these issues with the suspicious rationale currently being used for those images which are presently being used throughout Wikipedia and Interwiki. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After two weeks, all images used in this article appear to be in good standing on Wikicommons and are shared with over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia. All the images appear to have no challenges for their use in Wikipedia and in this article at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki, are you able to let me know how things look from your perspective now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: It appears that there have been minimal changes to the images since last I looked - many of the points above still stand. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and Ian Rose: Following this discussion raised last month a number of editors have reviewed the images and only one was found to be a problem, and it was replaced by the Ed McBain image in the article now. All of the images currently in this article are shared by over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia who are having no issues with these images provided on Wikicommons. The usage of these shared images appears to be without issue for the many editors and articles which currently share them and make use of them on Wikipedia. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

needs a tag indicating its status in the US
File:The_Idiot_(book_cover).jpg would need a fair-use rationale for this article, but there likely isn't one that applies

The current rationale for this image on Wikipedia being currently shared on other Wikipedia pages for fair use is given as: "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question," which appears to apply precisely. Your previous objection to a 19th century photo of Dostoevsky could also be reconsidered and used as a substitute here as you might prefer it. Either image is fine as neither appears objectionable on the basis of copyvio. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NFCC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either one of the images for Dostoevski which I have presented can be used, whichever you prefer. The first image of Dostoevski was a photo from the 19th century which is not a copyvio since it is from the 19th century. The book cover is promotional material for a book which is in the public domain since all of Dostoevski's writings are from the 19th century and there is no copyvio for books taken from the 19th century. Neither image is a copyvio and you may select either one for the article as to your preference, either the first one of the Dostoevski photo or the alternate I have presented for a book with no copyvio, written in the 19th century. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 2003 book cover, unless it's derived from an earlier version, is not a 19th-century work, and even for 19th-century works we need to demonstrate that they are in the public domain and appropriately tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either one of the images of either his 19th-century portrait (from the 1800s) or an image of his book presents no copyvio of any kind. There is a difference in the industry in the understanding of promotional material used to encourage people to buy copyrighted material which publishers pay various venues to reproduce, and the copyrighted material itself which publishers wish to profit from by getting people to buy them after reading promos which publishers pay to have reproduced. Optionally, either of these images may be used since neither one represents a copyvio, and you may select the one or the other as to your preference. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:DavidLean.jpg would need a fair-use rationale for this article, and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extensive 11-point rationale for the fair use of this image at Wikicommons, and here is an alternate source for the image here: [23]. You may select either this alternate image I am presenting of Lean here as shared on Wikicommons, or the previous one I presented of him directing on set, since both a free of copyvio. Its your choice as to which one you prefer since there is no copyvio on either one. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The existing rationale is for a different article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may select either the original image of the deceased director David Lean I first presented, or the alternate image I have presented here with the rationale provided by other editors in good faith currently using the image on their Wikipedia articles. If you prefer the second image, then the rationale presented in points 2-4 on Wikicommons remains application that there is no copyvio which states: "The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product." You may select either the original image I presented or the alternate image as your preference since there is no copyvio for the use of either one of these images. You may select the one you prefer. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a non-free image to be used, a separate fair-use rationale must be provided for each article in which the image is used. In order for the other image to be used, you would need an answer to my question above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current rationale given on Wikicommons states that, ""The image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product," which I am required by Wikipedia policy to accept on good faith since I have no evidence to believe that this image is a copyvio in any way. If you have new evidence that this rationale provided by another editor is false, then please remove it from Wikicommons so that other editors currently sharing this image on Wikipedia are not misled by it. There are two versions of an image of David Lean I have now provided and you may choose either one since neither one represents a copyvio in any way. You may select either one as your preference since they are maintained on Wikicommons for the benefit of Wikipedia editors to use. Since the images are virtually interchangeable the rationale for their use is also virtually interchangeable because of the similarity of the separate images depicting the exact same person. You may pick the image which you prefer from the two alternative images presented as currently being without any copyvio. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gertanis

"After years of working on numerous films as an assistant director and scriptwriter, he made his debut as a director in 1943, during World War II, with the popular action film Sanshiro Sugata (a.k.a. Judo Saga)." – strike either 'in 1943' or 'during World War II'
"Rashomon, which premiered in Tokyo in August 1950, and which also starred Mifune, became, on September 10, 1951, the surprise winner of the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival and was subsequently released in Europe and North America." too wordy and specific for the lede section: cut out mention of Mifune and, if possible the dates
"Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, Kurosawa directed approximately a film a year, including a number of highly regarded (and often copied) films," – 'copied' is too strong (suggests plagiarism), try 'remade', 'adapted', 'influential', 'referenced' or something like that
"After the mid-1960s, he became much less prolific, but his later work—including his final two epics, Kagemusha (1980) and Ran (1985)—continued to win awards, including the Palme d'Or for Kagemusha, though more often abroad than in Japan." – strike 'mid', also ditch the mention of the Palme, not needed here, and makes for awkward sentence flow
"Posthumously, he was named "Asian of the Century" in the "Arts, Literature, and Culture" category by AsianWeek magazine and CNN, cited there as being among the five most prominent people who contributed to the betterment of Asia in the past century." – is 'betterment' really the word used? Also suggest adverbializing the bit before 'people' (i.e. 'who most prominently')

That's it for now. Gertanis (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good and useful comments now added to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment (more tomorrow): Consider nuking the see also-section. For the article to be comprehensive, all those pages should be mentioned in the prose, which they indeed seem to be. --Gertanis (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have duplicate links and they are now moved to the main portion of the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch:

"His career has been honored by many retrospectives, critical studies and biographies in both print and video, and by releases in all existing media" – 'all existing media' is too broad, and inaccurate. I'd use something like 'consumer media formats', 'video storage formats', 'home viewing format', etc.
What exactly is 'Ōimachi'? A borough? Corner? Street? Neighbourhood?
"His father Isamu, a member of a former samurai family from Akita Prefecture" – needs def article
"Isamu Kurosawa was open to western traditions" → Western traditions
"Through Heigo, Akira devoured not only films but also theater and circus performances" → I'm not quite comfortable with the word 'through'. Maybe 'Influenced by', 'In Heigo's company' or something like that
"He also frequently wrote screenplays for other directors such as for Satsuo Yamamoto's film, A Triumph of Wings (Tsubasa no gaika, 1942)." – give short description of Yamamoto's relation to Kurosawa. Also, sentence flows better with "...wrote screenplays for other directors, such as A Triumph of Wings for Yamamoto"
The paragraph Wartime films and marriage (1942–45) has way too many bracketed sentences. You can't use parentheses out in the open like that—try dashes.
"The war now ended, Kurosawa, absorbing the democratic ideals of the Occupation, sought to make films that would establish a new respect towards the individual and the self" – this sentence doesn't quite parse. Try "After the war, K., influenced by the democratic ideals..." Also 'the individual' and 'the self' is repetitive
"Atypically for the director, the heroic central character is a woman, Yukie (Setsuko Hara), born into upper-middle-class privilege, who comes to question her values in a time of political crisis." – move 'who' to after 'Hara),'
"The original script had to be extensively rewritten and, because of its controversial theme (and because the protagonist was a woman), the completed work divided critics, but it nevertheless managed to win the approval of audiences, who turned variations on the film's title ("No regrets for...") into something of a postwar catchphrase." – again, the bracket issue. I think you should strike the whole ("No regrets for...") thing; I think readers will figure, as they've already have been given the title
"The movie bears the influence of Frank Capra, D. W. Griffith and F. W. Murnau" – could you expand on that? Whose judgement is this? When did he see films of these directors?
"However, Kurosawa did not want to smother the young actor's immense vitality, and Mifune's rebellious character electrified audiences in much the way that Marlon Brando's defiant stance would startle American film audiences a few years later." – who is making this connection to Brando?
"However, it would be Kurosawa's second film of 1950, Rashomon, that would ultimately win him, and Japanese cinema, a whole new audience (as discussed in the International recognition section below)." – remove emphasis (italics) from 'second', and cut the self-referential bit at the end
"Kurosawa picked a script by an aspiring young screenwriter, Shinobu Hashimoto. (They would eventually write nine films together.)" → 'with whom he would eventually write...'
"The movie was met by lukewarm reviews, with many critics puzzled by its unique theme and treatment" – treatment of what exactly?
"Later generations of Japanese filmmakers who would find acclaim outside Japan—from Kon Ichikawa, Masaki Kobayashi, Nagisa Oshima and Shohei Imamura to Juzo Itami, Takeshi Kitano and Takashi Miike—were able to pass through the door that Kurosawa was the very first to open." – that's a rather speculative judgement, considering no citation is given
"Throne of Blood, a lavishly produced adaptation of William Shakespeare's Macbeth" - editorial judgement (emph. mine)
"Appropriately, the acting of the players, particularly Yamada, draws heavily on the stylized techniques of the Noh theater." - ditto
"In contrast to the gigantic scope and sweep of Throne of Blood, The Lower Depths was shot on only two confined sets, the better to emphasize the restricted nature of the characters' lives." – ditto
"Released in December 1958, The Hidden Fortress became an enormous box office success in Japan and was warmly received by critics." – domestic critics?
"The Bad Sleep Well, based on a script by Kurosawa's nephew Mike Inoue, is a revenge drama about a young man who climbs the hierarchy of a corrupt Japanese company with the intention of exposing the men responsible for his father's death." 'who climbs' → 'climbing'
"The 25-minute opening sequence, depicting a corporate wedding reception interrupted by reporters and police (who arrest an executive for corruption), is widely regarded as one of Kurosawa's most skillfully executed set pieces, but the remainder of the film is often perceived as disappointing by comparison" – too long and unwieldy
"Sergio Leone's A Fistful of Dollars was a virtual (unauthorized) scene-by-scene remake." – 'Virtual' in what sense? Also, would love some more detail on this.
"..set in a mid-19th century clinic for the poor," – needs consistent hyphenation
"The film world was shocked, however, when Japan passed over the film in favor of another as its official entry to compete for an Oscar nomination in the Best Foreign Film category." – tone down the language (try 'surprised'). Perhaps also mention the name of the other film?
"Kurosawa employed a number of recurring major themes in his films." – you can employ a technique, but not a theme.

Gertanis (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This set of edits can now be found in the article. Ready for next set of edit requests and perhaps you have further comments on the article or the images used. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also consider prosifying the 'Documentaries' section. I would guess that the films mentioned there could have more background detail, especially the Marker one. I can give you little advice on the images however—not my field of expertise—only that you'll have to comply with what the FAC delegates say. Pointing to usage on other articles helps little: This is the review page for Akira Kurosawa, and for it to become an FA, it needs to fulfill all criteria, including # 3. --Gertanis (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: The above user is re-opening the question of the images used in this Kurosawa article based on WIAFA#3 which states: Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. I will ask that regardless of other editors at Wikipedia currently sharing these images, that you simply delete any images currently used in the article which are deemed by the current stewards of the FAC page and process to be in any way unsuitable. Simply remove the ones you deem the source of your concerns for the integrity of the FAC process, could I request that you do this given the new material from the above user? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

¶ Legacy of general criticism

"Criticism of Kurosawa in his legacy has significantly followed the main currents of criticism as they emerged during his lifetime and with the international reception of his individual films during his lifetime (see main article link above)". – I have no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me. Also, MOS:SELFREF
"Since the early to mid-1950s, a number of critics belonging to the French New Wave" – try 'French New Wave critics' or 'critics from the French New Wave'
"In Japan, both critics and other filmmakers have sometimes accused his work of elitism, because of his focus on exceptional, heroic individuals and groups of men." – 'due to his focus'; strike 'sometimes'
"In her commentary on the deluxe DVD edition of Seven Samurai, Joan Mellen" — strike 'on the deluxe DVD edition'. Additionally, that quote is way too long. See WP:QUOTE
"Because of Kurosawa's popularity with European and American audiences from the early 1950s onward" → "Owing to K's popularity"

¶ Reputation among filmmakers

"Many celebrated directors have been influenced by Kurosawa and/or have expressed admiration for his work." – choose either 'and' or 'or'; don't use /
"The filmmakers cited below are grouped according to four categories" – self-ref
"Ingmar Bergman called his own film The Virgin Spring" – add '(The) Swedish director' first; similar solutions for Fellini et al.
"Robert Altman, when he first saw Rashomon (during the period when he worked regularly in television rather than feature films)" – see earlier comments re parentheses
"Both Spielberg and Scorsese have praised the older man's role as teacher and role model—as a sensei, to use the Japanese term." – who is using that Japanese term? Also not a fan of colloquial 'older man'
"As already noted above" – self-ref

Gertanis (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Two quick points here: the image issue above was from Nikkimaria, not one of the FAC coordinators. As far as I can see, her oppose still stands. Secondly, this review is starting to become very unwieldy, and long lists of review like this can become very difficult to follow. My inclination is that this really should have been taken care of long before this stage of a FAC and I wonder was the article not quite prepared for FAC. As it is, my inclination is to archive this as we have a fairly cursory support and a considered oppose and we are coming up for 6 weeks of this review being open. Unless someone can convince me that we can achieve consensus for promotion, I will probably archive this before the weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I'm unwatching, please let me know if you need further input from me. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the images currently used in the article are in good standing at Wikicommons and their rationale as presented there has not been challenged in any way to my knowledge by anyone including User Nikki. When I asked her for her for what new evidence she is using to challenge each one of the half dozen images used in the article she has withdrawal her "watching" of the review of these images. The current images are shared by dozens of Wikipedia pages on English Wikipedia and on Interwiki without any issues of copyvio in any way. The very large consensus of using these images among the many editor presently including them in dozens of Wikipedia articles is that there is no copyvio in their continuing usefulness for Wikipedia articles. If any editor or reader of this article has information that there is copyvio of any kind please include your comments here or in the section above for attention. All the current images being shared with other articles are presently in good standing on Wikicommons without any issues. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator support: All the images in the main body of the article have now been changed to images currently on Wikicommons. This nomination was made on behalf of the top editors of the Kurosawa article (not myself) who have been contributing significant time to the support and maintenance of this article for several years. The article is currently of high quality and peer reviewed, and it should be allowed to go through the rest of the evaluation period for FAC given the useful effort made by those two top editors over the years. Now that all the images have been replaced with new ones concerning the single person opposition about images made to this article, then it is possible for the FAC to continue without opposition to the old images which are no longer part of this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: There is very little prospect of achieving a consensus to promote here, so I think this article is best served by archiving, which I shall be doing shortly. I would recommend looking carefully at this, and seeking some feedback before renominating, if desired, after the usual two-week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2017 [24].

Mallard

Nominator(s): Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a bird species that has a wide range and is found in a lot of places. I think it is close to FA-hood, and is an interesting article as well. It has also undergone a Peer Review and copy-editing by the Guild of Copy Editors. I hope you enjoy reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One comment: Why are all those images being shoved in the taxonomy section and the description is blank? LittleJerry (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I have repositioned the images. Thank you very much for your comments! Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article at peer review and all of my concerns were addressed. I think it meets the FA criteria. Good luck with getting it promoted! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 12:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@N Oneemuss: Thank you very much for your review, and support. I hope you have a great day/night! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

I'll comment in more detail when I've had another read, but two things for now. I don't think "invasivity" is a real word, and if it is it has limited currency; try "invasiveness" or "invasive species". More importantly, you have nothing on diseases or internal or external parasites despite there being much accessible stuff on this well studied species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

Why the full date for the Jobling reference? It's a book, right?

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decide if you're giving locations for books or not. In the first two book references - you have one with and one without a location. Be consistent

Fixed. No source now has any publication location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 10 (Hensleigh Wedgewood) needs full publication information
Per the MOS, we dont' use all caps even when the source does. This would be current ref 12 (Steadman) and any others in the sources

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes current ref 13 http://www.greenwoodwildlife.org/bird-tawk-by-tina-mitchell-8/ a high quality reliable source? And the publisher is NOT www.greenwoodwildlife.org, that's the website.

Replaced with this. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 16 (Delacour) needs full publication information
What makes "Station, Delta Waterfowl and Wetlands Research (1984). Annual Report" a high quality reliable source?
Moulton, Judy (current ref 31). Xlibris is a self-publishing company. Not reliable unless Moulton is an expert in the field of Mallard studies. Also it's ISBN is wrong - see world cat entry, which ... lists it as a juvenile book. Not high quality for THAT reason. (The minor issue of the full date being given is just icing on the cake)
Current ref 33 - What does BTO stand for?

British Trust for Ornithology. Spelled out. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 39 "Carver" is published by Lulu.com - another self-publishing company. NOT high quality, needs to go. (Hint - the lack of libraries carrying the source is a dead giveaway.)
The ISBN for current ref 40 (at world cat) is for the 1987 Dover reprint - did you consult the reprint or the original. If you consulted the reprint, you need to indicate that.
Current ref 46 (Madge) why the full date, it's a book, right?

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 52 - "International Wildfowl Inquiry..." - lacks a publication date. And what/who is CUP?

I think you mean ref 53. I replaced the reference instead with this. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 57 - Winkler - why the full date? Also, the ISBN is wrong - is it this audio book at WorldCat? If so, why is this a high quality reliable source?
What makes http://www.elmwoodparkzoo.org/animal-mallard-duck.php a high quality reliable source? I could see maybe the San Diego Zoo as a high qualty one but ... not a small city zoo. And www.elmwoodparkzoo.org is the website, not the publisher, we need the publisher also.
Current ref 63 - Baldassarre - what is JHU Press?

It is John Hopkins University Press. Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 64 - the publisher is NOT Fish and Wildlife Leaflet - it's the Fish and Wildlife Service (of the US Department of the Interior). It's part of a SERIES titled "Fish and Wildlife Leaflet" of which series its number 13.
Current ref 65 Rappole - why the full date?

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 69 (Sanilands) - who/what is UBC Press?

It is University of British Columbia Press. Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 71 (Chmielewski) - Author House is a self publishing service (see http://www.authorhouse.com). NOT reliable. (Hint - World Cat shows no libraries own it - that's generally a sign of trouble.
Current ref 72 - World Cat shows it as a "pictorial work" ... which usually means "coffee table book". What makes this a high quality reliable source?
Is current ref 73 (Ginn) a book? Does it have an ISBN/OCLC?
Current ref 77 (Dekker) - why the full date? This appears to be a painter's work on wildlife painting - what makes it a high quality reliable source?
Current ref 82 (Townsley) - why the full date? The ISBN is wrong - is it this book on World Cat? If so ... what makes this a high quality reliable source, since only one library carries it? It's also under the dreaded "pictorial works" classification and I'm betting this is another painter (given the introduction by Robert Bateman and the "palette" in the title.
I think we can find a better source for the fact that mallards are preyed on by "European herring gull, the wels catfish, and the northern pike" than the Reader's Digest Scenic Wonders of Canada. Again, not a high quality source for a zoology/animal article
Current ref 92 (Adams) - why the month year date for a book? And given its World Cat entry lack of libraries holding it I'm going to bet that it's self-published. Not a high quality source
Current ref 94 "Anas platyrhynchos" - www.iucnredlist.org is the website, we need the publisher
Current ref 97 lacks a publisher.
Current ref 98 "Agriculture" PediaPress - you do know that PediaPress is a press that reprints WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES! See http://pediapress.com. Not a reliable source.
Current ref 110 "Invasive alien bird..." the website is krugerpark.co.za. That is NOT the publisher. Needs fixing.
Current ref 111 needs to lose the all caps in AGREEMENT

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 112 - http://www.mdga.co.za/code/environment/feb2011.html ... this is a marina association... not a high quality reliable source for a zoology/animal article. And www.mdga.co.za is the website, not the publisher, which is missing.
Current ref 118 - "Recovery strategy" - www.fws.gov is the website. We need the publisher
Current ref 120 - world cat gives an author which should be listed.
Current ref 126 - Digimorph.org is the website, we need the publisher
Current ref 134 "N.Y.), Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York; yuan, Guo li gu gong bo wu (1996)" I can't even begin to figure out how that got mangled, but it needs fixing.
Current ref 136 - one of the authors is not "Art, Albany Institute of History and" - corporate authors should be listed just "as is", not trying to force them into a "last name".

I have put it as a last name. Does it look good now? (An empty last name was giving an error, so instead of putting it completely in the first name, I put it in the last name. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The various sources for the "In art" section - how were the various specific artworks chosen to be listed in the section? Are they sourced to secondary works discussing how they impact on the mallard as a species? Or are they just randomly chosen from various listings of mallards in artworks?
The same sort of concerns for "In children's stories" section - the listing of Jemima Puddle Duck is just sourced to the Potter book - this doesn't show that secondary sources dealing with mallards have noticed these cultural depictions (and ... the Jemima example is about a domestic duck which has its own article ....so why is it here?)
Current ref 144 - this is an article in Field and Stream and it's got an author - all you had to do was scroll to the table of contents to find it. It needs full publication information - author, issue, pages, etc.

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 145. First "Hunting mallards might cause the population to decline in some places, at some times, and with some populations." is not exactly a useful sentence. IT's completely wishywashy and doesn't give anything on what circumstances might cause decline. As it is, it's just padding. And the source is lacking a publisher, author, etc. Needs full publication details.
Current ref 149 - what/who is OUP? Also this is not consistent with the other refs in the article - which put the page number IN the citation, this one is using a different format where the page number is appended to the citation number in the article text. Needs consistency.

Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Peking duck is a dish of roast duck from Beijing, China, that has been prepared since medieval times. It is today traditionally served with spring pancakes, spring onions, and sweet bean sauce.[150][151]" - unless I'm badly mistaken, Peking duck is usually prepared using the domestic duck, not the mallard. (I am aware that technically they are the same species, but we have an entire article on the domestic duck where this sort of trivia should go.)
Bibliography is usually reserved for books/works BY the article subject. A better heading would be "Sources" or similar.
I didn't see the Bagemihl source used in the citations - if its not used, it needs to be in a further reading section
Why is the Johnson and Sorenson ref listed in full in the citations (current ref 14) and again in the bibliography? No other source has this done.
I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations, as the two things showing issues are actually copying the wikipedia text (without attribution, it appears)

I'm going to have to oppose based on the many many issues raised above. Some of them are easy to fix, but there is no excuse for using THAT many self-published source - we have the full trifecta - pediapress, lulu.com AND AuthorHouse... that is a bad sign of sourcing problems. Frankly, on many of these, I think people just googled for information and took whatever came up. That's not a good way to research such a topic. The whole article probably needs the attention of someone who actually reads sources dealing with the mallard, not just using google books. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing this! I will address the issues. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, before you get to far into this - there are bigger issues than the tiny nitpicks. The problems of the self-published sources are a big concern. They need to be addressed. And I'm afraid I am concerned with how the research for this article was approached. On such a broad topic, the best way to approach it is to read a few book-length works on the subject. THEN, after those have been read (so that you have an idea of what the experts/scientists/etc consider important and not important) the article can start being worked on. Instead, I'm getting the impression that a "google-is-my-friend" approach took place here - going back to early June when the nominator began working on the article - I see a lot of adding citations, but not a lot of actually changing the information or adding of new information. In the archive, I note that someone brought up the concerns about the "in art" and "in children's books" I brought up, but the issues weren't addressed. Given this is a bird article, getting the advice of some of the bird wikiproject, especially of those who are frequent FAC nominators, would have been helpful. I see Jim's weighed in on some missing items above - my guess is that there is more stuff missing that needs coverage as well as some stuff that won't need coverage. I'm not a bird-writer, so I don't know what would be the go-to book for mallard behavior and ecology, but given the ubiquitous nature of this bird species, there really should be something to use to help cover the important topics that the experts consider important. It's never easy to work on a big topic article like this - they have their own issues. I don't want the nominator to waste time fixing the nitpicks when the big problems remain lurking and aren't addressed. It's going to take more than just fixing the issues I listed and saying "I replaced" - at the very least, we need to know that whatever was replaced was a high quality source. And to be perfectly frank - I spent over a hour this morning dealing with the above list. I'm not feeling like I need to go digging through the page history to figure out when an unsuitable source is replaced ... what it was replaced with. Please, for all the gods, say what you used to replace something with. And get some input from the several bird editors who frequent FAC... they can help guide you. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and ouch. I The article as it passed GA had the lulu.com work, the AuthorHouse work, and the PediaPress work in it. I'm not sure how it passed the GA criteria 2b "all in-line citations are from reliable sources". Not going to name names here but... ouch. Not good for the GA process here... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you very much for your comments! I was planning to fix all the issues mentioned by you, be they source issues or nit fixes. Earlier, when I started editing more, I knew less about reliable sources, meaning if a source was reliable, and which ones were allowed to be sourced and which ones were not allowed to be sourced. However, later I understood it completely, and if you see any of the articles that I sourced later, you might not be able to find any sourcing issue (brown pelican, for instance). I first check for reliable google books or research papers, and then search for reliable web source. I think by archive you mean PR and, in the PR, I think I have resolved the issues mentioned about the "in art" section: "three start with "mallards" and two with "the mallard", I amended that, and "children's books": " last story mentioned is notable enough to deserve inclusion", I removed that too (as for the prose, I also gave it to the GOCE). Even though I did not want to add the information about the domestic duck because it should not be in this article, I added it as per the GAN. "Please, for all the gods, say what you used to replace something with.", You mean I should write the references that I use as a replacement to unreliable sources, as Source review comments? Sure, I would write the references here. The moment I saw your Source review, I did feel that it might have taken you a long time to review this article, and I was going to apologize to you for that, and would not do it again (as I mentioned earlier, I did not know about sourcing proper sources earlier, but I source information properly now and would be able to fix the issues you mentioned). Also, I would be asking other bird editors if anything could be included in the article! Thanks again for your comments.

Side note, I know it is my fault for not having known much about sourcing, so you could blame me for that "google-is-my-friend" and anything like that, but anyways, you have taken so much effort on this review, and I really appreciate it! Also, I would not make such mistakes again (I am already citing reliable sources from quite a while now), and not let you down on any other article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's Comments

I know that the rule state that you can nominate a solo article if you have co-noms on, but you have two open co-noms and a lot of GAN articles on the go, do you not think you're taking a lot on? Anyway, this article. On a quick pass through...

A number of relatives are posited for the mallard in the text in the context of hybrids, but statements are made about its closest relatives within Anas in a purely phylogenetic context in taxonomy are absent. The article also mentions that the domesticated duck is treated as a subspecies in the taxobox but not in the taxonomy section.
Also, the paucity of morphological differences between the Old World mallards and the New World mallard demonstrates the extent to which the genome is shared among them such that birds like the Chinese spot-billed duck are highly similar to the Old World mallard, and birds such as the Hawaiian duck are highly similar to the New World mallard this is a run-on word salad conflating a number of ideas. First off the presence or absence of morphological differences is often essentially independent of the closeness of the genome - similar looking species can be distant genetically and highly variable species share similar genomes. Next, it jumps from an intra-species comparison to a interspecies one, and by the way the Chinese spot-bill doesn't really look that much like the mallard either.
The mallard is a medium-sized waterfowl species that is often slightly heavier than most other dabbling ducks. What is this trying to say?
Between three and four months of age, the juvenile can finally begin flying, as its wings are fully developed for flight This needs a heavy copy-edit to something like Flight feathers are fully formed after three or four months and this whole bit probably belongs in the breeding section in chick development, or should be re-written to be more focussed on description rather than a story about development.
The description section has mentions the non-breeding eclipse plumage but doesn't describe it. Big no. Also, why introduce the term eclipse plumage if you don't describe the breeding plumage as alternate?
Distribution and habitat - doesn't distinguish between natural and introduced range
In summary, the problems of mallards "hybridizing away" relatives is more a consequence of local ducks declining than of mallards spreading; I mentioned in the talk page that this is not the case in New Zealand and unsupported by the citation and it still hasn't changed much.

This was a quick pass through. This has a lot of work needed that should have been done before it got here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a more detailed read I'm going to oppose for now. I am reluctant to list every single little problem for the same reasons as Ealdgyth, because this article can't be fixed by piecemeal little tinkering and needs a comprehensive top to bottom rethink. My oppose is for three reasons, it has deep structural issues, it is not nearly comprehensive enough for a species this important and widespread, and there are writing issues (and as Ealdgyth notes there are referencing issues too). At a bare minimum it needs to address the following:

Comprehensiveness There are major missing sections. Migration is two lines! And almost entirely about North American birds. Habitat is superficial, with no details about seasonal changes and habitat usage. Breeding devotes three times as much content to rape than incubation and nestling stages. This is not balanced. No mention of moulting flocks and behaviour. Important subjects are introduced and not elaborated; like learning of migration routes. Other subjects like relationships with Anas, are mentioned tangentially.
Structure There are some issues relating to content being randomly placed around. Hybridisation turns up everywhere. Why is invasiveness a separate section when it touches the same subject as the preceding section? Why is the development of chicks section in description? Why is hunting separate from as food?

I would recommend withdrawing the nomination, finishing your existing FACs and then devoting your attention to this, and obtaining some mentoring to get such a difficult article over the line. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I think such issues as raised by Ealdgyth and Sabine's Sunbird need to be addressed outside the FAC process -- they've both offered great advice that I hope you'll take up -- so I'll archive this nom and hope to see it back at a later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2017 [25].

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

Nominator(s): Seiya (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important event in history. I hope I have done enough work (references, style, prose, data...) to justify its nominations. It is written in neutral, objective, professional manner, so hopefully you will consider the article and address any eventual problems so that they can be corrected and improved. Seiya (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal, copyedit and peer review -- recusing from coord duties, thank you for bringing this to FAC; I can see a lot of work has gone into it but my initial reading indicates that the nom may be premature. In the lead alone:

The first sentence is over 700 characters long; "the 18 May 1944" is ungrammatical; long dashes shouldn't be surrounded by spaces.
"The deportation disproportionately encompassed every person of Crimean Tatar descent" -- I don't really understand the use of "disproportionately" here.
"arrived to their destination" -- I would expect "at their destination"; "During the time of this long transit" -- "the time of" is redundant.

Scanning the body of the article, several paragraphs do not end with citations, e.g. the last in the Background section, the fourth in Rehabilitation section, the fourth in Modern views and legacy, and the second in In popular culture. There are also several typos (e.g. "culturul", missing full stops, spaces before citations) and clumsy expressions (e.g. "a big publicity was given to him") that even a light copyedit would pick up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the brought up points have been corrected. As for the word "disproportionately" - it refers to the excessive, undue nature of the deportation that did not just target those men suspected of collaboration, but also children, women, the elderly, and even Red army soldiers - basically everyone who was part of this nation, without exception. It is like the phrase heard on the news ("disproportionate attack", "disproportionate focus on something"). I hope this helped to clarify. --Seiya (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but the above comments are based on a very quick scan of the article, and therefore only indicative of prose and comprehension issues -- I think a full copyedit is still required, one that may well bring up questions relating to referencing as well as expression, and which should be carried out away from the pressures of the FAC process. Once that's done I think PR would be helpful before returning here, or as a first-time nominator you'd be eligible to participate in the FAC mentoring scheme, if that appeals. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations. All of these were corrected and other users also edited the article in the meantime. Therefore, I would like to give room to hear opinions from others, as well.--Seiya (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agreed with Ian ... it's not close enough yet. Misspellings, odd punctuation, odd wording, etc. Ask for help at WP:GOCE, and run it through peer review. I'll be happy to take another look at it after that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been submitted to both, a copyedit and peer review is pending.--Seiya (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 [26].

Randall Flagg

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this has been sort of my 'Moby Dick' on Wikipedia as I've been trying to get this to featured status for over a decade now. I believe that this article is as comprehensive as it's going to be, featuring in addition to the fictional character history Stephen King's own history in writing him as well as analysis from critics on the character. My hope is, if the article is good enough, to either get it as featured article for the day in time for the release of the Dark Tower film in August or on King's birthday in September.CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

I've only taken a very quick skim through, but there are a few things that jump out immediately:

The referencing seems a little all over the place. Some paragraphs have citations, yet others don't. There are only two in the lede; I would go with either no citations or full citations in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are still uncited paragraphs in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In quite a few cases, citations are separated from the sentence with a space. That needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of instances of ” which should be ". Similarly, there are instances of ’ rather than '. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Characteristic of Randall Flagg is his embodiment of evil." - pretty subjective statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the subjective statement and I think I changed all of the quotation marks. I'll give a look at the references this weekend.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances in which the citation comes after the period (correct) and before it (incorrect). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"created by Stephen King." - Who is Stephen King? We need to be more precise with these sorts of things. For instance, it would work better as "created by American horror writer Stephen King" or something of that nature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

This may be more of a stylistic preference, but would it be better to move the quote box from the "Novels" subsection to the "The Stand" subsection as the quote directly deals with The Stand and the current positioning causes a somewhat awkward indentation in the subsection headings.
The second paragraph of the "The Stand" subsection does not have any references. Same goes for a majority of the "The Eyes of the Dragon" subsection. I would also ask you to look through the "The Dark Tower series" subsection to make sure that everything is properly cited there as well.
The subtitle on the Stephen King image needs a reference (for the "came out of nowhere" quote). The quote as used in the lead also needs to be cited.
Would it be appropriate to rename the "Characterization" section as the "Characterization and critical reception" section as you do include information on critical reception/feedback of the character.
In the following sentence (It was confirmed in 2016 that Matthew McConaughey would be playing the role of Walter o'Dim, Flagg's alter-ego, in the film adaptation of The Dark Tower.), please include the link to the article on the 2017 film.
I would assume that you would need a more complete caption for the Matthew McConaughey other than just the actor's name.

Wonderful work with this article. It is a very interesting read. I will support this for promotion as soon as my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will try to go through the article and address those concerns when I am able to.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence (Randall Flagg, appearing as Marten Broadcloak and Walter o'Dim, plays a significant role in the series.) requires a citation.

The above comment is the only thing that I have noticed when reading through the article an additional time. Once a citation is added to that part, then I will support this. Great work on this article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I added the citation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting it promoted and great work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

Hi, there is something "choppy' about the prose and it comes across on first read as disjointed in places. I need to digest it some more. I will try to copyedit it (please revert me if I accidentally change the meaning). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked the lead like this to give it some flow.

Flagg attracts people drawn to destruction, power and draconian rule - not fond of the last...maybe "Flagg attracts people drawn to destruction, power and tyranny"..?

~~I'd use an mdash instead of brackets in the prose.~~

~~Does King ever explain his epilogue to the Stand?~~

~~The reviewers in Characterization and critical reception need identifiers~~

Overall, the article lacks in analysis - google scholar yields some items, such as this, this, this and this for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- King hasn't explained the ending of 'The Stand beyond the bit comparing Flagg to a rapidly deflating used car salesman. In terms of analysis, I honestly think the article is comprehensive as-is compared to other featured articles on fictional characters. I can try looking for more but I don't think the section is going to get much bigger than it already is (without adding a lot of overlap; when I was initially researching the article there was a lot of different people more or less saying the same thing). EDIT: Also can you clarify what you mean by identifier?--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what they do, such as "NY Times reviewer" or "American novelist" or whatever...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks I'll take a look at the people mentioned.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the identifiers in the criticism section.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify what you mean by mdash/brackets? I changed the tyranny line.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses are often unnecessary. A comma or mdash brings them "closer" to the rest of the prose, making it flow better. Sometimes the material is too tangential and might be better as a footnote or removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed every example I saw and tried to rework the sentences.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a rundown of what sort of extra analysis is needed?--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters this links the Dark Tower series to the Wizard of Oz and discusses Flagg. I can try and get fulltext of this and maybe others and send to you Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if you're able to get access to it that sounds fine. Fwiw the Stringell article is already in the main one, it references her comment on "flawed humanity".--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I haven't seen any activity by the nominator on WP, let alone this review, for a week -- unless something changes shortly I think we'll just have to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not able to edit as much with my job at the moment but up until the comments a few days ago I thought I had addressed all the concerns on the article. --CyberGhostface (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to tell when you haven't responded to all of Midnightblueowl's comments, or any of Casliber's -- if you've made changes to the article in response to comments, you should say so on the FAC page so the reviewers (and coordinators!) are clear on it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cas liber I haven't gotten around to yet but I left a message on midnightblueowl's talk page just so he would see it immediately. In the future I'll repost the messages here as well for the others.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this just doesn't seem to be making much progress at the moment and I will be archiving it shortly. It may be better to work on it away from FAC for a little while, maybe consulting with those who have reviewed here, then renominating after the usual 2 week waiting period. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.