Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2018

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2018 [1].

Croatia national football team edit

Nominator(s): Animation is developing 02:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Croatia national football team and I think that this place has drastically improved since it was last reassess in 2008 and with stricter guidelines this might have a shot at being promoted via the hard work that @Domiy: has done to put it back up to the status that it is today. Animation is developing 02:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08 edit

Not really intending on doing a full review and providing a support/oppose at the end of it. I did a quick read through and glanced at the sources and had a couple comments:

  • It would be nice (not sure if required?) if the sources used the trans-title field
  • One of the sources has some JavaScript jibberish and is clearly broken
  • Multiple links to Croatia Football Federation (one example, you should fix all that have multiple wikilinks)
  • Another citation has 'Daily Maildate=10 October 2006.', which is clearly an error with the citation template
  • The graph of FIFA ranking over time seems upside down; I would expect 1 to be at the top of the chart.

These are some generic examples to show you should go through the sources with a fine toothed comb and expand them as much as possible, verify they are working, and that they have no obvious errors. Kees08 (Talk) 03:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Matt, the FAC instructions state that nominators must be among the article's main editors, and I can see only one recent edit from you. Nor can I find any discussion re. a FAC nom on the article talk page that involves you. Normally I would simply remove this as out-of-process but as Kees has taken the trouble to make some comments I plan to archive it so they remain. Note also that several statements in the article are unsourced; FAC standards require that at the very least every paragraph end in a citation (implying that everything in the paragraph prior to the citation is supported by the source -- more granular referencing may be required). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2018 [2].

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) edit

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

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

Comments from Kees08 edit

I intend to review this, leaving a placeholder here so you can remind me (if necessary). Kees08 (Talk) 06:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media review edit

  • File:Dance (Sample).ogg - 20 seconds is fine
    • The fair use rationale states: "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus." I am not sure that this rationale fits this article.
DONE! I have changed the rationale somewhat. Is it better now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine Kees08 (Talk)
    • Also, could you get a patroller/admin to add that the rationale is appropriate? (once we have the above sorted)
I have asked an administrator and I'm waiting for a response. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to the quality being reduced, what was it before and what is it now?
It was in terms of the Kbps rate; it now is 62 kbps, while back then it used to be around 120 kbps.Cartoon network freak

(talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks Kees08 (Talk)

Any reason the cover arts are different sizes? I do not particularly care, just curious. Kees08 (Talk) 05:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, but I could ask someone to fix that if you want to. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read, it seems like they are a standard size and then reduced and kept at the same scale. For some reason that I do not particularly care about, that did not happen here. Kees08 (Talk)

@Kees08: I have responded to your comments! Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presuming an admin gets back to you on that point, the media review is complete and the article passes. Kees08 (Talk) 22:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commments from Tony1 edit

Lead prose:

  • It may be my ignorance of the field, but do these two propositions belong in one sentence, almost counterposed against each other with "while"? "Several collaborators are credited for the record's production, including Andreas Schuller, Sebastian Jacome, Chrishan Prince, Erik Lidbom, and Gabriel Huiban, while material was developed during the first Romanian international songwriting camp FonoCamp in 2013." If it's not necessary, possibly consider "... Huiban; material ...". Does "material" refer to the music?
DONE! Yes, "material" refers to music. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "material" is too non-specific. Why don't you write what you mean, here? The songs? The music? Please don't write for experts. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be fussy, but the level of certainty in "alleged" applies only to the first proposition; then you continue with high-certainty "facts" that spin off from that low-certainty beginning (hiatus, signed, etc).
"Alleged" is used because we don't know if there was this altercation between the singer and her manager or not. The singer appeared bruised on television back then and kept saying that her manager beat her, but it wasn't confirmed afterwards if her really abused her or not. I guess it would be wrong to to leave the "alleged" out. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, you miss my point: your low level of certainty is fine for the first proposition; but then you spin things causally out of the assumption that it was true. Doesn't work. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see the issue now. What I really wanted to refer to was the court case between Stan and Prodan that resulted in all those things. Is it better now? Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it sold around 17,000 units as of September 2014." Bit simpler? "where it had sold around 17,000 units by September 2014. And since the release (we presume in Japan, too) was on 27 August, which part of September are you referring to?
DONE! I'm referring to late September. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But your number is solid hard: to the nearest thousand in the lead, and then (unacceptable), 17, 045 further down; late September is vague. Doesn't the source give the date? This is a problem. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added the exact number of sales in the lead, and in fact it is the number by January 2015 (I corrected that now). A few years ago, I had asked a user who had access to the Japanese Oricon sales database ( see discussion here ) and he told me that the album had sold 17,045 units between its charting period from August 2014 to January 2015. An exact date for the sales isn't available, and I also haven't seen things like "'XY sold X units by 26 July 2018". Am I wrong? Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I know nothing of the field, but "to aid the album" sounds weird to me.
DONE! Replaced with "promote". Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's another one, too. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Can you help me out? Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to mark the duality with "both"? Do you need [comma] performing?
DONE! Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development:

  • "In 2012 and 2013, Alexandra Stan released the singles "Lemonade", "Cliché (Hush Hush)" and "All My People" as intended for her second album." Ambiguous, to me, the "released ... as intended".
DONE! Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, ...". Use "But" here ... so much better for readers, and you know you want to do it. Just not too many sentence-initial buts.
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Japan–only" – what's the en dash doing there?
DONE! Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, "Fixed". Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was made available for sale" – eek, by whom? Why the passive gobbly?
DONE! Replaced with "was released". Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aforementioned" – is this a legal document?
I've seen this word in several other high-level music article, and I think it's a better option than enumerating the singles again or stating just "singles". I also don't know other alternative for this, but maybe you do? Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then do us all a favour and zap it in those other, supposedly high-level articles (plural, you mean?). Why not just remove this urchin? "the singles". The means you know the ones I'm referring to. Don't use ANY gobbledy words: wheretofore, hitherto, etc. Make it PLAIN and SIMPLE. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DONE! ...or 'fixed', anyway lol. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the addition of the aforementioned singles, and was the singer's last album on Prodan's label, Maan Records." Slightly too willing to shove "and" in to join propositions into a sentence. Suggest a dash here: "with the addition of the EEK singles – the singer's last album on Prodan's label, Maan Records."
DONE! Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 2013, Stan began working with another team, including record producers and songwriters Alex Cotoi and Erik Lidbom, on what would become her second studio album, Unlocked." The first comma could be dumped for flow: there are already plenty. It's long and complex, so interrupt with a pair of dashes? – including ... Libom – .. Do you need to stress the evolution so explicitly (on what would become)? If not, dump three words.
DONE! Fixed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've used spaced eM dashes. Not allowed on WP. Must be article-consistent, whether spaced en – or closed em—. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FIXED! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm finding too many ways to improve the language to Support on the basis of 1a. So I'll Oppose until we expect to see significant improvements throughout. Suggest printing out, red pen, and COLLEAGUES' input please. Tony (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thank you very much for your comments. I've ammended almost everything you suggested to and replied to your comments. I may be wrong, but you have a tendency of being one of these users who just leave an oppose and then never come back to this page again to check the progress; please don't do that! I've been searching for an experienced user to work with on this article for long time, but I couln't find one. Now I'm hoping you are willing to continue your review. Thank you! Best of regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're debating modifications to the instructions, which might place more pressure on reviewers to avoid hit-and-run posts. The purpose of reviewing here is not to be your personal copy-editor, I'm afraid. It's to provide examples of how to improve your writing throughout (YOU do that), and to suggest you need other eyes on it. It's also to show you how to mentor and collborate with other editors in this topic. There are 45 FACs on the list, and lots of FARs and FARCs, too. We are spread too thinly. So ... no. Your job. Quid pro quo with some other editors. Network. The writing is not too bad, but we shouldn't have to point these issues out. So don't stop being critical about writing. Tony (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and please don't use those gaudy green ticks. It's in the instructions not to. Tony (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony1: I think I solved your issues now. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHECKLIST

  • Quality of prose throughout (1a): Needed tightening up before submission. Learning curve here. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • High-quality, reliable sources used appropriately (1c):
  • Citations consistently formatted (2c):
  • Images/media copyright and policy compliance (3):
  • Comprehensive, appropriate length, neutral (1b, 4, 1d): Looks OK. Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follows style guidelines (2): OK Tony (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

In addition to the problems with the prose quality ("Showing Stan sporting a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background, Dimitri Caceaune photographed the cover art for Unlocked."), there are too many Amazon and ITunes sources. --John (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @John:! Can you please explain to me what the problem is in the given sentence? Also, what are reliable online music stores I can use apart from iTunes and Amazon? Is there a policy for that? Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Vendor_and_e-commerce_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Amazon.com,_Target.com_and_Itunes_sales_pages_as_reference_for_discography should help answer the question. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John:@Kees08: Several iTunes links have been removed and replaced with other sources. However, there are still four iTunes refs that remained, as I could not find a substitute for them. For what I've read in the discussion mentioned bove by Kees08, nor iTunes nor Amazon have been classified as "unreliable", but rather there has been some dispute regarding their reliability, resulting in no consensus. However, multiple users involved in that discussion recommended using iTunes or Amazon if there really isn't any other source to replace that with (which is the case for a few remaining refs here). I think that is acceptable. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the sourcing issue, I just thought I would flag it up as it was raised at one of the previous FACs but not really addressed. As regards the sentence, here's a good way to think about it. Most sentences should have a subject, a verb and an object. In the sentence "John ate the pizza", "John" is the subject, "ate" is the verb, and "the pizza" is the object. Your sentence is constructed in such a way as to hide what the meaning is. We should not do that. You could rewrite this example as "Dimitri Caceaune photographed the cover art for Unlocked. It shows Stan wearing a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background." It would be a lot better like this. There are many sentences in the article which need this treatment before it could pass on prose. --John (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@John: Thank you for pointing that out! I will have another thorough look into the article later and see what I can do. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - It appears that substantial representative prose issues have been identified by two different reviewers. I will be archiving this so you can rework the writing with the help of a good copyeditor. --Laser brain (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2018 (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, 29 August 2018 [3].

Army of the Rhine and Moselle edit

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...the French army engaged in the Rhine Campaign of 1796 (also a Featured article) against the Holy Roman Empire. The other army, Army of the Sambre and Meuse just cleared through the FA process last week. In addition, several of the primary battles have gone through the FA process. auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

Prose in the lead:

  • "By this time, ..." – for readers like me who know nothing of the topic, this time phrase is a bit vague. Do you mean by the late 18th century? Or by the time these two principle campaigns were being prosecuted?
  • Time, again: "The unsuccessful 1795 campaign". You've told us about the 1795 and 1797 mergers at the top; but now I'm confused.
  • "pushed", not "push". Surely?
  • exp ... exc ... . Not sure what you mean by excruciating command problems. Who was in pain?
  • "in campaign failures of 1795" – "the"?
  • "After a summer of maneuver" – I've never seen this as a conglomerative singular. Why not plural? or "maneuvering"? Or just get rid of "of maneuver"?
  • This is one sentence? "After a summer of maneuver in which the Coalition force drew the French deeper and deeper into German territory, Archduke Charles, Duke of Teschen, the Habsburg commander, drubbed the French at Wurzburg and second Wetzlar and then defeated Jean-Baptiste Jourdan's army at the Limburg-Altenkirchen, destroying any chance that Jourdan's force and Moreau's Army of the Rhine and Moselle could merge." I don't get "and second Wetzlar". Split sentence there, anyway. "forceS" more idiomatic? Phew, it's very dense, complicated, opaque. It's not easy reading about such intricate interactions in the lead: where's my helicopter view? Can the lead be a little more like a summary, with less of this detail?
  • "was eliminated from support" – what does it mean?
  • "The Army of the Rhine and Moselle had served an important function, though." – Not thrilled with the final-position "though" (afterthought). And I have to squint to see why you're turning a "corner" here.

Spot-check:

  • "By 1792 the armies of the French Republic were in a state of disruption; experienced soldiers of the Ancien Régime fought side by side with raw volunteers. Troops experienced in military life knew how to stay alive; they knew how to march, deploy, take orders, give orders, all the necessities of military discipline." – To avoid repetition, could the first "experienced" be "professional"? The second sentence, I guess refers back to them. To me, it's a statement of the obvious. Professionals and raw volunteers = chaos, frustration. You don't need to spell it out. knew ... knew.
  • "On the raw recruits, urged on by revolutionary fervor from the special representatives, agents of the legislature sent to insure cooperation among the military, lacked the discipline and training to function efficiently and cohesively;" – I have no idea what this sentence means. On? who are the "special reps"? cooperation among the military ... does that mean between professionals and volunteers? It's all so complex and opaque.

CHECKLIST

  • Quality of prose throughout (1a): Serious problems with dense, opaque writing, too much knowledge assumed of readers. A very difficult read. Faulty grammar.
  • High-quality, reliable sources used appropriately (1c): Didn't review
  • Citations consistently formatted (2c): Didn't review
  • Images/media copyright and policy compliance (3): Didn't review
  • Comprehensive, appropriate length, neutral (1b, 4, 1d): Length and lead's function ... needs a good audit. Unsure about the huge amount of detail sequestered into a table (with rather small font-size).
  • Follows style guidelines (2): No issues yet.

So, I'm sorry to say that my feeling at this stage is Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. It's a great topic, but the article needs a lot of unravelling and recasting. I think it should be done in collaboration, since it's very easy to get too close to the "woods", so to speak, given the complexities. If fixed, it should have an easier passage through the FA process. Tony (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony1, Questions: I can make the detail in the table in a bigger font (have done so), but the other editors I worked with liked the detail in the tables, rather than creating separate paragraphs for the progression of the French across Germany and back again. See also Army of the Sambre and Meuse. It worked well there. Also, I added some text on the army in context of the French Revolutionary Wars. Clarified Representative on mission. I keep doing that, and it disappears ...Would you prefer the Order of Battle in its own list? auntieruth (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: As per the FAC instructions, nominations can be archived if "a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn". As Tony1 has recommended withdrawal, I will be archiving this shortly. Some of the discussion on WT:FAC suggests that this is a slightly experimental "suggest withdrawal", but no-one seems to have taken issue with it either on WT:FAC or here. I would recommend working on this article away from FAC and it can be renominated after the usual 2 week waiting period. If Tony could be persuaded to take a further look, it would be of enormous benefit to the article. Sarastro (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2018 (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) 06:59, 27 August 2018 [4].

San Junipero edit

Nominator(s): — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • For this sentence (Written by series creator and showrunner Charlie Brooker and directed by Owen Harris, it premiered on Netflix on 21 October 2016, together with the rest of series three.), I do not believe that the “together” part is necessary.
  • The caption for the infobox image should not have punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
  • I will have to preface my comments by saying that I have not seen this episode (or any episodes from this series). I find the “Plot” section to be confusing, particularly the jump from the first paragraph to the second paragraph. There is a large time jump between 1987 to 2002, and that left me confused. Are Yorkie and Kelly in 2002 played by the same actresses from 1987 version? Are they treated as being the same age? I am just lost with the whole timeline. I would imagine that writing a plot summary for a show with twists must difficult.
  • I have two comments about this sentence (Kelly (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), a vivacious party girl, begins talking to Yorkie in order to ditch Wes (Gavin Stenhouse), a man with whom Kelly previously had sex.). You can revise “begins talking to Yorkie in order to ditch” to “talks to Yorkie to ditch” for more concise language. Also, I would replace “Yorkie” with “her” as it is clear from the context of the section and it is best to avoid repeating the characters’ names a lot in a short space.
  • For this sentence (Kelly and Yorkie dance, but Yorkie becomes uncomfortable and flees the club.), I think that “leaves” would be a better word choice than “flees” as the current wording seems very dramatic in my opinion.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (Kelly follows and propositions Yorkie, who declines, saying she is engaged.). What sort of “proposition” was Kelly offering Yorkie? A sexual one? A romantic one? I would clarify this in the prose.
  • I would revise this sentence (Yorkie and Kelly reunite in the bathroom, and they then have sex at Kelly's beach house.) to (Yorkie and Kelly reunited in the bathroom and later have sex at Kelly’s beach house.).
  • For this sentence (Yorkie confesses that it is her first time having sex, and Kelly reveals that she was once married to a man.), I believe that it should be “it was her first time” as I would imagine that she is saying this after they already had sex as opposing to during it.
  • I would revise the beginning part of this sentence (It is revealed that San Junipero is a simulated reality where the deceased can live and the elderly can visit, all inhabiting their younger selves' bodies.) to “San Junipero is revealed to be a…).
  • I am not sure about the quote use in this sentence (Wes advises her to "try a different time.”). I think you can safely paraphrase this.
  • For this sentence ( After Yorkie leaves, Kelly follows and confesses that she is dying), does Kelly say how she is dying in the scene?
  • For this sentence (Kelly's husband Richard chose to die in the same way because of the untimely death of their daughter, Alison, at age 39.), I think you can remove “untimely” as it sounds strange to me.
  • This sentence (Yorkie runs after her and catches up just as Kelly disappears, her visiting time over for the week.) could use from revision as it is awkwardly worded.
  • For this sentence (She is euthanised and buried alongside her husband and daughter, and inside San Junipero, she happily reunites with Yorkie.), I would place the “inside San Junipero” at the end of the sentence.
  • For this sentence ("San Junipero" is the fourth episode of series three), I would mention Black Mirror by name and wikilink it as it is the first instance in which you mention it in the body of the article.
  • For this sentence (all six episodes in this series were released on Netflix simultaneously on 21 October 2016.), I would place “simultaneously” directly after “released”.
  • Please link” Nosedive” to the appropriate article when you first mention it in the body of the article. The same comment applies for “Be Right Back”.
  • For this sentence (One reviewer noted that "San Junipero" contained "only American characters”.), I think you can paraphrase the quote.
  • For this sentence (The episode was set in California as another way to "upend" people's preconceptions of Black Mirror.), does the reviewer explain how the location “upends” preconceptions? I am not fully understanding what this means.
  • Please make sure that the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • You mention multiple songs being featured in the episode in the body of the article, but only one song is in the infobox.
  • For this sentence (In December 2016 Lakeshore Records released the score for downloading and streaming.), please include a comma after “2016”.
  • I would revise this sentence (Use of sound design such as sound effects were key to this.) to avoid the use of “this”.
  • I do not see the need for the rainbow flag image in the article.
  • For this sentence (Dibdin calls it a "modern fairy tale”.), please identify “Dibdin” as this is the first time you mention this person.
  • I would see if there is a way you could combine these two sentences (The episode's more hopeful tone is unusual for the show—at the time of its release, "San Junipero" was considered to be the most different from other Black Mirrorepisodes.) as they appear to say very similar things.
  • For this part (Goodman and Atad both opined that the story would leave viewers in tears,), the references need to be placed in numerical order. I would check the article for this.
  • For reference 19, avoid shouting and do not put “Interview” in all caps.

Great job with the article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This has been open a month and only just received commentary, so I can see it remaining open another month before possibly achieving consensus to promote. I'll therefore archive and ask that work on the above comments be undertaken outside the FAC process. Once that's done I'd suggest trying a Peer Review, pinging relevant WikiProjects and editors who might like to participate. Then you should be in a better position to try another FAC nomination that could generate more timely review. Another avenue to a FAC nomination that you could try after a Peer Review is the FAC mentioning scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2018 (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) 07:14, 27 August 2018 [5].

Irakli Tsereteli edit

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

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

Support by Chetsford edit

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

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

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

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

Image review edit

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

Coord note edit

Sorry but this has been open a month and a half and without generating sufficient commentary for promotion so I'm going to archive it. I'd like to suggest that you try and get some eyes on it outside the FAC process, then bring it back in a few weeks for another nomination. Peer Review is an option but in any case it might be worthwhile going direct to relevant WikiProjects or their individual editors (perhaps also MilHist, even though it doesn't strictly come under that banner). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 [6].

Rajasaurus edit

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

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

Comments by Lusotitan edit

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

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

Comments by IJReid edit

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

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the dubious genus Lametasaurus described in 1923 may actually represent a stout Rajasaurus individual, specifically the hip remains," I can't understand this wording does it imply only the hips are Rajasaurus?
That's what it says, yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is still convoluted. Perhaps something like "Only the holotype specimen exists, although the hip bone remains of the dubious genus Lametasaurus, described in 1923 for [list material] from [location], might represent a stout individual of Rajasaurus. This cannot be confirmed as the Lametasaurus specimen has been lost." IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:35, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I really don't think the article is comprehensive or well-written enough, but I'm not really sure where to start without simply hard-opposing.
:/   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the braincase, only the left sides of the parietal and frontal bones are preserved, though the opposite is true for the horn" I don't understand, the frontals and parietals aren't braincase bones, and the sentence "on the braincase," makes no sense when you consider this.
Are you sure the parietal is not part of the braincase? It seems to be one of the major bones that make up the braincase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could but generally the frontoparietal is considered the skull roof while occipital bones are braincase.
The source described the frontals and parietals under a subheading "Braincase"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The horn" what horn?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the horn is significant enough it deserves more than a passing mention. Maybe reorder the paragraph so the remaining horn info directly follows?
I just split it off into its own paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the walls decreasing" what walls? decreasing in what?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The low horn on its forehead ..." a lot of repetition in the words horn and bone and has a lot of pauses (comma should be present before the "more than")
Well it does talk about bones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like with metatarsals, cutting off the bone is perfectly appropriate after first mention. Also, a comma is still needed
Done, and I don't see where the comma should go   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The right side of the orbitosphenoid bones is broken away, exposing, on the frontal bone near the midline, a path for the olfactory tract which is a part of smelling" this sentence bears very little relevance for inclusion apart from the mention of "for smelling"
Deleted the orbitosphenoid part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crista prootica needs a link or gloss
I defined what it was in the same sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The wording doesn't help laymen know the crista prootica is simply the prootic crest
I don't what either of those are, but I rearranged it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss otic capsule, orbitosphenoid, olfactory tract, sagittal crest etc
All of those are already wikilinked   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are already explained in text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a bracketes phrase explanation would be helpful to those without the beta feature for page previews
I hate those page previews, there's no x button on them; all of those are already defined in text (like sagittal crest is "crest along the middle of the top of the skull")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything more of importance like the shape of the skull, snout bones, eye positioning, anything more than some braincase and rear-of-skull details?
No, because they only found the braincase   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this diagram[7] is completely misleading then? It shows a lot of skull material besides the braincase, so I wonder whether some parts have been identified since the original description, or if the image is just erroneous. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure that there is more material known, maybe dig into newer literature?
I just remembered appendixes exist :/ but it's citing this from 1999 (which I can't access) saying all the parts listed were used in some kinda analysis, and also I can't figure out how to read the appendix because it says things like "Crown height (largest maxillary crowns): 20-30% (O), or 10-15% (I), of height of snout at midlength." So of the things I can read there, it had a maxilla, premaxilla, and a quadrate, and there were air pockets between the maxilla and premaxilla (I've been trying to read this for half an hour, that's all I got). News articles say there was a jaw but I find no reference to a mandible anywhere   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A tip, you can access practically anything via the links in the infobox here... FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, that's cool. But in any case, that 1999 article didn't elucidate anything, so when the appendix cites something I'm not entirely sure what's it's trying to do. All I've added is premaxilla, maxilla, and quadrate bone to the listing of the holotype remains in Discovery and naming. Everything the appendix says about everything seems either trivial or incomprehensible (though if it's incomprehensible it's generally also trivial)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if something has been overlooked on Google scholar. But then again, Sereno was one of the describers, and he has a reputation of not following up on preliminary descriptions with more detail later. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only one neck vertebra–likely a middle vertebra–is preserved, and it is proportionally shorter than that of other ceratosaurians, and also it is broader than is tall; like in other ceratosaurians, the back end of the vertebra where it connects to another vertebra (articular process) is very concave" run-on sentence, break this up into at least two
the semi-colon is a replacement for a period   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is still too long, please cut it in half and reword if necessary.
Alright is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the centra opisthocoelous? There should be some mention of the centrum description its more easy to understand than the neural arch and spine anatomy.
the entire thing basically is centrum description and what side's convex or concave (every time it says "concave at the articular processes")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then thats something that needs fixing, because articular processes aren't on the centrum, the zygapophyses (see link) are on the arch
anatomy is hard, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most dinosaur articles use dorsal vertebrae instead of thoracic, following almost all literature
done, I'd never seen "dorsal vertebra" before so I just went with thoracic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Air spaces" better would be to use air pockets or "_ for air sacs"
I switched it to pockets   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats significant about the angle of the pelvic bone
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the second metatarsal bone which connects the ankle bone to the second toe is robust" comma missing
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of saying "metatarsal bone". Why not just shorten to "metatarsal" after the first full use?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on its classification changed between 2003 and 2014? Not from papers on stuff like Rugops or Kryptovenator or Skorpiovenator or Ilokelesia?
Not that I've found, the big thing was finding an abelisaurid outside of Gondwana as far's I can tell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure a quick mention of studies like Sereno or Carrano or Pol and where they place Rajasaurus would be good, just to show comprehensiveness in literature. Also maybe add notes on Brachyrostra vs Rajasaurus' placement from Canale. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I got a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No maxilla, premaxilla or quadrate are mentioned in the material list of Wilson et al, but is listed here in Discovery. To add: looking into literature the only mentions of cranial material are the Chatterjee 1978 paper and Chatterjee & Rudra 1996, where a premaxilla, maxilla, dentary, jugal, lachrimal and angular are "described" (not really described but talked about). These were referred to Indosuchus. It appears as though the cranial material often drawn as "Rajasaurus" really comes from this bunch of intermetiate fossils. Wait for the Sereno & Wilson paper mentioned as going through indian theropod remains to be published IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Will review soon, some initial thoughts first. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his book, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs" Why is this needed in-text?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a comprehensive analysis of abelisaurid size" Likewise.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the unfamiliar reader, perhaps give a general description of its body plan, based on Paul's general description of abelisaurs on page 78 of his Field Guide.
I just found a free preview online, added now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul also states this genus specifically may have used its horn for display and head butting with con-specifics (page 80).
  • You could give some info about how abelisaurs are generally thought to have behaved. Feeding behaviour, I think they are thought to have been fast as well. There is a review paper on this published this year:[8]
Are you sure it's entirely sound to do that? All it specifically says about Rajasaurus is that it had a horn   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that is true for abelisaurs in general could be relevant here, for example, if we know all abelisaurs ate sauropods, you don't have to find a source that specifically says Rajasaurus did so. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that's the case I could basically copy over Majungasaurus over here or Abelisauridae. Where's the line drawn?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, because info that is specific for Majungasaurus doesn't necessarily apply to other members of the group. Unlike, well, info that applies to the entire group, and stated as such in a given source. See for example the last paragraph of the palaeoecology section in the recently promoted Oxalaia, that's a good example of how to do it. If a review paper says for example "abelisaurids probably used their horns for display", or "abelisaurids were fast runners", that is very relevant here, so it needs to be checked out. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you got your paleobiology section now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the article better, so if it is "mine", I can only be happy. I might ditch the Isisaurus image, though, it seems everyone agrees it has inaccurate proportions. I am in the process of fixing the horn and jaw muscles on the last Rajasaurus restoration too, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if the horn's too big or if it's just perspective, but in any case I replaced Isisaurus with the Sanajeh snake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed the image before you looked again, it should be fine now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That paper also has some info on the life appearance on Rajasaurus, the absence of this citation makes me wonder if there has been a thorough literature search about this taxon and its group. On Google Scholar or such.
Are you sure that's the right paper? Rajasaurus only appears three times in the entire thing, two sentences about the horn and once in a cladogram (and they confused India with Madagascar on it anyways)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It says specifically "The single horn of Majungasaurus and Rajasaurus do not have the depressed lip seen in Carnotaurus and Ceratosaurus, suggesting that they were covered by cornified tissue without dorsal extension." You might want to read the surrounding text to interpret what this exactly means and how it can be explained here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That just means Carnotaurus had a bigger horn than the fossil shows because it had some skin jutting out on top of the horn, but Rajasaurus and Majungasaurus didn't have the hard skin thing. I don't think that's noteworthy   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty significant that we can even tell that the horn was not much longer than the bony core, unlike in some relatives, therefore a recognisable feature of this animal. It tells the reader how the animal might or might not have looked in life. In fact, this info seems to imply that our last restoration that shows a significantly lengthened horn might need to be updated. If you leave it out, it conflicts with the comprehensiveness criterion. An article this short to begin with should'nt leave out directly relevant info about the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it's there now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suggesting the dinosaur was comparatively slower–" This info looks like it would belong in the paleoecology or a paleobiology section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rajasaurus was then formally described in 2003 by geologist Jeffrey A. Wilson and palaeontologist Paul Sereno." Needs citation.
oops, added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll continue once the issues brought up by Reid have been fixed, since they may significantly alter/expand parts of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I went to page 8 on google scholar, there is nothing about the mouth, should I keep going?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Going ion what way? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way you describe the discovery is a bit vague, this source gives a more precise account you could use:[9]
I rearranged the Discovery section and looks like I forgot to go back and fix it, it should be good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems there are some details in the link above that could be used. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fragments of Rajasaurus were also found" So more than one specimen in known, or is it part of the same specimen? This is very unclear from the current text.
Ref no. 1 says, "The fossil bones of Rajasaurus are found at Rahioli (Gujarat) and...at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)...a small portion of the upper jaw of Rajasaurus...comes from the ‘Bara Shimla Hill’, Jabalpur."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are they all part of the holotype, though? If not, this statement is incorrect: "Only the holotype specimen exists". FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source says, "The bones of Rajasaurus were found at Rahioli...and...at Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)...a small portion of the upper jaw...in the...reconstruction comes from...Jabalpur," but Wilson 2003 doesn't specifically say Rajasaurus bones were found in Jabalpur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm still confused, does that mean the sources are inconsistent in how many specimens there are? If so, you might have to state this specifically in the article, otherwise it looks like it contradicts itself. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson says he's using remains found in Rahioli (making the Rahioli remains the holotype), and another source says that remains were also found in Jabalpur and these Jabalpur remains were used for a small part of the skull reconstruction while most of it relied on remains from Rahioli. Wilson never mentions the Rajasaurus Jabalpur remains, which would technically mean they are not part of the holotype specimen, and that would technically mean there are 2 specimens. However, that seems like a lot of independent conclusions. Also, they are from different ends of the same formation and in all likelihood represent the same individual whose remains were scattered along a river, meaning there's still only 1 specimen, but that's OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So in that case, you should state explicitly in the article that one author says this, while another says that, without making your own conclusions. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wilson never says the dinosaur is only known from Rahioli, he just says the remains he's describing come from Rahioli   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the problem is the text currently says "Only the holotype specimen exists", and since we don't know whether this refers to the bones collected from two different places, you need to be more specific for this not to read like a contradiction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted "only the holotype is known"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that as I read along in the article, it seems to have been nominated prematurely, and a peer review would have been in order. I get the same sense from reading the other reviews, there are simply too many inconsistencies and omissions, and FAC is not the place to restructure an article, only to fine-tune it. The nominator also seems unfamiliar with anatomical terminology relating to dinosaurs, flatly stating they do not understand what they wrote themselves, so I would advice them to practice with some dinosaur GAs before attempting FAC, and to get more familiar wit the relevant literature. But furthermore, to not be so hesitant to make suggested changes, it is not very ideal to refuse adding sources and info suggested by reviewers until after it has been repeated several times. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Jens Lallensack edit

  • It was not described by Wilson or Wilson and Sereno, but by "Wilson et al." or "Wilson and colleagues".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • based on a partial skeleton comprising post-cranial remains beyond the skull–the braincase, spine, hip bone, legs – needs rewording I would say, as the braincase belongs to the skull.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creation of the subfamily Majungasaurinae, and its inclusion of abelisaurids from India and Europe, including Rajasaurus, further reiterates this. – Majungasaurus itself comes from Madagascar.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • fossil-rich limestone bed – a bed is something different (smaller scale) than a formation, or what bed is this referring to?
"The associated bones of this dinosaur were discovered in the early 1980's in latest Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) beds," and bed and formation should be synonymous in any case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But one time you are talking about "bed" (singular), and the other time about "beds" (plural), so its not the same. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fragments of Rajasaurus were also found near Jabalpur in Madhya Pradesh in the northern part of the Lameta Formation, namely a piece of the upper jaw – Fragments is plural, if it is really only a single piece of the upper jaw, I would use singular here.
"...bits and pieces already known from the Jabalpur site in Madhya Pradesh"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean?
  • which includes the maxillae, premaxillae, braincase, and quadrate bone on the skull; – what about the frontal and parietal? Why mixing plural with singular? If only the left (or right) quadrate has been found, I would make this clearer.
Wilson never specific if he found only 1 or both of the quadrate bones, and if he only found 1 he never specifies the side   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But then you should keep all in singular, otherwise it is misleading. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • and spine – not very helpful: what part of the spine?
discussed in the Description section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should, at least, talk about "parts of the spine", as you surely do not have the complete thing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the first Indian theropod to have preserved post-cranial remains – that is simply incorrect I would say.
I missed the word "these"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, there is overlap with Lametasaurus? What does the source say, exactly? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the braincase, only the left sides of the parietal and frontal bones are preserved. – In your source, the frontal and parietal are referred to the skull roof, not the braincase.
They're all described under the heading "Braincase"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should at least say "including the skull roof", because the reader will not now that Wilson uses a non-standard terminology. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rims of the temporal fossae – you mean supratemporal fossae? It makes no sense to me to link the human anatomy article "temporal fossa" here.
I have no idea what the difference is and I'm linking because if I say "supratemporal fossa" no one's gonna know what's going on   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That does not work, as the two are different things. There if the infratemporal fenestra (visible in lateral view) and the supratemporal one (visible in dorsal view). Both can lay within a fossa. We need to be precise here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abelisaurids, typically, had elongated fenestrae (holes in the skull) below the quadrate bone near the bottom of the skull – not sure what this means; below the quadrate is just the lower jaw.
Do you know what the subquadrate bone is? Because I don't   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of a "subquadrate fenestra", I think its just a typo and he means "supratemporal fenestra", as becomes evident considering the context. See Infratemporal fenestra for a visualization of these fenestrae. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a very big typo. So when he said, "The supratemporal fenestrae are extremely elongate, in contrast to the subquadrate fenestrae in other abelisaurids such as Carnotaurus..." he meant "supratemporal"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manjungasaurus – typo?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike in other theropods, the crista prootica, which is typically a ridge along the otic capsule bone in the ear, more so juts outward as a stump similar to that of Manjungasaurus – this is contradictory; you first say it is unlike in other theropods, and then you say it is similar to that of Majungasaurus.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • otic capsule bone – The otic capsule is not a bone on its own; it rather would be part of the prootic bone I guess. Also, I would not state that the otic capsule is within the ear (but part of the ear is within the otic capsule).
I don't understand anything of what you just said, isn't the otic capsule just wall in the inner ear?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The otic capsule is the wall around the inner ear. And the crista you are referring to in that sentenc is outside the otic capsule, hence outside of the ear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very big technicality to me, should I change it to "of the ear"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would write which is typically a ridge along the otic capsule, the bony structure containing the inner ear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, I have the impression that there are still are too many small errors and prose issues. But more points later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • geologist Jeffrey A. Wilson – should be the same as in the lead, where he is a palaeontologist.
  • that is primarily made of nasal bone more than frontal – the grammar seems off here; "nasal bone" and "frontal" are not substances ("it is made out of water"), but individual elements. You have to formulate like this: "primarily formed by the nasal bone" or similar. Please check also other instances in the article.
  • a thickened layer skin – "layer of skin"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading further, I unfortunately need to switch to oppose, as the issues seem too many. Below, some general advice that will hopefully help you to get the article ready for resubmission.

  • First, be careful. Only incorporate information that you really understand. If you add information that you don't understand, it can only go wrong, and if you don't understand it, how could the reader? For any questions, just ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, we are happy to help.
  • Furthermore, try to understand the context, and in what context information makes sense. For example, you wrote However, if this were the case, then African abelisaurids would display endemism and not Rajasaurus.. This information you took from source [9], which is a response to a news article stating that Rajasaurus was a truly Indian dinosaur (which is an opinion restricted to that one author). Currently you do not provide this context, and the sentence makes no sense at all, and is misleading or simply wrong. I would carefully read through the article with fresh eyes, checking if everything is understandable and makes sense.
That happened from all the shuffling, I'll get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search for additional papers on related genera that discuss Rajasaurus, to find some more context. For example, Rahiolisaurus needs to be discussed, as this is the abelisaurid sympatric with Rajasaurus; it would be also interesting to point out how these two differ.
  • Think about shortening the description section, keeping only features that really matter, and whenever they appear to go into excessive detail, point out why they matter. It right now contains a lot of random information you picked from the lengthy published description (e.g., "The fourth metatarsal bone has similar proportions to the second metatarsal") that, without additional context, does not offer much to the reader.
If I were to delete everything I consider unimportant there wouldn't be anything left, I put it in the things I somewhat understood because generally if it's unintelligible it's unimportant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Include features that inform laypeople on the general anatomy (providing some background information). Include features which detail on outstanding features of interest (e.g., the horn). Include features that can be compared with related genera (especially when different from related genera). Include all features that have been interpreted in some way (e.g., function). It is difficult to decide what is relevant and what is not, but it is always good to look for a reason why a certain piece of information warrants inclusion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After this, consider asking for a good copy edit. The prose is not up to the standards yet. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a solid month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2018 (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) 09:09, 25 August 2018 [10].

Shumi Maritsa edit

Nominator(s): Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the anthem of Bulgaria from 1886 until 1947. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, and suggest withdrawal. In my view, this article falls short of what we would be looking for at FAC. I suggest that you take it though GAC and peer review first, and you may also want to seek out a FAC mentor. These comments will, I hope, explain why I am concerned:

  • The article is under-sourced. There are paragraphs, whole sections, and even blockquotes all lacking clear references.
  • In places the writing is very poor; e.g., Admired by the personality and charisma of General Mikhail Chernyayev, who commands the Bulgarian volunteers, Zhivkov decides to write a march dedicated to him. The original title of the song is "Chernyayev March", and is written in the melody of the poem "Sunshine".
  • While I'm not really in a position to judge the reliability of Bulgarian-language sources, some of them look far below the bar (Wordpress, ivelinaberova.com). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't come across as discouraging; I do encourage you to stick with the article, but it isn't ready yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Well, bringing the article to the place you've mention doesn't seems like a good way to get an improvement. Only in FA this article gets the attention it needed. I've brought an article to GA for a month, and nothing has passed since. So with other articles on that section.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 06:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeromi, I understand the frustration but I will be archiving this and believe you'll still do better moving gradually towards another nomination through GAN and then PR (which although not an assessment like FAC and not always well-patronised, is at least another community review). Another avenue to explore is the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2018 (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) 22:21, 24 August 2018 [11].

Michelle Williams (actress) edit

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

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

Support Comments by Moisejp edit

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

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

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

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

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain

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

2006–2010: Work with auteurs

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

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway

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

2017–present: Mainstream films:

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

Media image and acting style:

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

Second read-through:
Lead:

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

1980–1995: Early life:

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

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

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

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

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

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain:

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

2006–2010: Work with auteurs:

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

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway:

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

Media image and acting style:

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

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

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

Source review edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47 edit

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

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

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

Image review edit

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

Closing comment: This has been open for 2 months now, and there has been little commentary for nearly a month. While we have two supports, I don't think we have a consensus to promote this yet, and the nomination seems to have stalled. (The length of the review may be off-putting for new reviewers, and a fresh start may be just what is needed) Therefore, I will be archiving shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period; when the new nomination opens, it is perfectly acceptable to ping those who have commented on this FAC. Sarastro (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2018 (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) 22:38, 24 August 2018 [12].

AirTrain JFK edit

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

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

Strong Support by AmericanAir88 edit

@Epicgenius:

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

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

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

Comments by Dudley edit

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

Image review edit

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

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

Comments by SounderBruce edit

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

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

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

@SounderBruce: Thanks for the comments; I have fixed these issues. I don't think the article is that poor of a quality. For instance, Street View links don't break after every update, but rather, redirect to the most up-to-date imagery. The links don't break in the Street View box. Most of the other issues are minor, so I have fixed these. As for the 21 proposals, that isn't important enough for the lead so I have removed it. epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1 edit

  • Opening sentence: "AirTrain JFK is a three-line, 8.1-mile-long (13 km) people mover system and elevated railway serving the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, New York, United States."—First, why do we need a seven-word monster to describe a city that is known to just about everyone on the planet? AND why are all three items linked, against the style guide's recommendations? Second, perhaps it's less cumbersome to reverse the order at the opening and dump the double hyphens: "AirTrain JFK is a three-line people-mover system and elevated railway 8.1 miles (13 km) long that serves the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City." Is it two things—a people-mover system and an elevated railway? Very odd.
    • @Tony1: To your first point, this addressed SounderBruce's comments above about the state and country not being mentioned. I am not sure whether to include the state and country now, or not. Second, this is an elevated people-mover system. I moved the mention of the three lines to the third sentence. epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second and third sentences: "The system runs as a 24/7 service all year round and stops at ten stations, connecting six terminals at the airport with the New York City Subway and the Long Island Rail Road at Howard Beach and Jamaica. Bombardier Transportation operates AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."—First, do you need "all year round"? Doesn't 24/7 mean that by default? Second, I find the first and second propositions too different to jam together into one sentence. Third, does the system or do the trains stop at stations? If there are only six terminals at the airport, perhaps this: "The system has ten stations, connecting the six airport terminals with the New York City Subway, and the Long Island Rail Road at Howard Beach and Jamaica. Bombardier Transportation operates 24/7 AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
    • I have separated the 24/7 part from the system description part. Additionally, there are six terminals, each served by one station (though there were originally 9 terminals with the same number of stations). I spent some time thinking about this, but it's a very complicated setup.
    • I find the phrasing "Bombardier Transportation operates 24/7 AirTrain JFK under contract with the airport's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey" somewhat awkward. How about this wording: "The system, which operates 24/7 service, consists of three lines and ten stations." epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the rest of the article better than this? Tony (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. The lead paragraphs were originally written hastily, but I have tried to rectify this in recent edits. I took more care in writing the rest of the article. Perhaps a better metric would be to randomly select a few paragraphs in the body section and critique them. Then, I would be happy to fix any general issues that come up. epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked further, and agree that the standard of writing is acceptable after the lead. Tony (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over 2 months. It attracted a support from the GA reviewer (who unfortunately does not indicate how this article meets the FA (rather than GA) criteria) and one other reviewer. SounderBruce had some issues with the article, as did Tony1 (albeit nothing major after the lead). I think this far into the nomination, we need more support than this, and we still seem a little way from a consensus to promote. Therefore I will archive this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, and it is fine to ping those who reviewed this FAC when the second nomination opens. Sarastro (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2018 (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) 22:01, 24 August 2018 [13].

John Doubleday (restorer) edit

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

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

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

Image review edit

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

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

It would not necessarily still be under copyright in the UK, but that doesn't really matter if it is in the US - we'd need to host it locally, and locally we only care about US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have we resolved this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, after another long discussion, it appears that consensus is on the side of the image being in the public domain. I have added an appropriate US copyright tag. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have to say I'm not convinced by the arguments made in that discussion - the image was published, just not (as far as we know, unless you got a reply to your queries?) early enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From my reading, there is one argument in favor of the photograph still being under copyright, and three favoring it not being under copyright. The former argument (expressed by Nikkimaria) is that we do not currently have evidence of any pre-1989 publication, and so we must treat 1989 as the date of first publication. Opposing views are that:
1) The photograph probably was published in some capacity close to its creation, and requiring the leg-work to track down a mention of a 150+ year old publication is unduly burdensome. (View expressed by Slowking4 and Rodrigo.Argenton)
2) As the photographer/copyright holder is unidentified in the 1989 publication, which was presumably done without consent, the publication did not serve to establish copyright. (View of Prosfilaes)
3) In old cases such as these, where tracking centuries-old publications is onerous if even possible, the common law generally finds that copyright has lapsed, even in lieu of evidence that a literal reading of the black-letter law would require. (Prosfilaes again)
Stefan2 has also weighed in, but I hesitate to categorize those helpful comments among the above viewpoints.
The first two arguments in favor of copyright having lapsed are, as I see it, compelling. (I'm not well versed enough in copyright law to speak to the third.) Just who would hold copyright is ambiguous: Doubleday, the photographer, or the British Museum. As the Corbould lithograph demonstrates, Doubleday had a history of presenting the museum with images of himself, and one can see him wanting to commemorate what was likely his finest moment. It's also a reasonable belief that the museum as the time did not have a staff photographer, supporting the idea that they have never been the copyright holder. Further, it is likely that the photograph was displayed near the date of its creation. The breaking, and the remaking, of the Portland Vase were noteworthy events, and Doubleday frequently spoke about his work; during the reconstruction, he is known to have displayed the Shepherd watercolor of the fragments to the Society of Antiquaries of London. If proud of his ongoing work he was undoubtedly prouder of its completion, as was the museum, which gave him a £25 bonus (more than £2,500 today) at the end of the task. It is likely that Doubleday, the museum, or both, displayed the photograph soon after its taking. Taken individually or in tandem, these ideas support the notion that whether or not the copyright clock started ticking in 1845, the 1989 work had no legal effect. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

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

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

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

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


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

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

Comments Tentative support by Cas Liber edit

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

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

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

Coord note edit

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

Support by J Milburn edit

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

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

Support from KJP1 edit

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

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

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

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

Tony1 edit

  • What does "variously" mean here? "who was variously employed by the British Museum for the last 20 years of his life".
  • "Variously" refers to the belief that he was a part-time employee of the BM, given work when restoration was required. I could rephrase along the lines of "employed by the British Museum, probably in a part-time capacity, for the last 20 years of his life" if you think best, but it may be unnecessarily wordy for what is a minor point.
  • "Variously" is vague. Readers won't know what it really. means. Tony (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
  • The wording isn't prima facie logical: "He undertook several duties at the museum, not least as a witness in criminal trials"—were the trials held within the museum?
  • Changed "at" to "for."
  • "At the same time that he was employed at the British Museum, Doubleday was a dealer selling copies of coins, medals, and ancient seals." Always try without "that" to see if it works. But would it be possible to remove my underlined bit?
  • Changed to "While working for the British Museum, Doubleday was also a dealer..." As it's the start of a new paragraph, the mention of the BM is used as a transition.
  • I think so, because ”While working for the British Museum, Doubleday was a dealer” makes it sound as if Doubleday was a dealer for the BM.
  • "He took casts in sulphur and white metal from both national and private collections, and sold them for a fraction of the price that the originals would command."—was the cheap price the whole purpose? If so, perhaps: "By taking casts in sulphur and white metal from both national and private collections, he was able to sell them for a fraction of the price that the originals would command." At the moment it's unclear.
  • It was probably the primary purpose, in addition to creating a substitute for hard- or impossible-to-obtain originals. Changed.
  • "after his death he was labelled a forger, but with the caveat that "[w]hether he did copies with the intention of deceiving collectors or not is open to doubt"."—I'm confused as to whether that is a caveat: doubt is of the negative or positive inference?
  • The source, a bibliographic dictionary, begins Doubleday's entry by stating in no uncertain terms that he was a "Coin-dealer and Forger of ancient and modern coins." Only in the third sentence does the entry acknowledge that Doubleday may not have intentionally forged coins, but that others may have passed off his copies as originals. I would consider that acknowledgement a caveat that the original statement ("Forger") was uncertain.
  • "casting type"—why not unpipe "type" so we know what it means?
  • The source says that he had "to superintend the manufacture of the types." Movable type seems to be the most closely related article, but not necessarily a perfect fit, hence the piped link.
  • "left behind"—remove "behind".
  • Done.

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

Thanks for the comments, Tony1. Responses are above. As earlier discussions (see above) make clear, searching for precision and clarity in the life of a (pre-)Victorian individual is frequently a futile task. Doubleday is believed to have been a part-time employee; he is not known with certainty to have been. He is thought to have been the British Museum's first specialist restorer; again, certainty is elusive. The fact that he was entrusted with the restoration of one of the museum's gems suggests that he was among the best restorers of the day; no contemporaneous sources are available to confirm this. Stating livelihoods as certainties might make for a more satisfying read, but it would be disingenuous. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tony1, responded to your two comments above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: OK, this is a tough one. We have two supports and a tentative support, but I'm taking the review of Tony1 as saying that there is work to do on the prose. Additionally, two of the supporters suggest that there are gaps in the article; while they say that this may be inevitable, I wonder have any reviewers checked this out? If this hadn't been open so long (well over 2 months), and Tony1 hadn't had other reservations, I may have asked for further commentary on that issue. As it is, I wonder is this article best served by leaving it lingering here any longer? I would be slightly uncomfortable promoting as it stands. I think the best course is to archive this now and give it a fresh start.

It can be renominated after the usual two-week wait (at which point, it is acceptable to ping all those who reviewed this FAC to revisit) but if the nominator can show that someone has taken a look at the prose of the whole article with regard to the general issues Tony has raised, ping me on my talk page and I will give permission to renominate early. Sarastro (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, would you give me a few days to copyedit the article instead? With three supports and some drive-by commentary that has been thoroughly responded to (and has received no further answer), seeing this fail—especially due to vague, little-expressed concerns—feels both surprising and premature. As to the comprehensiveness of this article, I am confident that I have found and added almost all of what is known about Doubleday. Pinging Ian Rose and Laser brain as well. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(If Tony1, who has responded to two minor points but not the thrusy of my response to him, would also like to weigh in, that would be welcomed. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC))[reply]
If you copy-edit it and let me know (or better, get someone else to copy-edit), you can renominate immediately. I'm sure you have found and added almost all of what is known - but a reviewer really needs to confirm that to cover WP:WIAFA. And as we're still here after more than two months, I'm not sure we can really call this premature. I think a fresh start would be the best option. Sarastro (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, I consider it premature in that the only concerns that have been raised were raised 5 days ago, and have been responded to (sufficiently, I think). I'd rather not copyedit it immediately (on vacation), but if that would avoid the talk-page albatross of a failed nomination, I would do so happily. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2018 (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) 13:46, 15 August 2018 [14].

History of climate change science edit

Nominator(s): prokaryotes (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the history of climate science, rated a level-5 vital article in History, well written, comprehensive, and appears to meet requirements. prokaryotes (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was there really nobody before modern times who thought about how past climates and weather may have been different from their own climates/Weather? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal/closure While I commend prokaryotes for working on this very important topic and think the article is in OK shape, it clearly doesn't meet the FA criteria at present. My specific concerns are:

  • Not all material is referenced, including an entire paragraph
  • Covering the massive body of work which has been done on climate change science since 1988 in two short paras is clearly inadequate: this is now a major area of scientific inquiry, and climate change science has been at the centre of the policy and political processes which have tried to develop responses. Such a section also needs to cover the rise of climate change denial over this period.

I'd suggest that the article be further fleshed out, and go though a Good article nomination before returning to FAC. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I echo Nick's points, and am going to archive this nom to allow work to progress outside the FAC process. I notice that under the heading FA nomination on the article talk page, several editors are being pinged for suggested improvements. This is commendable but should take place prior to a FAC nomination. I'd suggest that after that the article undergo a formal Peer Review, as well as GAN, and then consider re-nominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 [15].

Rossy Pratiwi Dipoyanti edit

Nominator(s): Raudalkhudri (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Indonesian table tennis player who collected 13 gold medals, 8 silver medals and 8 bronze medals during her career throughout the year 1987-2001 at the Southeast Asian Games. In addition, she also managed to collect 7 gold medals, 7 silver medals, and 9 bronze medals during her career throughout the year 1985-2008 at the National Sports Week. Raudalkhudri (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator comment - This has failed to attract any review in over three weeks, so I will be archiving it shortly. You may renominate after the customary two-week waiting period, and may wish to proactively seek out reviewers from relevant WikiProjects or areas of interest. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 [16].

Cardiff Blues vs Leicester Tigers (2008–09 Heineken Cup) edit

Nominator(s): Rugger80 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rugby union match that took place just under 10 years ago that was decided by a penalty shootout, the only senior men's professional rugby match to have done so. It became a GA back in 2015, has had a few minor tweaks since then and I believe is pretty close to being at FA level. Rugger80 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator comment - This has failed to attract any review in over three weeks, so I will be archiving it shortly. You may renominate after the customary two-week waiting period, and may wish to proactively seek out reviewers from relevant WikiProjects or areas of interest. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (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. --Laser brain (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2018 (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) 11:29, 8 August 2018 [17].

When You Get a Little Lonely edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about the debut studio album by American actress Maureen McCormick. The Phantom Hill record label released it on April 4, 1995. She recorded it in 1994, after rejecting an earlier solo record deal offered immediately after the end of the television sitcom The Brady Bunch in which she appeared. McCormick promoted the album with live performances in Palmdale, California, and album signings. The album, and particularly McCormick's vocals, received a mixed response from critics. It was rereleased in 2008 as an exclusive for the retail company Circuit City.

This is my fourth FAC on an album, following the successful promotions of Pru (album), Ho Ho Ho, and 3 of Hearts (album). This article is part of my interest in working on obscure albums; hopefully, it will inspire other editors to work more on lesser-known subjects. I doubt that a lot of people remember this release. This is what the article looked like before I worked on it. I believe that it fulfills the FAC criteria; it passed a GAN review, and received a copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Moise edit

Hi Aoba, my biggest suggestion:

  • Quite a few too many quotations. You could reduce them a lot to improve the article. I suggest having an online thesaurus open and go through each quotation one by one, and ask yourself if it is really necessary. A quotation could be beneficial if it is truly, truly hard to paraphrase, or if it really adds particular flavour to the article. But I would argue too many of the current quotations do not fit these criteria. Moisejp (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have cut down on some of the quotations, but please let me know if it needs further work. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "When You Get a Little Lonely is a country music album, though one critic wrote that it leans more toward country pop. McCormick said the album includes songs of different musical genres." This feels too wordy to me. You definitely don't need both "When You Get a Little Lonely" and "album"—I suggest choosing one or the other, preferably "The album..." Then I would argue it goes into a bit too much belaboured detail by specifying "it's country but someone described it as country pop, but McCormick argued it has lots of genres". If you could make this a lot more compact, something like: "When You Get a Little Lonely is the debut studio album by American actress Maureen McCormick, released on April 4, 1995 on Phantom Hill Records. McCormick strived to fuse various genres towards a country music sound."
  • Thank you for the suggestion, and I understand what you mean. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest mentioning that the earlier record offer was in the mid-1970s.
  • "Barry Coffing managed When You Get a Little Lonely": "managed" doesn't seem precise to me (manage an artist, yes, but not manage an album). In the main text it says "was the executive producer", which sounds better. In the lead you could repeat this wording or say he executive-produced it.
  • "all the tracks": "all of the tracks" feels slightly more correct to me, but that may be personal preference.
  • "McCormick promoted the album with live performances in Palmdale, California, and album signings. The album, and particularly McCormick's vocals, received a mixed response from critics." Three instances of "album" in a short space. Would you feel comfortable saying "and CD signings"? It appears from later in the article that it was released on CD but not LP. It's true there was also a cassette release, but from my memory by 1995 CDs had surpassed tapes. It's just an idea.
  • "In a 2008 interview, McCormick said that she was disappointed by the recording process." Ideally, it would be great to add a tiny bit here about why, but without repeating the same quotes in the main text. But I see the source article doesn't give much more to work with. It's hard to paraphrase because she doesn't explain precisely what she means. But one thing she does say somewhat explicitly in the interview is that she would have liked to have had the opportunity to write at least one of her own songs; maybe this could be the point you could focus on in the lead (and mention it in the main text) about why she was disappointed with the recording process. Moisejp (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and sound:

  • "Including eleven songs": A little bit awkward, as "Including..." usually has a slightly different meaning. I suggest "When You Get a Little Lonely, which includes eleven songs, received..." Moisejp (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like my feedback for the lead above, I feel this section gets bogged down splitting hairs about different people's opinions regarding what degree of "pure country" the album embodies. The bits about Victoria Miller and Barry Williams, in particular, seem superfluous. I suggest beginning my removing those parts. Then let's see how it looks. I'm not convinced the structure of contrasting different viewpoints is the most interesting, but I don't immediately have any other ideas to recommend. Possibly by the time I finish my review I might have some other ideas to suggest. :-) Moisejp (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand and agree with your point. Removed and revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The songs' instrumentals include pedal steel guitars, fiddles, and pianos..." This seems like a really uncommon use of "instrumental" to me. Normally it means "music without vocals". How about "The instruments used on When You Get a Little Lonely include..."?
  • "McCormack also included her own version of Rena Gaile's 1996 single "Cloud of Dust"." Here "her own" feels like it gives unnecessary weight to the fact that it was McCormack's version. How about something like "McCormick also included a rendition of..."? Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just noticed there are four instances of "include" in the two paragraphs between "The songs' instrumentals include..." and "for the retail company Circuit City in 2008" and five instances in total across the article as a whole. Could you rework some of them? For the sticker one you could say something "a sticker was attached to". I also find using "Among the..." or "...among which..." can sometimes be useful for replacing "include". Moisejp (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion:

  • "Gary McKechnie of the Orlando Sentinel wrote that the album was commercially successful." This feels weak. Whether or not an album is successful should be more objective, not "So-and-so said that..." There should be more concrete evidence like sales or a chart position, but instead including "so-and-so said that" suggests on the contrary that no really concrete evidence could be found.
  • You added the bit about McCormack wanting to have written songs to the lead, but you didn't add it here to the main text.
  • The wiki-link to "record store" feels quite unnecessary to me.

Critical reception:

  • "On the other hand, LA Weekly's Dave Shulman praised the album, specifically for the short lengths of “Go West”, “Tell Mama”, and “Oh Boy!”." I was going to write that this doesn't sound like praise at all. It sounds like "it's good that these songs are so short because who would want to listen to a longer version of them?" Then I looked at the source, which says "Enjoy the brevity of". From this also I wonder whether he's trying to make a joke—it doesn't sound like he really means you will enjoy it.
  • Removed. It is hard to tell tone with written sources. Aoba47 (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba, I'm really sorry, but I can't support this article's promotion. I won't oppose it, and will instead withdraw and let consensus be based on other reviewers. You have a lot of fans among reviewers here. But the reason I can't support is that there doesn't feel like there's enough meaty substance here. The details included don't feel very substantial. Some feel like filler because maybe it was hard to find more good, solid info about the topic. I know you like to take on "obscure" topics, but the flip side of the coin is that there may not always be enough info out there to build a substantial article with lots of interesting details. It may be subjective. My last FA was short-ish but, I felt at least, there were enough engaging details to bring it to an acceptable FA level—but there could well be other people who would disagree. What's interesting to one person—and what feels like substantial details to that person—may not to another. So please allow me to withdraw and I wish you the best of luck on the rest of this FAC. Moisejp (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damian Vo edit

Support from Freikorp edit

Happy to support this now, but I'll make the following comments.

  • should you introduce him as 'Pemberton Roach of AllMusic', instead of just his name? I note the following sentence beings "Alanna Nash of Entertainment Weekly".
  • Added. I must have removed it by accident during other edits. Aoba47 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'the album cover includes a "Marcia Marcia Marcia" sticker' - the link here won't open for me as my iTunes account cannot connect to the US iTunes store as I'm not in America, and the archived version of that reference just displays the words "Connecting to Apple Music". As I can't verify this myself, can you explain what this means? Is it just a sticker with the repeated words? And like, just a sticker stuck on the plastic wrapping of the album? Or would it be more accurate to call it a watermark since the iTunes version is not a physical album? I assume that's why this isn't visible in the album cover in the infobox? Freikorp (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is just a sticker with the repeated words (which is a reference to the catchphrase from The Brady Bunch series). I have read an unreliable source (i.e. Discogs) that says it is a sticker that was most likely stuck on the plastic wrapping of the album. Hope that clears it up. Here is an image of the cassette with the sticker (1) and another of the CD with the sticker (2). Thank you for the comments! Aoba47 (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Withdrawal edit

  • @Ian Rose:@Laser brain:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if one of you could withdraw and archive this FAC. I respect and understand Moisejp's point. I have always appreciate Moisejp's help on my FACs and other Wikipedia projects and topics; if he is not interested in doing the review, then he should not feel pressured to complete it. To be completely honest though, it has dampened my spirits. Because of that, I do not think that I would be in an appropriate mind-set to respond to other reviewers. Apologies for the long message, and have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2018 (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) 09:25, 7 August 2018 [18].

Riro Kāinga edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last king of Rapa Nui or Easter Island. He was a key figure in the native resistance to Chilean rule and was mysteriously killed while on the Chilean mainland. Figure of importance to modern Rapa Nui identity. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Angata,_The_Prophetess,_The_Mystery_of_Easter_Island,_published_1919.jpg: needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Riro_Kainga_Bust.jpg: several concerns about this. First off, what is believed to be non-free: the bust, photo, or both? Chile has freedom of panorama, so unless the bust has been removed it should be possible to get a free image. Second, the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just what is pictured, is considered historically significant - eg. Tank Man
  • It may have to be removed. It could be possible to get a free image but nothing short of asking a person to visit Easter Island, taking a photo and releasing the copyright to that image. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image was found in a public domain book published in 1919. The author of the book died in 1935. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any credit on the image in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- over three weeks old and this review has barely started so I'm going to archive it; given the lack of commentary I'm happy to waive the regulation two-week waiting period before a re-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2018 (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) 08:12, 7 August 2018 [19].

Lana Turner edit

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about film actress Lana Turner, who had a prominent career in Hollywood over multiple decades. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read more about her here: Lana Turner Online Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publisher and/or location
Applied locations to local newspapers and other bibliographic sources that didn't have locations; is this necessary for nationally-known publications like The New York Times or Los Angeles Times, where the publication is famous and the location self-evident? --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it should be consistent - for example, Chicago Tribune sometimes has no location, sometimes "Chicago", sometimes "Chicago, Illinois". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4, 107: formatting is incorrect
  • Note that the numbering has changed since my initial comments; these are now FNs 10 and 130, the former of which still has issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you are referring to the Speed & Cameron-Wilson citation missing the location and ISSN, which I've now added. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Geni a high-quality reliable source? Total-Movies.com?
  • Don't italicize publishers
I couldn't find an instance of this.
Examples include UT San Diego and UPI. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN15: title is incorrect, and if you're using via for Google News why not for this?
  • FNs 31 and 43 and 58 are to the same publication, but are formatted differently - check for others
Unsure if you were referring to the Wayne 2003 reference—if so, I'm not clear on what is formatted differently as these are shortened footnotes that anchor to the publication.
Now 36, 49 and 71. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Life magazine articles--got it. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36 needs time codes for specific references, and why the IMDb link?
  • Associated Press is an agency not an author
  • FN121: video has been removed from YouTube due to copyvio issues - check for other linkvio instances
I have attempted to find a video source for this, but cannot find it; the quote cited does very much appear in the program, which is a small (around 10 min.) interview with Turner's daughter on MacRae's Born Famous series.
Major concern here is rather the linkvio issue, which hasn't been fixed - looks like FN245 has also been taken down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the YouTube links to prevent the violation issue, but have retained the references as they are still useful.--Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn148: complete date?
Pulled this source and replaced with a bibliographic one. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and if so how
Not sure of the implication here, but I'm assuming it has to do with there not being a third-party reference about the Frank O'Hara poem, and rather a link to the Poetry Foundation's entry for the poem itself. My only response to this would be that the poem should be included here because her name is referred to explicitly in the title, and she is the subject of it. If need be, I can find a literary studies reference that corroborates the poem's title, but I'm not sure what the point would be.
The point of the RfC is, it's not enough to demonstrate that the reference exists, but rather that it is significant, which requires secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced secondary bibliographic source --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN208 is missing italics
  • No citations to Parish 1978
  • GBooks links should be trimmed down
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Brown 2004 publisher is incorrect. Check for other such issues
Not sure where you are seeing that the publisher is incorrect; Da Capo is the confirmed publisher according to Google Books, Worldcat, etc. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken as I removed and replaced the Parker source earlier --Drown Soda (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: thanks for the source notes; I'll address these points and do another run-through for consistency. You're definitely correct about the Geni source; this was added by another editor and I didn't didnt want to excise it if I didn't have to, but I've unfortunately been unable to find other sources that corroborate the birthdates and deaths of her parents--in the end, that information is not vital to the integrity of the article and can be excised without creating any issues. There are plenty of sources pertaining to their names, which should suffice. I'll start work on your points within the next day or so; I'm currently out of town and do not have my computer with me and it's a bit impractical for me to make these changes on my mobile. I will return to this soon and make note of when they've been cleared up. - - Drown Soda (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed the above notes concerning sources; I combed through all of the book references to add proper locations and publishing houses, cleared up the abbreviated page references, and also made time-stamped footnotes corresponding to the documentary source. The only points above that remain unaddressed are ones I've responded to specifically in green text. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3 edit

I've done some light copyediting to the article in the hopes that it will help in this FA process (hope you don't mind!please feel free to revert!). Will write some comments about the content here.

Childhood

  • "relocated to nearby Wallace" — year (or approximate) needed
  • "hard times" — perhaps a bit too euphemistic, I'd go with something more specific. I take it the reason was the Great Depression? If so, mention it.
  • "profound effect" — this is minor, but how did this profound effect manifest itself? E.g. did Turner develop mental health problems, or later in life refer to the tragedy in some specific way?
  • How did Turner begin attending the church with family friends? Are confirmation names really worth mentioning?
  • "reportedly" — Weasel word alert, it's better to write who reported this or leave it out altogether (i.e. if undisputed).
  • "overseer" – or manager? If she did not play an 'official' role like that of a manager, maybe just write that "after Turner was discovered, her mother began managing/overseeing/etc. her career".
  • Are there any photos of Turner as a child?

1937-1939:

  • First film: how major was the supporting role? If only a couple of lines or scenes, it's worth specifying instead that she had a minor role. If she was one of the main supporting actors, it's worth mentioning her role.
  • Why did Turner change studios? If she was successful at WB, why did the studio give her over to MGM?
  • "graduated from high school in between filming" — what was she filming?
  • Is LeRoy's role in the studio change actually disputed?
  • If she was already cast as the star of several MGM films in the late 1930s, you should go into a bit more detail about their reception, her roles, etc.

1940-1945:

  • Why did these film projects fall through?
  • Again, there needs to be more about the reception of these films.
  • Turner's first marriage hasn't even been mentioned, and now the section mentions her second divorce. You should briefly mention the marriages, even if you have a separate 'Personal life' section; the reader doesn't want to jump back-and-forth between sections.
  • It would be good to add maybe a quote on Turner's thoughts on Gable. Were they friendly?

Postman section:

  • What were her characters in Green Dolphin Street, Cass Timberline and Home Coming?

1948-1960:

  • Had she actually begun filming Bedeviled?
  • Why did the Topping wedding delay beginning filming?
  • Was it just announced that she'd be starring in the Cukor film? Unclear as the first sentence makes one think she began filming it in '49, but the next sentence states the script was shelved?
  • TCM is not a reliable source, I'd try to look for a better alternative.
  • Were the films made in Europe dramas, musicals...? What roles did she play? Again, more detail on the projects is needed.
  • Why was Turner reluctant to appear in The Prodigal?

Last section:

  • "She followed this with the lead role in Bittersweet Love (1976), a romantic comedy about a woman who unwittingly marries her half-brother" — erroneously implies she plays the woman who marries her half-brother
  • The Van Welder quote is awkward, given that Turner doesn't even play Patricia, the main character.
  • How were her theater performances received?

Personal life:

  • In the childhood section, she is described as a devout Catholic, but here it's stated she only became one in 1980?
  • It's mentioned that Turner suffered multiple stillbirths... how many exactly? One would think these were made public, as 'stillbirth' implies she was in the late stages of the pregnancy when they occurred. In general, this seems like such a major issue in Turner's life that more than a brief mention is needed.
  • It's also not clear why the blood type would lead to stillbirths. A brief (no more than one sentence) clarification would be a good addition.
  • Why weren't Lana and Cheryl close until the former's later years? It's also a bit awkward to jump then to something that happened when Cheryl was a teen.
  • Why is Tyrone Power's marriage significant enough to warrant a mention?
  • No lists are permitted in FAs to my knowledge, I would make a separate section for this, and perhaps merge it chronologically with the other section on relationships.
  • "habitually married" — sounds tabloidy, revise
  • Shaw marriage — give some background the marriage: how did they meet? why did they elope on their first date (which is pretty unusual)?
  • Same with Topping; how did they meet, etc.
  • Who is Judge?
  • Details about wedding ceremonies (i.e. clothing) don't really belong to an encyclopedia unless very notable (e.g. Diana & Charles's wedding, Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love's wedding...).
  • Once again, background is needed for the Barker and May relationships.
  • Stompanato:

- clarify how they met

That's all for now! In summary, you need to add more background to Turner's roles (e.g. what characters she played, how did the projects do in the box office, how did they fare with the critics, what were her opinions, did she undertake any specific training or other preparation for the roles...) and to rewrite 'Personal life' so that the marriages are no longer in list-form.

Good luck!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: I've addressed most of your notes here, and eliminated the marriage list and converted it into prose. I've tried to find as much as I can on the critical reception of Turner's films, but it is difficult to track down information pertaining to some (specifically in regard to mentions of Turner's performances themselves, exact box office receipts, etc.) In regard to Turner's training, again, there is little discussion/published material on this; she was a product of the studio system, though I've found no information regarding her acting style, method, etc. I'll look some more and see if I can find something about this arena of her career. Let me know if you find any pressing details I've missed; there are still a few things that could use brushing up I'm sure. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Great work! I'll try to take a closer look next week, but this article is definitely close to FA. Have you asked any particular editors to review it? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: I have made posts on talk pages on a couple of WikiProjects looking for editors, but so far no one has expressed interest. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tentative Support from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now...

  • Why using bold for her name in body of text? Should be italics or double quotation marks...
  • James Agee of Time magazine was critical of Taylor's performance, and noted... - Taylor has not been mentioned previously.

Overall looking good. The article has 53kb of prose and shouldn't be any bigger. The article does a good job of trying to cover all work and adding enough detail so it doesn't come across as listy. The personal life is so intertwined with her career that it makes sense to thread it through chronologically. I think we're nearly there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I believe I've addressed these two concerns in previous edits (the bold and the quote confusion). --20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems comprehensive and is a nice read, so I think we're over the line. Not that familiar with Lana Turner hence support dependent on others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP comments edit

One minor point, one slightly larger question:

  • The Manual of Style says to format the dates was 2016–2017, not 2016–17
  • I hate seeing partial lists of films in articles when most (or all) have already been written about. On what basis were those films selected? You should mention the rationale or it will leave the article open to people adding the film they just saw on TCM. Alternatively, just drop the whole section off to the list and add a link to it, rather than select things without rationale. - 213.205.194.145 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the partial filmography as it doesn't entirely serve a purpose. Per the dates & MoS, are you referring to the years in the subheaders? (i.e. "1937–39: Discovery and early work")?
  • There are several points where the mos should be stuck to, particularly Wikipedia:Logical quotation, where there seems to be some changes needed.
    • I changed a couple but was reverted by User:Jeremy Butler. Perhaps he should look at the mos, rather than third-party style guides? - 213.205.194.191 (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 13 years, but I did not know that English Wikipedia prefers the British style of punctuation (aka, "logical" quotation). I undid my reverting of your edit.--Jeremy Butler 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The image captioned "Turner and second husband Stephen Crane at Mocambo, February 1943" should be on the left so the pair look into the page, not out of it.

- 213.205.194.191 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard to position images based on which direction the subjects are looking? I have no problem changing that and it does look more sensible, but this is the first I've heard of that being suggested in an article. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is suggested in MOS:IMGLOC, "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." It is not mandatory, but seems logical and aesthetically pleasing. 213.205.194.147 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know; I made this change yesterday and have rearranged/replaced some photos with ones that are more appropriate/pertinent to the text & trajectory of her career. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes edit

@Drown Soda: Are you still tending to this nomination? I see you are editing the article, but you should respond and follow up with reviewers here as appropriate. Otherwise, we can't monitor the progress of the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: apologies for the delayed response. As you pointed out, I have been tending to the article and periodically reviewing the comments and suggestions here. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nominator edit

Hello all; wanted to let everyone who has provided input thus far that I appreciate it. At this point I believe I have addressed the issues/inconsistencies and other points raised by the above contributors and have hit something of a wall with the article (in other words, I don't think I can take it any farther, nor do I think it really needs much else in terms of content). I've pored through it many times now over the last couple of months since the nomination and feel it's probably in the best shape it's been in yet (largely thanks to input provided from other editors here). If there are other outstanding issues that would prevent an FA promotion, I'm happy to look at them. Thanks again. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure why this review has stalled but clearly it has, and it still has a way to go to achieve consensus to promote, despite your efforts. Given that, and the length of time it's been open overall, I don't see an alternative to archiving. I'm not sure a Peer Review would get you more in-depth commentary than you've had here but it might generate wider interest, and when you re-nominate at FAC you can ping any PRers as well as those who've commented here to let them know it's back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (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) 00:35, 5 August 2018 [20].

Luka Dončić edit

Nominator(s): Runningibis (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about professional basketball player Luka Dončić, the third overall pick at the 2018 NBA draft by the Dallas Mavericks. A native of Slovenia, he became one of the most promising international prospects of his generation with Real Madrid Baloncesto, winning the most valuable player awards in both the EuroLeague and Liga ACB. This article was recently promoted to GA-Class and covers the subject in great depth, with several high-quality images. Runningibis (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Lukadoncic.jpg is lower in quality - suggest removing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Given that the nominator has only three total edits to the article and can't really be considered the primary contributor, I'm not convinced that this FAC should be allowed to remain open. I'm especially concerned in this case because the subject is a basketball player about to begin his NBA career, meaning that the article will require regular updating. Without a major contributor around to keep the page in good condition, the risk of the article falling in quality in the future is high. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I also think there are some problems with this article. For instance, the question of whether it is stable or not is important since he will make his NBA debut soon. Overall the prose quality is good but not excellent, probably GA quality but not quite FA standard. It might need a bit of a copyedit. For instance, some of the tournaments in the Youth career section probably need some explanation. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Yes, just from a procedural perspective I think we need to close this; I'm going to archive rather than just remove/delete as there have been some useful comments on content. Pls discuss on the talk page with the main editors any possible future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2018 [21].

Basil II edit

Nominator(s): 20DKB03 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Basil II (958-1025), a Byzantine emperor from the Macedonian dynasty. His reign, the second longest in Byzantine history, only being beaten by his brother which outlived him by a mere 3 years, would see the zenith of medieval Byzantine power, both militarily and diplomatically. It would also be at this time that the Macedonian Renaissance began, where arts and other sorts of work gained recognition and their own taste. I have been improving this article for quite some time. It initially began from a state that required verifiable content (tags were put to let other editors know that it needed more citations), rated as Start-Class, and I largely improved it to GA-Class with over 80 new citations (about 60 different ones). I have also added much more detail to the notes, corrected some information, added more images, and made the infobox better in its description. After all this, I believe that this article is quite worthy of a FA review. 20DKB03 (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose From a very quick initial look, I'm very uncomfortable with the 'Assessment' section. It reads like a hagiography, and its main source is a (literally) ancient work by Basil II's contemporary Michael Psellos. Some of the wording is very sloppy (e.g. "He was worshipped by his army" and " left a full treasury upon his death" - neither is likely to be literally true). I was expecting to see a proper assessment of Basil II's life and legacy by modern historians here. While Basil II was one of the better Byzantine emperors, he was still a Byzantine emperor and not the saint this section makes him out to be. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this FAC fails, what would you recommend as the next step, Nick? - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ian's suggestions below (including that this nomination be withdrawn so the article can be further improved outside of FAC). This article is firmly within scope of the Military History Wikiproject, and an A-class review could be very helpful once it has been further developed. Nick-D (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: @Dank: I appreciate the time you have spent on this review. I have tried to largely improve the Assessment section, and to also remove the bias that was present in certain areas of the article. Hopefully it is in a better position now, though I will keep the recommendation of such review in mind for later, in case this does not pass. 20DKB03 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal -- recusing as coord, I had a quick look over the lead and some other sections. Although I can see a lot of work has gone into this, I agree with Nick's comments on the assessment section, and I think the article needs a copyedit throughout. Just a few things from various points in the article:

  • "reigned as senior ruler from 10 January 976 to 15 December 1025" -- if the term "senior ruler" has some special significance then it should be linked or otherwise defined, if not it should simply be dropped.
  • "Basil, it would appear, took this advice to heart" -- reads like an essay.
  • "succeeded by his brother and his family, who unfortunately proved to be ineffective rulers" -- "unfortunately" is editorialising.

The leap from GAN to FAC is significant, so I'd suggest withdrawing to improve outside the FAC process, then take to Peer Review or a MilHist A-Class Review, and then re-nominate for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Thank you for the suggestions. I have tried to largely improve the article with these suggestions, so hopefully it is somewhat better. Nevertheless, as stated above, I will keep the recommendation of such review in mind for later, in case this current review is not successful. 20DKB03 (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree with Nick and Ian's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 20DKB03 edit

I appreciate the recommendations, as always. I just would like to know the opinion from you all on the current state of the article, if it is more acceptable (after implementing what was suggested), before I see the idea of withdrawal being necessary, because I am continuing to heavily expand and fix it during this nomination, but I am unsure if it has been reviewed or not. I am open to suggestions on improvements, and I am happy to implement them when needed. It was my intention to also improve the article along the way, with the help of said suggestions. It has been vastly improved from its GAN state, and I believe it is not so far off. I ask this due to the quick opposition from the start. 20DKB03 (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: As desired, I have added a few quotes to the Assessment section, from the modern historians J. J. Norwich, E. R. A. Sewter, and a few others. 20DKB03 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine edit

Oppose. For a ruler of such a long reign, pivotal role, and volume of scholarship, the article is a long way off from FA consideration. There is no background section to understand the context of his reign; no section on the domestic policies and the question of the Anatolian dynatoi, the administration of the conquered Balkans, the economy, the church; no section on Byzantium's position in the world and its relations with its neighbours during Basil's reign; etc. The present article is a good narrative history, but even here it has problems, as it is essentially cobbled together in various sections, contributed by various users (including myself) over the years, rather than providing a coherent narrative in a coherent style, whether along a timeline or by specific themes/areas. I would recommend anyone who wants to bring this to FA to take the time to work this over top to bottom, and write it anew as a coherent whole. Referencing is also a mess, with a mixture of different styles, and with many low-quality or outdated sources (Finlay being particularly egregious here). Constantine ✍ 11:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that the "assessment" section relies heavily on Psellus; Psellus is an indispensable source and a fun read, but not a WP:RS, let alone for an "assessment" section where sober, scholarly analysis should be found. Indeed, much of the content of this section does not belong there, as it is not an assessment of his character or his policies, but contains factoids about his reign should properly be included the relevant sections; right now it feels even more cobbled-together than the rest of the article. A typical example is in Though not a man of literature, he was a relatively pious ruler, involving himself in the construction of churches, monasteries, and even to some extent, cities.[101] The Byzantine army would be substantially grown during his reign, especially with the help of land reforms, something that many of his later successors would not enforce. This would help him keep the loyalty of his army in his campaigns, a force that approximately reached the manpower of 110,000 soldiers: from a character judgement on Basil himself it moves to his constructions (without any particular examples), and then jumps to the growth of the army during his reign, a completely unrelated subject. Constantine ✍ 12:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: The consensus is clear that this isn't ready yet. Please take time to address the issues raised, and you may renominate after the minimum two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2018&oldid=857216387"