Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2018

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2018 [1].

Final Destination 3 edit

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third film in the eponymous franchise about seriously unlucky individuals starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Wendy Christensen. In the film, Wendy has a vision while at an amusement park that the roller-coaster she and her classmates are on derailing. While she saves some of them, as always, Death comes running to collect the survivors' lives. The film did well financially and got mixed reviews from critics who praised its tone, death scenes and Winstead's performance but criticized it for being formulaic.

This is my third FA nomination of the article. I withrew the first one in August due to personal issues and the second one got little attention so it was archived back in November (at least I think it was November, anyway). Hopefully, third time (un)lucky.

Fun fact. One of the DVD versions called "Thrill Ride Edition" actually turns the film into a "Choose Your Own Adventure", allowing you to make various choices throughout the story. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrzejbanas edit

Comments from Andrzejbanas

Just checking a bit:

Is there some format for the characters in the plot to be linked to the List of Characters page each time? Linking to Wendy Christensen is fine, but linking every character to the List of Final Destination characters seems a bit of an overkill to me, when you have the information ready in the link above.

While it is true that besides Wendy, all other characters lack their own articles, I still feel it's for the best to leave the links in as they immediatelly take the reader to the specific character's section of the page. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Removed them. :P

All good here! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"According to director James Wong, unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning" I understand what is being said here, but its a weirdly written. "According to director James Wong, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters and would ignore the continuity between the first two films." Not sure if mine is better, but I think bouncing between the second, the first and back to the third makes it a slightly jarring sentence. :)

I changed the sentence so that it's somewhat similar to how you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The film was initially intended to be [shot] in 3D, but plans for this were abandoned.[6] Morgan revealed that the this was due to financial reasons, but also because he believed that fire and blood would not be shown properly in the red color filters of anaglyph 3D.[7]" I tried re-phrasing this a bit.

Changed the sentence. Your version was definately better. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Solid. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the home media's date and release in widescreen and fullscreen seems to be the dvd itself. No home video I've ever bought contains details on when it was released (sadly!), could you get a better source for that?

Lol, true. Used an IGN source. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok to me now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the death image passes fair use. Just illustrating something that is being discussed here. I have not seen this film, but the image itself does not make me understand why this stands out more. WP:FILMNFI sums it up better than I can, stating . "A non-free image can be used to illustrate the target element of the critical commentary only if it cannot adequately be substituted by a free equivalent image or descriptive text. The non-free image should be significant in increasing the readers' understanding of the topic. Non-free images can illustrate technical or thematic aspects of the film. Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." Maybe iconic shots falls under this...but just from the image (and the text for that matter), I do not understand what makes this death scene so strong. :/ As an example of when to apply these things, the article I wrote about House (1977 film) has one that I think is acceptable. Star Trek: First Contact also has some good examples.

@Andrzejbanas: Would it be better if I moved the image up in the "Themes" section and also stated about how that specific death scene was analysed in regard to which horror genre it places the film? PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That could work, if it somehow got incorporated into something like "The scene utilizes logics of temperature, color, and light to realize the deaths of the characters, as well as to allow Wendy to recognize the threat that they face." I'm not really sure if that image can fit in. To sum up the image rules more easily, its best to have an image that is showcasing something that can not be described by text. It fills a gap. Currently with the "best death" scene, which I do not doubt that they did this, but this image doesn't really suggest why it is that way. For that matter, the prose does not really either. :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: That's actually a really great idea. Maybe I could combine the already existing image of Ashley's death with another one that shows the picture Wendy took of her and Ashlyn at the carnival. Both of them use color, light and temperature to show / imply death. Whaddaya say? Granted if I did that I'd like to still use at least two of the references in the "Reception" section to enhance the third parapgraph about the positive response to the death scenes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a really interesting idea! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll investigate it a bit more later, but that's all I got for now. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: Alright, I added another image and moved them up to the "Themes" section. How is it looking now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I think its much better this way prose and explanation wise. Glad we got to save the image and add some interesting content here. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: Awesome :D. Now that that's done, is there anything else that needs improving? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'll try to give this one more read-through tonight. :) Sorry for the delays, I appreciate your patience with it!Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can not see anything else that is really standing out for me. This has my Support. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :D PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

Comments from Aoba47

For the phrase “worked on the franchise’s first film in 2000”, I think that you could reduce the link to just “first film”, but this is up to you.

Done. I didn't see it necessary but in a previous nomination someone asked it.

Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using the Oxford comma throughout the article? I have found a few instances in which it is used (i.e. a shelf falls, trapping them inside, and the girls are burned alive) and it is not used (i.e. includes commentaries, documentaries, a deleted scene and an original animated video).

@Aoba47: To be fully honest I don't think I'd ever heard of the Oxford comma before. If I use a comma before a conjunction it's most likely because I'm trying the make the overall sentences easier to understand. At least I hope they're easier to understand. Should I change them?

An Oxford comma is one used in a list of three; here is an example with it (x, y, and z) and an example without it (x, y and z). I personally prefer the Oxford comma, but it is really up to you. You just need to be consistent one way or the other as I have noticed instances of both examples used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've removed most of the Oxford commas. As for Ashley's death scene I'd like to get some additional imput from Andrzejbanas before going forward with any changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me; I will wait to comment further on this until that is resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For this part “offering its audience what it wishes to see”, would this phrasing “fulfilling its audience’s expectations” be stronger and more concise language?

Much better. Thank you.

I would combine the following two sentences “Attention was given especially to death scenes involving a tanning bed and a nail gun respectively; these were favorably received, as was Winstead's performance.” into this “Positive attention was given specifically to the death scenes involving a tanning bed and a nail, as well as Winstead’s performance.”.

Once again, much better.

I do not believe that you need to link the characters again in the “Cast” section as they are all already linked in the “Plot” section. I do not think that you need link the characters again in the “Casting” subsection. It seems like a lot of overlinking to me.

Removed all the links except for Wendy.

For this sentence “The film was edited by Chris G. Willingham, the Emmy-winning editor of 24 (2001–2010)”, I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of 24.

Added that it's a crime / spy series.

If you want to keep the tan bed death screenshot, then I would recommend looking for resources that talk about the cinematography and visual style to further support its use. The following Dobbs’ quote "brightly coloured [and] slightly silly meditation on how we're all gonna die one day, so we might as well do it explosively" could be a good start.
I would move the “Analysis” section before the “Production” section and renaming it to themes. See the article for Fight Club as an example. It seems pretty standard practice for film articles to be structured this way from my brief exploration of other featured articles on films.

Placed it between the "Cast" and "Production" sections.

When you mention Mouse Trap, I would clarify that you mean the game.

Done.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support this for promotion. You have done wonderful work with this article; it is a very interesting and informative read! Makes me want to work on a proper film article for a change lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba. :D I'm glad you find the article interesting but more importantly, informative. I hope anyone who hasn't seen the movie and comes across the article will be interested in it. And I'm pretty sure you could easily improve a film article if you wanted to. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Ref 3: The words "Page 2" do not form part of the title

Fixed.

Ref 7: Likewise

Fixed.

Ref 8: Likewise ("Page 3")

Fixed.

Ref 13: I can't see anything to indicate that "New Line Cinema" is the publisher. In the case of the first source (Gloria Davies) the main link provides no publisher details; the archive link seems to show the publisher as "HollywoodJesus", but also displays a 404 error message. In the second source, the publisher seems to be "2006 Movie Releases"

That one's actually a little complicated. The text within the file itself doesn't actually state who wrote it. However, I used PDF Reader and was able to find the information regarding the author.

Following your reorganisation, this is now ref 26. It is the publisher, rather than the author, that I am questioning; there is nothing to indicate that "New Line Cinema" is the publisher of the Davies article and, as I say above, the archive link gives different publisher information, as well as yielding a 404 message. Neither is there anytning to show that New line Cinema is the publisher of the reference's second source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Alright, I removed the second references and kept just the PDF. I've also altered so that is shows Hollywood Jesus as the website this PDF file was found in. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 23: The publisher is The Oklahoman – NewsOK is the website name.

Fixed.

Ref 24: Neither the main link nor the archive go to the page you indicate.

Really? I just checked and the archive link seems fine.

This is now 38, and I'm getting the same rubbish as I got before. What, exactly, are you getting from the main and archive links?

This. The top image is of the main website. The second website is the one with the ringtones and wallpapers. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 42: Why is Chicago Sun-Times named as publisher. Should be "Ebert Digital LLC"

Chicago Sun-Times is placed under the "newspaper=" code.

There's nothing in the source that refers to the Chicago Sun-Times. Whether or not that paper ever printed the article is irrelevant – the version you are using is hosted by the Ebert website, which should be credited as your publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed.

Ref 53: What makes this a high quality reliable source? I'm worried by the mis-spelling of "patron" which looks amateurish.

Is that the James Berardinelli reference?

Yes, now 67. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic here. In fact, he's listed as a "Top Critic". Additionally, "patron" isn't misspelled. That's the website Patreon. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 72: The page range require an ndash, not a hyphen

I think I changed it.

Otherwise sources seem to be in good order and of appropriate reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Okay, I fixed some of the references but I still need to discuss the PDF file, the website and the "patron" reference. Possibly also the hyphen one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Maybe not the last reference but definately the other three. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: I guess that mean support ? OK, good, thanks. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not register supports or opposes when doing source reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG edit

Comments from FrB.TG

An enjoyable film, and I liked some of the death scenes, especially of the girls in the tanning beds.

"Casting began in March 2005, with Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles, and concluded in April" - with + noun + verb+ing is best avoided at FA articles. I would actually take out "with Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles" as it is pretty obvious they landed the lead roles.

I place the "Winstead and Merriman" part in these lines (–) as I still think it's somewhat important. But if you feel it's unnecessary then I'll remove them.

"Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver" - probably worth mentioning that Vancouver is a city in Canada since the film is American.

That's true. I still am not sure why so many American films and TV shows are filmed there. I think it's cheaper. Maybe, I don't. Anyway, added it in.

"the film was released on February 10, 2006, in the United States" - I find the comma after 2006 unnecessary.

Removed it.

"franchise while others praised it for being enjoyable and fulfilling its audience’s expectations" - we don't use that apostrophe in Wikipedia. ' is more preferrable.

Honestly, I have no idea how that got there. Maybe I added it on my phone. Irregardles, fixed it.

"They include Kevin; best friends Ashley Freund and Ashlyn Halperin" - the section link for Ashley and Ashlyn goes nowhere.

Fixed that.

"Wendy learns that her sister Julie and a friend had also been on the roller coaster but got" - be consistent with putting commas after but's.

Comma added.

"characterized by their move away from the typical horror antagonist and towards the certainty and inevitability of death" - I think toward is generally more preferable in American English (e.g. "Scientists are moving toward the conclusion" here or "One inning Tuesday went a long way toward erasing" here), but I don't think it is that big of a deal.

Removed the "s".

Down to the end of Themes section. I hope that you consider reviewing Anne Hathaway, which is also currently at FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Alright, I changed everything you wanted. Have you seen the rest of the article? On a sidenote, I check Anne's article, and will hopefully start the review in a couple of days. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"According to director James Wong, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning, unlike the second film which was closely tied to the first film and continued its story,[16] stating:" - the "stating" part looks like FD3 is giving a statement. "He stated" should be much better.

Changed.

"[W]e really felt that the idea of Final Destination..." Italicize Final Destination. I don't recall any MoS rule advising against using italics in quotes.

Italicized it.

"Morgan revealed" - no reveal pls.

Changed one to "stated" and the other to "declared".

"On Winstead, he said that "[she brought] a kind of soulfulness to her role ... control." Citation after direct quote even if it means repeating them.

I think I changed it correctly.

"Sam Easton, who appeared in Miramax's film Underclassman (2005), played school alumnus Frankie Cheeks. Gina Holden played Kevin's girlfriend and Wendy's best friend, Carrie Dreyer" - played in close proximity.

Changed it to "portrayed".

"Like the first two installments of the Final Destination series, Final Destination 3 was shot in Vancouver." Per my above comment on Vancouver.

Everyone always forgets about Canada. :(

" Filming concluded in July but due to negative reception towards" - now that you have changed it to toward, I suggest sticking to it throughout the article.

Removed the "s". I also checked to make sure "towardS" didn't exist anywhere else in the article.

"Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that the film's" - I don't think Ebert reviewed this in Chicago Sun-Times; just "Roger Ebert wrote" should suffice.

Done.

"Winstead's performance was highlighted by critics, with the BBC writing" - wiki-link BBC. FrB.TG (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

@FrB.TG: OK, I made all the changes. Hopefully they're satisfactory. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Let’s hope that third time’s the charm for Final Destination 3. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, that's exactly what the back of my Greek DVD of the film says. Thank you for the support. :D As I said, I'll try looking at Anne's article within this week. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commets regarding images edit

WRT image review, I see that both I and Laser brain reviewed them so no full image review, but it seems like one image was not reviewed:

File:Final Destination 3 - Ashley & Ashlyn photo.jpg: Seems OK but I wonder what exactly about this image foreshadows any death. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah, I added that image pretty recently. As you might notice, the image of Ashley and Ashlyn is a littler red at the bottom-right, covering a small portion of the photograph. This makes it appear as if the two girls are on fire, which is how they end up dying. It's what the film scholar stated about "light and temperature" being used to signify and realize their deaths. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ArturSik edit

Support on prose. A well-written article that reads like a really good book. Great job. P.S. I've actually skipped the "Plot" section because the lead made me want to watch the film and I didn't want to spoil it (am I allowed to give my support in that case?). ArturSik (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArturSik: Aw, thank you. I'm really glad you liked reading the article. I'm especially glad that reading it made you want to watch the film. :D But I'm not sure if you can give a support without reading the entire article. Maybe you can place your support on hold, watch the film, and then read the "Plot" section. It's a pretty easy film to find online. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've read the entire article and I give my support. Well done:) ArturSik (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'll do the source review:

All urls are archived
They appear to be reliable sources based on the fact they have authors
Most publisher and works have wikilinks

I'll give it a quick pass. If possible could you do the source review of this FAC? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do one within a few days. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had already done a detailed sources review for this article, so the above bland statements are a waste of time and space. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AmericanAir88 edit

@PanagiotisZois:

You mention the "Thrill Ride Edition" but only bring up one scenario; Saving all four from getting on the rollercoaster. Could you perhaps provide details on other scenes?

I think that doing so would unnecessarily expand the "home media" section. Besides, most of the changes only affect that characters' death scenes; in some instances, the changes are so mininmal, they change less that five seconds. The only choice that is really worth mentioning is the alternate ending that ends the film 30 minutes in. I guess I could clarify that the scenes affected are the death scenes.

That works.

OK, I've clarified that the altered scenes have to do with the death scenes. I also took the liberty of clarifying who the four character that get off the coaster in the alternate ending are.

The "Box Office" sections become run-on.

@AmericanAir88: Could you clarify? PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're many sentences containing how it "Drops". There also contains 4 sentences with grossing which could easily be paraphrased.

AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: I switched some of the instances where "gross" or "grossing" is used with synonym nouns / noun phrases. Regarding the numerous sentences about the film "dropping rank" in the box office; it's not so much as about the fact the film dropped rank. Otherwise I'd have to include every weekend in there. It's just that the first three weeks are important because that's when the film was in the top ten, dropping from that position in the fourth weekend. And as with opening weekends, the final weekends are always important. And to be honest, I'm kind of warry that if we remove some of the sentences the entire paragraph will be too minimal. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Looks good

Very well written article, this is a definite support after these are addressed AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also it would mean a lot to me if you could address and make comments on my FAC. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it within this week. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Deckiller edit

Oppose—1a and 2a. The lead is fairly long and not "concise" per 2a. You can probably trim this entire section: "The idea of featuring a roller-coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant. From the beginning, Wong and Morgan placed control as a major theme in the film. Casting began in March 2005–Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles–and concluded in April." Remember that the lead section "[prepares] us for the detail in the subsequent sections"; it does not need to explain entire subsections.

The prose needs work. Here are a few examples that demonstrate the need for greater scrutiny:

~~"Following its premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre on February 2, 2006 the film was released on February 10, 2006, in the United States." — missing comma after 2006.~~

~~"...and an original animated video" — redundancy here. Try the opposite: "...and an unoriginal animated video". In this context that seems highly unlikely.~~

"A special-edition DVD called "Thrill Ride Edition" was also released with the "Choose Their Fate" feature. This acts as an interactive film, allowing viewers to make decisions at specific points in the film that alter the course of the story." this can be worded better; the relationship between the DVD and the feature is a little vague. Changing "was also released with the" to "included a" tightens the entire section and eliminates some of the vagueness. You can then turn the second sentence into a dependent clause.

"As they leave, they see the roller coaster derail, killing the remaining passengers, leaving Wendy devastated" — for an article/writing style that underuses commas, this sentence surprised me. Why not reword the second part to "...killing the remaining passengers and leaving Wendy devastated" for better flow?

"Ashley and Ashlyn are later killed at a tanning salon when a chain reaction causes them to become trapped in over-heating tanning beds." — "later" is redundant. "Causes them to become trapped" is possibly too verbose. If the chain reaction is what traps them, just say it: "...when a chain reaction traps them in over-heating..."

"...for fulfilling its audience's expectations". — potentially misleading. Were people saying that it satisfied the entire audience, or just themselves?

~~"As she is getting off..." — vague term. Try "As she disembarks"~~

"Wendy later learns that her sister Julie and a friend also left the roller coaster, and rushes to the county fair to save them." — "later" is redundant.

"She and Kevin are able to prevent Julie from being impaled on a harrow after she is dragged by a panicked horse and Wendy asks Julie who was sitting next to her on the roller coaster, since they are next on Death's list." — "are able to" is redundant. This sentence is overlong and meandering, especially since the article's writing style omits quite a lot of commas.

~~"Frankie dies next at a drive-through, when a runaway truck crashes into the back of Kevin's truck," — it's not a big issue, but you can omit "next".~~

~~"she starts to see more omens" — one of several examples of overly plain language. Why not use something more robust and succinct like "she experiences more omens"?~~

"Three modes of critical response to the Final Destination franchise have predominated." — "modes" seems like an awkward word to use in this context. I'm not an expert on this series or film criticism in general, but this word didn't sit right with me.

"According to the site's consensus, "Final Destination 3 is more of the same: gory and pointless, with nowhere new to go." — you already wrote out "Final Destination 3" in the previous sentence, so you can adjust the quite accordingly: "...consensus, the film "is more of the same..."

"At the 2007 Saturn Awards it was nominated for Best Horror Film, with the "Thrill Ride Edition" being nominated for Best DVD Special Edition Release." — noun plus -ing error in the second clause. Try "...and the "Thrill Ride Edition" was nominated for..."

I'm looking forward to seeing the revisions. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help in fixing these AmericanAir88 (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AA, @Deckiller: I believe your comments have been changed everything accordingly. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely looks better. I'll take a closer look this weekend. Have you considered trimming the lead a bit? It's quite long (per 2a) but conventions may have changed since 2010. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deckiller: I did check and apparently, 2a) doesn't give a specific length for the lead section. Additionally, I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, which basically states that lead sections should have around four paragraphs with very few citations within them. Having looked at both of those things, I'd say the length and information provided within the lead section and satisfactory and doesn't go overboard, turning into "info dump". PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deckiller: Is the review still happening or not? PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: Deckiller's probable continuation of his review notwithstanding, how does the article look now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments: Deckiller mentioned prose as an issue that needs closer scrutiny. I've not seen that anyone has further reviewed it, and a quick look reveals a few more issues. For example, we have overlinking (e.g. premonition, omen and arguable terms like "drive through"); there is inconsistent use of commas, for example after subordinate clauses or when there are adverbials at the start of a sentence; "Three methods of critical response to the Final Destination franchise have predominated" does not seem quite right as critical response is not a method; "This makes the films inconsistent with many analyses of horror, according to which horror films require a monster" doesn't really make sense. Therefore, we are not really ready to promote yet. I'm reluctant to archive with so many supports, but Deckiller has raised valid issues over the FAC criteria. At the very least, we need further review of criterion 1a. Sarastro (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if one, some or all of Mike Christie, HJ Mitchell, John or Laser brain could have a look at the prose? Sarastro (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'm seeing prose problems too. Here's a paragraph from the reception section:

"The story was described by several critics as formulaic when compared to the previous installments; Roger Ebert wrote that the film's main issue was its predictability and lack of tension as it was "clear to everyone who must die and in what order". The narrative was negatively compared to the franchise's second installment by Variety as lacking "narrative intricacy". The New York Times similarly described the film as lacking the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second". The downtime between characters' deaths was perceived as "dull" by TV Guide, who highlighted it as one reason why the film failed to match the formula set out by the previous installments. Other reviewers were more positive: IGN praised the story, with Chris Carle writing that the "formula has been perfected rather than worn out" by the third film. Even though they felt the film primarily adhered to the structure set out by the rest of the franchise, Empire and The Guardian found the story to be enjoyable."

The narrative was negatively compared to the franchise's second installment by Variety as lacking "narrative intricacy": The repetition of "narrative" is ugly; "the franchise's second installment" is a bit long-winded; and the sentence structure could be simplified and made active rather than passive. The Variety reviewer is echoing Ebert's comments about the simple plot, and the connection should be explicitly made: "Similarly, Variety described the film as "desultorily plotted" and compared it unfavourably with Final Destination 2." Then you can roll in the NYT comment to strengthen the point: "Similarly, Variety described the film as "desultorily plotted"; and both Variety and the New York Times compared it unfavourably with its predecessors".
The downtime between characters' deaths was perceived as "dull" by TV Guide, who highlighted it as one reason why the film failed to match the formula set out by the previous installments. Again a bit longwinded, and passive voice. You do have to resort to passive voice in reception sections, but it's best to avoid it where possible. How about: "TV Guide found the sequences between the death scenes dull". This is a little staccato, standing on its own, so you might consider joining it to either the previous or following sentence, though it might be difficult to make if flow smoothly. Looking at the source, I see "The downtime between deaths has never been duller, and the Rube Goldberg-type death scenes are so poorly staged that it's difficult to figure out what's about to happen and to whom. Details coagulate into confusing, suspenseless blurs that are suddenly punctuated by gory punch lines in which a head pops like a pimple and bodies are sliced, diced and squished into bloody smears." The second half of this directly contradicts the start of the next paragraph, about positive reception for the death scenes.

Oppose. I've looked through the points made by Deckiller and Sarastro1 above, and I agree with them. Along with the problems in the one paragraph I picked from the reception section, I feel the article fails 1a. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: With two opposes, I'm afraid we have no consensus to promote here. Prose issues remain and I think the best solution for the article is to archive this FAC now. It can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period, and in that time I would recommend having the article copy-edited by someone familiar with prose expectations at FA level. Sarastro (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: No consesus? Really? 5-2 seems pretty leaning. Both of the opposes are about the prose. Regarding that, someone already has started copyediting the article. As for Deckiller, I've already made changes to the articles weeks ago based on his comments, but he never replied. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:19, 27 February 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. Sarastro (talk) 21:07, 27 February 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) 21:26, 22 February 2018 [2].

Deep Space Homer edit

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is my First FA Nomination. I have reviewed many Good articles and have nominated others in the process. I have copy-edited this article and talked to others about the structure. I want to continue the success of Simpsons articles. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Darkwarriorblake edit

As I don't really know how to do a Featured Article on a television episode, I have referred to an existing one - "A Streetcar Named Marge".

~~The first point I'd raise is that the lead does not mention any of the reception or legacy received by the episode~~
I would rephrase " The episode became the source of the Overlord meme". I kinda guessed what it referred to as a fan of the Simpsons, but to the uneducated reader I imagine this reads as quite random? Maybe other editors can input here. I would suggest something like "A scene from the episode, in which anchorman Kent Brockman mistakes ants for alien invaders, has since gone on to become a common meme for exaggerating submission to other entities". This might be too wordy, but I think explaining what the "overlord meme" means will go along way to helping the casual Simpsons fan or non-fan understand.

~~Do you think the Overlord part should be in the article? If so why in the lead? It seems better placed in "legacy AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~In the Cultural references section, there is a line about "Astronaut Race Banyon is a parody of Jonny Quest character Race Bannon." this is unsourced.~~
As the DVD is sourced quite extensively in the article, you should add time-codes to show where the information is mentioned for people to be able to find it in the future. If you want to know how to do this, take a look at The Shawshank Redemption and Ctrl+f "sfn" for examples.

I did a "sfn" for the commentaries and have the location as "Simpsons World" due to that site being the location for all the commentaries. Finding the timestamps in near impossible and would take hours. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I would argue that there is an excuse to include a NFCC screenshot of something to do with Brockman/the ants to demonstrate what the meme is about as it's discussed a lot in the reception section.

~~Should I keep the meme in the article? AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I would check some of the Cultural References sources in general as I found it hard to identify the information it was sourcing.~~
Good luck! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the meme is fine, it has plenty of coverage, I meant you could include an image of that scene to demonstrate what it is about. If you can't fit it into the article you could fit it into the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake: Image has been added. Thank you! AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

~~Ref 2: link goes to an error message~~
~~Ref 11: p. range requires ndash not hyphen~~
~~Ref 12; contains a redundant "pp."~~

Otherwise, the sources seem appropriate and are properly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: All Completed AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Aoba47 edit

Comments from Aoba47 (talk)

~~I would add a reference to the infobox image.~~
~~Please complete the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” box for the infobox image.~~
~~Please add ALT text for the infobox image.~~
~~In the infobox, move the link for David Mirkin to the first instance in which he appears (i.e. the “written by” parameter as opposed to the “showrunner” parameter.~~
I do not see the need for the references in the lead. That information and the references should be in the body of the article. Also, none of the information that is cited by the references are controversial to the point that a reference in the lead is necessary.
~~You can just say “Fox” rather than “Fox network” as the first is the more common way of referencing the network.~~
~~Please include the years in which The Right Stuff and 2001: A Space Odyssey were released.~~
For this part “with many calling it the best episode of the Simpsons”, specify who the “many” is (i.e. critics, fans, the show’s cast and crew?) and italcize “the Simpsons” as it is the name of the show.
The plot section is currently 639 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. This section will need to be reduced and revised drastically to meet the word limit. I have gotten away with between 400 and 500 in the past, but it should be reduced.
~~Please add ALT text for the David Mirkin image.~~
~~For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.~~
I think that there is a way to combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production. Some of the writers felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.) to make it read better.
~~Please add the year in which “Fire and Rain” was released.~~

*Do you have a source that mentions what lyrics of the song were altered for the show?

~~If you cannot find a source, then this part is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

*I am not certain about the inclusion of a “Cultural references” section given that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television discourages the use of “Trivia sections”. I think that the section could be salvaged if you make it clearer that this information comes from episode commentary in the prose or turn it into a “Themes” section or something similar to that. Right now, it looks like a lot of original research to me.

I am not sure about certain instances in which Reference 1 is cited. For instance, I checked this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cutreplaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).), and I could not find anything in the source to support the “The Dawn of Man” parody.

I do not see how this has been resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revise the Aldrin image caption to better illustrate why the image is in the “Reception” section. Right now, it just looks like a random picture thrown into the section. Include in the caption that Aldrin received praise for his guest performance.
~~Add ALT text for the image.~~
~~For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.~~
I am confused by this sentence (It was the highest-rated show on the Fox network that week, beating Living Single.). If it was the highest-rate show, then it would have beaten a lot of other shows, so why is Living Single singled out here.
~~NASA is linked too many times in the body of the article.~~
The final paragraph of the “Reception” section is interesting, but if the sources do not connect these events with this episode, then it will have to be removed as it is original research to connect these two ideas together on your own without an outside source.

This was not resolved even though it was struck out. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Here are a few sources that.I found while doing a quick Google search that could help with expanding this article: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I found these sources from a rather superficial search online, so I do not think that this is as comprehensive as it should be at this stage. First, I just want to say that I think that it is great that you brought a television episode to the FAC process. I have personally brought a few television episodes through here successfully, and it is great to see other people work on these types of articles. That being said I will have to oppose this, primarily due to three concerns: 1) the plot section will need to be reworked and revised pretty extensively to meet the word limit, 2) the "Cultural references" section needs to be completely overhauled, and 3) more sources should be added to this article. If I could find eight sources that are not already in this article during a quick and superficial Google search, then there is an issue in my opinion. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I just do not believe that this is ready at this stage. If you would like to continue working on this, I think peer review would be your best option. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I understand why you feel this way about the article. I will address all these issues, in hope that you will see again the potential this article has.

Countering, if you look at other Simpsons articles that are at FA status such as You Only Move Twice It contains 623 words(I fixed the extensive issue) and a cultural reference section.

@Aoba47: Could not find a source for the "Altered Lyrics" section

Thank you for the response and good luck with your work, especially with the plot section. This article still requires a lot of work though, but I wish you luck with it (specifically with the "Cultural reference" section and the comprehensiveness of the article). Also, remember that just because another article does something, it does not make it right. I still stand by my statements that the "Cultural reference" section needs some further work, but I could be wrong so hopefully more people contribute to this review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your reply. I will try my hardest do fix the problems that are located in the article; starting with your stated issues. Please do not hesitate to ask if there is anything else that needs attention. AmericanAir88 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and good luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: What if I make it just about 2001: A Space Odyssey, as this is a very credible area of cultural impact on the episode. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem fine by me. Make sure that all of the information is firmly supported in the source, and make it clear whether or not the writers/producers placed these references in the episode or if critics were the ones to make the connections. I am still not fond of the "Cultural references" title (even if it is kept, then the "References" part needs to be changed to "references"), and would refigure into something like a "Themes" section as suggested by the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. I would also make sure to cover my concern with comprehensiveness. Also, if you are going to add more resources, make sure that they are full formatted correctly and fully used. For instance, Reference 19 does not have all of the information in the citation, and I would expand upon this part, as just saying it has some vague connection with the episode is not particularly helpful or informative. I hope you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for further sources on the episode, and there are a fair number of "book" sources out there (as shown through this Google search here) that are not used in this article. I stand by oppose on the grounds that this does not meet 1b. of the FAC criteria (i.e. comprehensive). I believe that a significant amount of work will be needed for this be passed as an FA, and I stand by my suggestion that this should go to a peer review instead for further feedback. I am not sure if FAC is an appropriate place to address these points as they are rather major and stem beyond issues with prose. I would actually recommend withdrawing this in favor of a peer review approach. Hopefully, other editors will add their opinions to this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I am trying my hardest to fix every issue present in your statements. I am completely awake of everything you are stating and understand why you are typing this info to me. I thank you for this. I would like to however, continue the FAC process to have more editors put their thoughts and comments about the article before I reach the point of withdrawing. AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; then my commentary/review ends here and my oppose still stands. Aoba47 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: :( Okay, I am supportive of whatever your opinion is. Thank you so much for the input. I will keep you updated. AmericanAir88 (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 edit

Used the archived bot to all sources but there are some things that bother me:

~~Some sources seem a bit hard to trust like Know You Meme since they are edited by users rather than professional writers.~~
~~I would avoid referencing the plot section unless we are referencing a confusing fact like what happens to Harvey Dent in the second Nolan Batman movie.~~
~~Avoid small paragraphs. As I always think, imagine that Wikipedia is a formal letter.~~

Other than that, I am willing to give you my support if these issues are solved. If possible, could you check this FAC? Also, don't worry if the nomination fails. There is always next time and this was your first time at it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2: All issues addressed, Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giving my support. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bcschneider53 edit

Just taking a brief look through this, I'm not quite sure we're there yet. Like Aoba47, I also have concerns about comprehensiveness. A quick search via Google Books shows that the episode has several other sources that are not yet present in the article. Therefore, I'd like to see some additional referencing (and, if possible, material) added before I give this a formal review. Also, this is just a side note, but I'd remove the Grade Saver reference (#9) as it appears to be nothing more than a direct copy of this article/section, 2001: A Space Odyssey (film)#Parodies and homages.

Please, don't worry if the nomination is not successful. I've had nominations fail in the past as well. FAC is a long working process that requires an intense amount of research and dedication. This is absolutely a GA but I'm not sure it's comprehensive enough to be an FA just yet. I wish you nothing but the best as you continue to work on this! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Panagiotis Zois edit

Closing comment: Given the standing oppose on this FAC, and the concerns of Bcschneider53, I will archive this shortly. It can be renominated after the usual 2-week waiting period, but I would recommend getting further eyes on the article if possible before renominating. Sarastro (talk) 21:25, 22 February 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. Sarastro (talk) 21:26, 22 February 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) 22:10, 15 February 2018 [3].

Romney Classical Institute edit

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the most complete and comprehensive history written about the Romney Classical Institute. I feel this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article, and I would appreciate any guidance and feedback you may have to further improve it! Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Several sources require subscriptions for access, and the (subscription required) template should be added: 18, 25, 26, 40, 50
Ref 44: Harvard error

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, Happy New Year and thank you so much for taking time to perform this source review and provide your guidance above. I've added (subscription required) to all the sources that require it, and also fixed the Atkinson source. Please let me know if there is anything else outstanding, or if you have any further guidance to improve this article. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, if time allows, please take another look and let me know if there is anything else you could provide guidance or feedback on. I always value your subject matter expertise. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else as far as I'm concerned. My silence generally means I'm happy with what you've done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, thank you for your guidance up to this point. I just wanted to make sure you had no further concerns. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Deckiller edit

The article does not satisfy criterion 1a; the prose is somewhat flabby, as evidenced by these changes in the lead. It's certainly not a bad article, but it needs a copy-edit by someone unfamiliar with the text. Emphasis should be placed on eliminating redundancy. One could also argue that the article does not pass criterion 1b due to some gaps in the timeline, but it's fine as long as you conducted a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" (1c) to ensure that these gaps can't be filled.

Here are a couple examples of the larger issue. I'd give the whole thing a massage myself but I'm kind of busy.

"Prior to the establishment of the Romney Classical Institute in 1846, Romney and its environs had been served by a school as early as 1752, and by Romney Academy incorporated by the Virginia General Assembly on January 11, 1814.[1][2]" — this sentence is flabby and the last clause is a little lazy and unclear.

I modified this sentence further to the following: "Prior to the establishment of the Romney Classical Institute in 1846, Romney and its environs had been served by a school as early as 1752 and by Romney Academy, which was incorporated by the Virginia General Assembly on January 11, 1814." -- West Virginian (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"By 1831, Romney Academy had outgrown its educational facilities in an old stone building just north of the Hampshire County Courthouse in Romney." — the sentence is a little unclear; "outgrown its educational facilities in an old stone building" could be interpreted several ways, especially if the reader is skimming.

Changed to: "By 1831, Romney Academy had outgrown the physical space of its educational facilities in an old stone building just north of the Hampshire County Courthouse in Romney." -- West Virginian (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Also at this time, several academies in present-day West Virginia were aspiring to collegiate status, as there were few colleges operating in the region before the American Civil War." — "operating" is redundant, and "aspiring to collegiate status" could probably be tweaked due to vagueness.

Thank you for these catches. I've removed "operating". I also re-rendered the sentence mentioned above: "Also at this time, several academies in present-day West Virginia were aspiring to provide college-level courses, as there were few post-secondary institutions in the region before the American Civil War." Please let me know if you have any further suggestions on how to make this less vague. The sources lead me to believe that these institutions didn't aspire to be colleges outright, but wanted to provide a college-level education given the lack of available colleges. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"As stated above, West Virginia's first Democratic governor, John Jeremiah Jacob, was educated at the institute, and later served as an assistant principal, and finally principal." — that's a lot of commas/clauses for one sentence. I recommend breaking it down into two sections separated by a semicolon. You can probably prune this sentence a bit, too, since you already establish Jacob earlier in the article.

I've re-rendered this sentence as thus: "As stated above, John Jeremiah Jacob was educated at the institute and served as its assistant principal and principal. He was later elected West Virginia's first Democratic governor." Please let me know if this requires any additional tweaking. I knowingly have a habit of being too wordy, so I can always use assistance in being more succinct. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The society was successful in raising the necessary funds by 1845." — "successful in raising" -> "raised".

I've modified this to "The society raised the necessary funds by 1845." -- West Virginian (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Bids were called for contractors to build the new school and library facility by April 4, 1845, and were to be submitted to the society by May 24." — a little confusing as worded. Are the bids due by April 4 or is the school's completion due by April 4? It makes the reader pause to parse the information.

Modified sentence to "On April 4, 1845, the society solicited for contractor bids, which were to be submitted by May 24." Please let me know if this works better. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A Mr. Dinwiddie was also a teacher at the school after the war.[15]" is this really relevant information, or just a bit of trivia?

As I stated above, this article incorporates all the available information that I was able to find about the institute--both online and in person at the local library in Romney. In an effort to be as comprehensive as possible, I did include some trivia like all the available names of teachers. Especially since there was so little information about the institute post-war, I decided to include Mr. Dinwiddie. I would be fine with omitting his name, but because information on its post-war activities is so scant, perhaps I could provide some context for him. Let me know how best to proceed. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind opened for their first term on September 29, 1870" — "for their first term" is somewhat redundant due to context.

I've removed "for their first term". -- West Virginian (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snake sentences, including: "The society discovered that to make good on its promise, it had to raise more than $1,000, presumably for repairs, a close to impossible task during the Reconstruction Era in Romney." Snakes—long sentences with a ton of dependent clauses separated by commas— can confuse readers or make them pause to think. In this case, one could assume the repairs are the impossible task, not the fundraising.

Modified several snake sentences like this:

Modified to: "By 1869, the state of West Virginia considered the establishment of a school for deaf and blind students. The newly reorganized Romney Literary Society sought to secure this school for Romney as part of its Reconstruction development efforts."
And modified to: "During this process, the society discovered that the campus required additional repairs in order to satisfy the state's requirements. The society had to raise over $1,000 to adequately address these repairs, which was a difficult task during the Reconstruction Era." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Jacob was West Virginia's first Democratic governor, who had attended both the institute and its predecessor, Romney Academy." — in this context, this sentence implies that Jacob had already served his term before becoming an assistant principal.

—Deckiller (t-c-l) 18:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to: "Jacob had attended both the institute and its predecessor, Romney Academy, and later served as West Virginia's first Democratic governor." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Deckiller, first and foremost, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to engage in this thorough review of the article, and for providing me with your guidance above. In the meantime, I will work to address the comments above and hope that you'll be able to provide further guidance so that I may improve this article as you see fit. The article does pass criterion 1b because I have indeed performed a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" to ensure that these gaps can't be filled. Not only did I exhaust online sources, but I also exhausted hardcopy sources in the Hampshire County Public Library near the former Romney Classical Institute. I am committed to improving this article, and I thank you for your feedback and attention thus far! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deckiller, I've finished addressing your comments above. Please take another look and let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve this article. Again, I truly appreciate and value your time and guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Neutralhomer edit

Sources edit

I ran all through CheckLinks and found no deadlinks, but I found that all of the newspapers.com and loc.gov links that have an Internet Archive address on attached to them are unnecessary. Simply remove that Internet Archive address and the newspapers.com and loc.gov links are still active underneath. I also found no source links that were out of sequence (ie: 2,1 instead of 1,2).

Neutralhomer, thank you so much for this catch! I've removed the unnecessary archive links to the newspapers.com and loc.gov references. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede edit

Wiki-linking Virginia in the lede, even though we already know that it's a state, is useful to the reader.

Neutralhomer, thank you for this catch, too! I am not sure how I omitted the Commonwealth's wiki-link! This has been rectified! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of Article edit

I see no other problems as Deckiller seems to knocked out any of what would have been my issues as well.

Final edit

@West Virginian: Since the issues raised by Deckiller are gone, make the above changes I raised and I'll show my official support this article for Featured Article status. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:39 on February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to review this article and provide your suggestions, comments, and feedback above. Please let me know if you identify anything else outstanding in the article in the meantime! As always, I value your guidance! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: All looks good with those changes. With that, I officially support this article for Featured Article status. As always, a well-written article with plenty of sources, excellent photographs and tons of information. Well done as always. Keep up the great work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29 on February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over six weeks, and despite the support from Neutralhomer, there is no consensus to promote. I note that we are currently waiting for Deckiller to return to the article, but even if the oppose was struck I think we are still at the point where a fresh start may be better for the article. Therefore I will be archiving this shortly and it can be renominated after the usual 2 week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 15 February 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:10, 15 February 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) 22:06, 15 February 2018 [4].

2017 Vegas eRace edit

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 Vegas eRace, a Formula E eSports race held as part of the Sports Business Innovation Summit at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show on January 7, 2017. Unlike other races, it was not a championship race and was held on a virtual racing circuit with a lucrative prize fund of $1 million. The twenty professional Formula E racing drivers were pitted against ten sim racers who took part in a four-race challenge competition to enable their participation in the eRace. The race itself had a controversial ending as one sim racer, Olli Pahkala, was discovered to use FanBoost for longer than permitted due to a software bug and the victory was awarded to Dragon Racing's sim driver Bono Huis. This article recently passed its GA review and I have made some edits to polish the prose. Also, it would be the first eSports article to reach FA class if successful as well as the first Formula E related entry as well. I look forward to your comments. MWright96 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The sources themselves look of appropriate quality and reliability, but there are formatting inconsistencies, particularly in the italicisation of publisher details. These arise I think from inconsistent use of the template fields "work=", "website=" and "publisher=". For institutions such as CNN and Fox News, and other non-print sources such as Würth Elektronik, you should use the "publisher=" field. The "work=" field can be used for the title of newspapers or print magazines, where the publishing organisation is usually omitted for major media such as The Times, Auotosport, etc. If the "website=" field is used, you should use "publisher=" as well, since the website name is not the publisher – an example is ref 9, where the publisher is Motorsport Network, not motorsport.com. I've only checked the first column of references but I think the same issues are apparent in the second.
A very minor point with Ref 18: the publisher appears to be Inside Sim Racing rather than Inside Racing Sim.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review. Have made changes where necessary. MWright96 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment This has been open for over six weeks now and has unfortunately attracted little commentary. Therefore, I will be archiving this shortly and it can be renominated after the usual 2 week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:06, 15 February 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:06, 15 February 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) 22:05, 15 February 2018 [5].

Sonic Advance edit

Nominator(s): JOE BRO 64 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fine folks! This article is about a 2001 video game that Sega released for the Game Boy Advance. It is extremely notable for being the first original Sonic the Hedgehog released on a Nintendo gaming device. After rescuing it from being stuck in start-class for years, I bombarded it and, within a few days, got it up to GA-status. It has just undergone a copyedit by the GOCE and I now think it can stand among our best articles. Enjoy! JOE BRO 64 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC) I like this article but I think somethings could be further explained before becoming FA.[reply]

Reference 3 needs lines for the ISBN 9780970646866.
- I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "lines". Can you be a bit more specific?
Can you add a more specific caption to the GameBoy Advance picture. Seems a bit pointless unless you add something "the console was chosen because ____" If not you could add a free image of Yuji Naka
- I wasn't really able to find a specific reason why the GBA was chosen, so I changed it to the Yuji Naka picture.
Can sales be more specific? Like the game sold "1.21 million copies" but was it in the entire world or just in North America?
- That's from the US alone, I've clarified this. The only source that provided worldwide sales was VGChartz, which is unreliable.
While many people know of Super Mario World's popularity, you could expand it a bit for newcomers like saying "compared them positively to Super Mario World (1990), a highly acclaimed video game"
- Done.
Reference 17 needs translation, just go to the article and add "trans-title= TRANSLATED TITLE". Same thing writh reference 26
- Done.

Other than I don't find other notable issues. Just ping me when you have solved and I'll give you my support. By the way, if you have free time one of these day, could you comment on my peer review here? It's Holidays season so take your take. Cheers.

@Tintor2: I've resolved all your concerns except for the ISBN one; I'm just a bit confused by what you mean. Thanks for reviewing! I'll take a look at your peer review soon. JOE BRO 64 14:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll support. Good luck and Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox.
- It already does, it was just at the bottom of the infobox. I've moved it.
For this part (as they journey to save their homeland and stop Doctor Eggman from taking over the world), I am not sure what the difference is between “save their homeland” and “stop Doctor Eggman from taking over the world”. I think that you could remove the “save their homeland” part and preserve the same meaning.
- Done.
For this part (The story follows Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Amy) in the lead, do you think that you should use their full names (i.e. Amy Rose, etc.)?
- I didn't use their full names because it kinda bloats up the first paragraph and, in my opinion, is a bit harder to read since all the names are grouped together.
For this part (The game takes place over six levels called zones.), I would add a link for “levels”.
- Done.
For this part (As the Sonic games released for the Dreamcast allowed players to download the Chao Garden minigame onto the VMU,), I would spell out “VMU”.
- Done.
For this part (Sega announced Sonic Advance and two other GBA titles, ChuChu Rocket! and Puyo Puyo, on January 30, 2001), I would suggest adding a note to clarify that ChuChu Rocket! was rereleased on GBA in 2001, but it was originally released in 1999. Otherwise, it is a little confusing if someone clicks on the link to the game.
- Done. I turned it into a footnote since it makes it easier to read.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through my FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for reviewing another one of my FACs! I've responded above. I'll comment at your FAC soon. Thanks again, and I hope you have a good holiday season. JOE BRO 64 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

File:Sonic Advance Coverart.png: License and use seem fine for me.
File:SonicAdvanceLoop.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.
File:Yuji Naka' - Magic - Monaco - 2015-03-21- P1030036 (cropped).jpg: Use seems fine for me. License seems OK as well.

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

~~Fn 23, what makes Siliconera a reliable source?~~ I can't find anything about their editorial or fact-checking procedures, editorial staff, etc.
~~Fn 29, what makes The Magic Box a reliable source?~~

Otherwise looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser Brain: Thank you for taking a look! Both Siliconera and The Magic Box are listed as reliable per WP:VG/S. JOE BRO 64 00:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Messed up the ping. Sorry! JOE BRO 64 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm generally willing to read and accept WikiProject consensus discussions on RS issues, but in these cases I don't see any additional information or discussion on why these should be considered reliable. Can you point me to where such discussion has occurred? In particular, I'm looking for specific evidence of how these sources meet WP:RS. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain:

The most recent discussion on Siliconera was in September. Basically, their staff members all have experience at other reliable publications, and the site itself is usually cited by other reliable sources. From the discussion's participants, "they do tend to fill a niche of Western-centric coverage of the Japanese games market even smaller titles" and "it is a very good source for Japanese-only games".
The Magic Box translates sales data from the Japanese sources Famitsu and Media Create, both of which are reliable. Most recent discussion is here. They're useful because Media Create continually refreshes their lists on a weekly basis and the only way to get access to their backlog is limited to businesses/organization, and Famitsu is not only in Japanese, but pre-2003 issues are very hard to find.

Hopefully that clears things up. Again, thanks for reviewing. JOE BRO 64 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am satisfied with these responses and have no further concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators

@WP:FAC coordinators: is this good to go? The source and image reviews have been completed. JOE BRO 64 20:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good but I would like to see some further general commentary. Andy, I don't know how you're fixed for time but since you've got some familiarity with the article now, would you be able to perform a comprehensive review for prose, etc? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Sure, I can do it in 1–2 days. --Laser brain (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Laser brain

I just finished an initial read-through and will make more comments later, but an initial show-stopper: I don't find the Legacy section to be adequate for FA class. The first brief paragraph asserts that this game signaled an end to the console wars, but the text we've written here doesn't really go into enough detail. The GamesRadar source doesn't really even support that point. We need some better research and more substantive journalism about such an assertion. The second section speaks a bit about the Dimps relationship but I also think this needs expansion with more discussion about this relationship. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Laser brain: I've done some refining to the legacy section. Added some articles that call it one of the best games in the series with some of their commentary. As for the console wars assertion, I've toned it down and added a few direct quotes to make the claims clearer. Also added a bit of commentary from Nintendo Power as well. As for the Sega/Dimps relationship, I've added some discussion about how Dimps' games have been much better received than Sonic Team's. I based the structure of the new legacy section on FA Super Mario World's; hopefully it looks better now. JOE BRO 64 21:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Deckiller edit

Oppose—1a. Examples from the lead:

"Sonic Advance[a] is a 2001 side-scrolling platform video game originally published by Sega for the Game Boy Advance (GBA)." "Originally" can be omitted in this context, as the re-releases are outlined a few sentences later.

"It was the first game in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise released on a Nintendo platform" — here is a case where including "to be" is not redundant; the sentence in its current form is vague and might trick the reader into thinking that Sonic Advance is the first game in the series and that the entire series was released on Nintendo platforms.

"and Sega produced it to commemorate its tenth anniversary." — this clause feels tacked on and messes with the flow of the lead; either the sentence should be restructured or this fact should be relocated elsewhere in the lead. It also could mislead some readers; they might think the game was celebrating the 10th anniversary of Sega or the Nintendo console, not the series.

"Development of Sonic Advance began after Sega shifted their focus to third-party software development, due to the poor performance of their Dreamcast console." — Sega shifted its focus not "their" focus.

"The company recruited Dimps, a Japanese development studio consisting of former Neo Geo Pocket Color programmers, to lead development, assisted by longtime series developer Sonic Team." — this sentence is a bit of a mouthful and might contain some trivial information for a lead. Do we really need to know that this studio worked on games for another console in the lead? I don't think so. Plus, omitting that clause would improve the readability of this sentence.

"Sonic Advance is the first in the Sonic franchise developed by Dimps, who would return to the series many times in later years." — you can rework the first clause into the sentence I just mentioned. You can also omit "Sonic" here.

"Two sequels, Sonic Advance 2 and Sonic Advance 3, were later developed and released for the GBA in 2002 and 2004, respectively." — clunky; reword to something like "Two sequels, Sonic Advance 2 (2002) and Sonic Advance 3 (2004) were developed and released for the GBA."

Other random examples:

"On its release, Sonic Advance received positive critical reviews, according to review aggregation website Metacritic." — the first clause is redundant.

"IGN admired the clever new ideas, such as the ability to grind on rails, and determined that Sonic felt better on the GBA, rather than the Genesis." is that IGN calling the ideas "clever", or the article writer?

"Sega would continue to contract the company in following years to create many games in the series, including two sequels to Sonic Advance..." — lots of opportunities for trimming in this sentence. Lean and concise is the way to go!

I could make these changes myself, but I wanted to demonstrate that the entire text can be tightened and improved. Decent/passable prose is not the same as "engaging and of a professional standard"; we must constantly scrutinize our writing until it's perfect. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 03:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deckiller: I've just gone and given the article a loose copyedit. I'll do some more later today. JOE BRO 64 12:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deckiller: I've just performed various copyedits based on your suggestions. The prose should be tighter now. Thoughts? JOE BRO 64 20:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I'll try to take a look at it this weekend. I might make a pass myself and see if I can help. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 06:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for over six weeks and despite two supports, has a standing oppose and reservations from Laser brain; there is currently no consensus to promote. With this in mind, a fresh start may benefit the article. It can be renominated after the usual two week wait. In the meantime, perhaps the nominator could work with Deckiller and Laser brain away from FAC. Sarastro (talk) 22:05, 15 February 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. Sarastro (talk) 22:05, 15 February 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) 09:55, 9 February 2018 [6].

West Bengal edit

Nominator(s): — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 11:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a very personal project of mine which I inherited after Casliber delisted the article in late 2017. I had resolved all comments from the FARC and put it up for GA but the absence of a reviewer led me to take this here — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 11:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: — In the interests of transparency, I would like to disclose that this FA review may be used to increase my points for the ongoing Wikicup competition. — Force Radical∞ ( Talk ⋯ Contribs ) 11:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dudley Miles Sturmvogel 66 DrKay RetiredDuke Nikkimaria-As reviewers who had commented on the FARC. I have resolved all the {{cn}} and fixed the image problems. Please provide a review here — [[ F R ™ ]] 05:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These green links should be archived.
"Districts" in the infobox changes redirects, it should be "List of districts in India" instead of "List of Indian districts".
Same goes for 'Governor' and 'Chief Minister', fix their redirect.
Kolkata shouldn't be linked twice in the infobox.
Ref 94 is dead.
rediff news --> Rediff.com
Is "parabaas" a RS?
Some refs are missing their authors name.
Economic Times --> The Economic Times

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher-Happy Republic Day! Please provide the ref numbers in which the authors name is not mentioned.(I couldn't find any with a cursory look).I have done everything else. Please take a look — F R ™ 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you the same. Ref 115 is missing date and there are issue with the authors name at ref 195 and 198. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done-I have resolved all comments .Please take a look — F R ™ 07:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the news stories which make up the bulk of the article's references are missing dates at present. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Per WP:LEAD, the sentences in the lead shouldn't have references. But, they should be referenced in the other part of the article's body.
At ref 15, The Hindu is mentioned twice. Also it should be in italics.
Ref 17, hindustantimes.com --> Hindustan Times.
The name of the publisher should be written properly.
The book references should be written in sfn format, like this list.
Ref 59 and 60 are missing publisher's name.
Dubious sources like IloveIndia and www.mapsofindia.com, should be removed.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yashthepunisher-All done except converting all book refs to sfn as they would uneccesarily bloat up the Further Reading section. Additionally I believe MOS does not specifically support any particular citation style. Please take a look — F R ™ 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments From a quick review of several sections of the article, I have concerns about its neutrality and accuracy. While the article appears admirably comprehensive, its focus generally seems to be talking up the state rather than providing a neutral picture to readers. I have the following comments:

Many of the works listed in the 'references' section don't seem to have been used as citations
"Armed attempts against the British Raj from Bengal reached a climax when Subhas Chandra Bose led the Indian National Army from Southeast Asia against the British" - confusing and misleading. The INA was in Burma, not West Bengal, and was rapidly routed on the few occasions it saw combat. The greatest period of danger to the Raj was actually the rapid Japanese advance during 1942.
From spot checking some of the population figures in the table in the 'Districts' section, the total population given for Darjeeling and Dakshin Dinajpur differ from those in the source, and the various rates and percentages are different. The date for these figures should be noted in the article.
If I knew nothing at all about India's economy, I'd conclude from the 'economy' section that West Bengal is a prosperous place. I'd suggest adding some material explaining the standard of living.
The sentence beginning "In the 2010s, events such as" is referenced to sources from the early 2000s.
"In the period 2004–2010, the average gross state domestic product (GSDP) growth rate was 13.9% (calculated in Indian rupee terms) lower than 15.5%, the average for all states of the country.[104]:4 The state's total financial debt stood at ₹1,918,350 million (US$30 billion) as of 2011" - GDP and government(?) debt are entirely different topics so shouldn't be presented alongside one another, and these figures seem rather dated now.
The education section is focused on talking up various elite institutions. What's the structure of the education system in the state, to what extent to people undertake and complete education, and what's the average quality like?
Lots of the 'as of' dates are rather dated. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D-Happy Republic Day (@ India).I have not been able to find time to address your comments but if you find any more problems please add them here so that all issues can be resolved early on — F R ™ 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D-I believe, I have covered all points in your review. I may have also inadvertently missed some .Please take a look and add more comments. I will look into the citations from tomorrow — F R ™ 07:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

With so much to check, I'm doing this in stages. The following comments apply to the first 60 refs:

Ref 11: Although the archive works, there are problems with the main link which should be changed.
Ref 15: Wrong link – this goes to the ref 14 source
Ref 17: You should give the publisher name rather than the website
Ref 21 and others: Retrieval dates not necessary for links via googlebooks.
Ref 22: The authorship here is complicated. Geiger is the translator from the original to German; Mabel Haynes Bode, not mention in your citation, is the translator from German to English.
Ref 24: citation lacks publisher, page number and other book details
Ref 29: lacks page number
Ref 34: ditto
Ref 35: ditto
Ref 40: Harvard error - Bayly source not listed
Ref 44: Harvard error - Chandra source not listed
Refs 46 & 47: lack page numbers
Ref 52: The publisher is Rediff India Abroad
Refs 55, 57, 59 & 60: publisher details missing.

It seems to me likely that some of the above issues – missing page numbers, missing publishers etc – will occur in the remaining citations, and I suggest you check these out too. Also I note that your list of sources is not alphabetically arranged, and this should be seen to without delay. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton-I have resolved all most your comments at present (I couldn't fix ref 45 as I cannot access the source and have partly done the alphabetical arrangement ).Please take a look. Also I would like you to wait for a day or two before starting on the part two of your review as I am currently experiencing some meatspace priorities and have a lot more comments to resolve in this FAC. Please consider — F R ™ 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)For ping — F R ™ 10:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're ready for me to resume. Incidentally, ref 45 isn't among those I questioned. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton-Well given that the work load has lessened slightly It's okay for you to start on the next batch. Fire away — F R ™ 07:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but I'll wait awhile to see how the nom progresses. There's a lot of checking to do here. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest reviewing captions for grammar and neutrality (eg. "culinary delights"). Where opinions are included (eg. "one of the finest exampels..."), these should be cited
Suggest scaling up the state symbols table
File:West_Bengal_State_Emblem.jpg needs an expanded FUR
File:Guimet_Tara_s._IX.JPG: what is the copyright status of the object pictured?
File:Queen_Elizabeth_at_Durgapur.jpg: the description given is not consistent with the current licensing tag
File:Rabindranath_Tagore_in_1909.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
File:Swami_Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg needs a US PD tag and information on the original creator
File:Satyajit_Ray_with_Ravi_Sankar_recording_for_Pather_Panchali.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?
File:Bangladeshi_bride_in_Jamdani_sari.jpg: this image appears to have been previously published by UNESCO. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria-I have scaled up the symbols table, expanded FUR, added a Us-Pd tag to File:Swami_Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg, File:Satyajit_Ray_with_Ravi_Sankar_recording_for_Pather_Panchali.jpg and deleted the images mentioned in points 4,5 and replaced the Rabindranath Tagore picture.I couldn't understand what to do for your last point. Please take a look and inform me if I have done anything wrong (This is my first time I am dealing with copyrights of images) — F R ™ 11:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the captions are still in need of citations. For example, "Tourism, especially from Bangladesh, is an important part of West Bengal's economy." is not currently supported by the article text so should be cited here.
File:Rabindranath_Tagore.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is its status in the US?
File:Swami_Vivekananda-1893-09-signed.jpg: when/where was this first published and who was the creator?
File:Satyajit_Ray_with_Ravi_Sankar_recording_for_Pather_Panchali.jpg: this has a publication date of 1955, so it can't have been published before 1923
File:Bangladeshi_bride_in_Jamdani_sari.jpg: the issue with this is, if indeed it was previously published by UNESCO, then we would need some indication that the uploader had the right to release it under the given license
File:Durga,_Burdwan,_2011.JPG: what is the copyright status of the work pictured? Same with File:Shyama_Shakespeare_Sarani_Arnab_Dutta_2010.JPG, File:Mahesh_Rath_Yatra.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There is something very odd about the economy section. It is written in such a way that it seems West Bengal is a wealthy, prosperous, developed state. It is not, but is in fact, sadly, very impoverished. It seems the author is trying to promote the state, or at least put it in a very positive light. One example of promotion is the speculative "...South East Asian countries ... entering the Indian market and investing have put Kolkata in an advantageous position for future development". Also, careful with wording "lagged the all India average for over two decades" sounds clunky. I think this section needs to be more realistic in depicting the actual economy before promotion. Mattximus (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done-Will need some polishing. — F R ™ 09:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus-Done. Please take a look — F R ™ 06:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: -Please pull the plug on this nom, I have come to the conclusion that this article is unfit in its present condition for FA and would like to make a soundless, dignified exit through the backdoor. Additionally meatspace priorities are constraining the amount of time I could devote to improving the article quality and bring it at par with other FA's. That being said I will work on the criticisms raised in the nom and will bring this back in better condition in April — F R ™ 09:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 9 February 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) 12:32, 3 February 2018 [7].

Black Death edit

Nominator(s): Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-written, well-researched and the sources are from a range of books and reliable sources. It is something to admire and look up to. This is definitely a great article and I personally think. It's good enough for Featured status. Thanks. Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 18:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TheJoebro64

A chunk of the article is unsourced.
There are multiple single-sentence paragraphs.
The nominator is not a major contributor, having only made one edit to the article.

For those reasons, I oppose promotion. JOE BRO 64 12:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I was going to simply remove this nom as out-of-process but I don't want to waste the comment Joe has added so will archive instead; aside from being a significant contributor to the article, FAC instructions require editors to wait 2 weeks before nominating another article when their previous nom has been archived. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 3 February 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. Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 3 February 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) 11:58, 2 February 2018 [8].

The Canterbury Tales edit

Nominator(s): Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is both informative and interesting to someone who wants to know about The Canterbury Tales. It is well researched and very well written. It also covers topics; rarely discussed by others; those topics are discussed well. This page would certainly be a great example for Wikipedia for the best that we have to offer. Thank you and have a nice day. Do the Danse Macabre! 19:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Doubts about FAC

You do not appear to be a primary editor for this article, at least according to this. Have you consulted with any of the primary editors on putting this up for FAC? There are also a few maintenance tags in the article, such as "citation needed" and "incomplete short citation" tags. There are also large sections of the article that do not contain any references, such as the "Influence on literature" section and the "Literary adaptations" section and portions of the "Adaptations and homages" section. I would suggest withdrawing this, as these tags are red flags that this article is not ready for FAC at this point in time. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this for my above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi edit

Black, Joseph (2011). Missing ISBN;
Biggs, Frederick M. Chaucer's Decameron and... Missing Publisher; Missing Year/Date;
Rubin listed title first? No chapter author?
Brewer, trigg, Linne & Podgorski not in references. You woudn't have these errors (and I wouldn't have to spend my time checking for them) if you would be so kind to yourself and to everyone else involved as to use {{sfn}} and |harv=
" Encyclopedia Brittanica" isn't a sufficent reference.
What's the sorting logic for your further reading section? And "Spark's Notes"? Every student knows those exist Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not in good shape, and as Aoba47 points out, there are insufficient citations in some areas, and too many tags. Suggest withdrawal and some time spent on improving it, rather than this premature nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Withdrawal edit

Ok, maybe not good enough for Featured, but it is maybe good for good? Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 18:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The errors that I have pointed out above with citation would still be a major issue with GAN so I would say no to that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Second that. Good articles should be approaching FA standard in terms of prose, and equal to it in the fact that everything should supported by citations from a reliable source. The main difference between GA and FA should be the scope of ~~references~~ sources used and the depth into which the subject is explored. See WP:WIAGA for information on the criteria needed; as it stand, this would fail on 1 and 2 and probably 3 - I didn't get as far as 4 or 5, to make a judgement on those. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you would really like to work on this article and improve it, then I would recommend doing the following: 1) contacting the article's major contributors and editors and 2) possibly going to peer review to have others identify points that need improvement. The lack of references in major parts of the article would be a quick fail for me when it comes to GAN. I would suggest that you read more about the criteria for FAC and GAN, and look through featured articles and good articles on similar topics to have a better understanding of both processes. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - courtesy ping to the co-ords to notify them of the withdrawal by the nom. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 2 February 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.