Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2015

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2015 [1].

Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary edit

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia's resident expert on penis comics, I hereby present the grandaddy of all penis comics—and the work on whose shoulders squarely lays the blame for the 40+-year fad in confessional comics that at times threatens to glut and drown the whole field of English-language arts comics. The work's protagonist-author unknowingly suffers from an obsessive–compulsive disorder which results in intrusive thoughts that make him see everything even vaguely phallic—including his own fingers—blasting every religious object in sight with sinful "pecker rays". This editor's last "penis comics" nomination somehow survived an initial onslaught of sensible opposition—hopefully the sheer proliferation of penises in this one will ensure the community will not allow another such error. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by bluerasberry edit

This seems close to being an FA.

I do not wish to review this further, but after reading the article for fun, it seems to me to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Another reviewer should do fact checking and think about what could have been added but is not present. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Closing comment -- sorry Curly but this nom seems to have been a bit of a non-starter; given the lack of commentary I wouldn't object if you brought it back for a fresh try without waiting the usual two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shitty buzz, but what can a child pornographer do? Society's got it out for us. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:10, 1 August 2015 (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) 14:47, 30 July 2015 [2].

Highland cattle edit

Nominator(s): TheMagikCow (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a breed of cattle. This would be the first FA for cattle breeds. I have been working on this for a while and have done 2 peer reviews which have been addressed. It passed GA and a subsequent DYK, all new experiences for me! First FAC so I await all comments! TheMagikCow (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

First, welcome to FAC! The review process for prospective featured articles is markedly more stringent than the DYK or GA process. Unfortunately, I don't think this article is quite ready to meet the criteria here:

  • There are several maintenance tags (clarification needed), which are considered to be a quick-fail condition at FAC.
  • Reference formatting is a problem. As the primary editor, you're free to choose from any of several citation styles, but you need to pick one and apply it consistently (I prefer the cite family of templates, myself). Templatization (or strict manual adherence to a standard) would fix a number of formatting problems.
  • There's some art to dealing with web sources: identifying what should be deemed the website's name versus what (if anything) should be listed as its publisher. As a guideline, unless the site uses the ".com" suffix prominently in its branding, it's probably part of neither.
  • Many of these references are simply incomplete. Reference 2, 12, 16, 17... there's just not enough bibliographic information included here.
  • Formatting aside, I'm uncertain that some of these constitute the best, high-quality sources available. A to Z Animals is a tertiary source aimed at a youth audience. Temperature Climate Permaculture is a blog, as is Willow Brook Park. Cruachan Highland Cattle is the personal website of a specific Australian farm.
  • One of the hardest requirements of the FA standard is comprehensiveness. That is, an FA-quality article is expected to have evaluated as broad a selection of sources as reasonably possible. This article is cited almost exclusively to websites, mostly to breeders, breeding organizations, and local interest groups. But there are some print sources, especially a number of scholarly journal articles, that discuss aspects of the topic not currently represented: social behavior (here and here), (lack of) heat tolerance (here), and diet (here). I did not look for books germane to the topic, but I imagine that there will be valuable references of that type as well.
  • Prose could probably be tightened somewhat. In particular, I suspect the breed standard bullet-points are better discussed in prose. Because I think there's quite a bit more information available to add, I'm not going to provide a truly detailed prose review at this time. I did note some duplicate links (house cow, Limousin) and some probably overlinking (Canada, for example).

I'm sorry to have to recommend against promotion for your first visit to FAC. Please don't be discouraged; take a look at the commentary on other candidates to get a feel for the particular expectations of this process. I do believe there is quite a bit of work to do for this article before it meets the FA standard, but I hope to see this article back here once it is ready. It's a hard process, but in the end, elevating an article to stand among the project's best work is worth the effort. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for those comments Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs)! I have began to work on them and will hopefully re submit this article when it is truly ready. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, per above, I'll archive this review. When you've completed your improvements (and after a minimum of two weeks from today, per FAC instructions), you're welcome to renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2015 (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) 01:56, 26 July 2015 [3].

Battle of Nanking edit

Nominator(s): CurtisNaito (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals with the Battle of Nanking fought in December of 1937 between Japan and China, including its origins and aftermath.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey edit

  • I may or may not come back to do a full review. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
  • The name "Nanjing" should be mentioned and briefly clarified, especially since that's the spelling of the city's article and "Battle of Nanjing" appears with some frequency in a Google Books search
  • It would be helpful to give a capsule history of the Sino-Japanese War—no more than a paragraph, I'd say. The article starts bluntly with the fall of Shanghai and gives the reader no idea what significance that battle had or why the two nations were fighting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Iwane_Matsui.jpg: source link is dead and image is tagged as lacking author info. When/where was this first published?
  • File:Aerial_shot_of_Nanking_city_wall_1930.jpg: source link is dead and when/where was this first published?
  • File%3ABattle_of_China_Nanking.webm: is there a more specific source that could verify the licensing? Same with File%3ANanking_victory_parade.webm
  • File:IJA_tanks_attacked_Nanking_Chonghua_gate.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
  • File:Nanking_Massacre_victims.jpg: source link is dead and the uploader is not the author so the licensing is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added the periods, swapped the first picture for a different one, and deleted the third picture. I specified the original source of the two videos, swapped the second to last photo for a different version, and added source information to the last photo.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • References—
    1. You can make the list of references a lot more compact and elegant if you move the different sources to a separate section, and refer to them only by author and page number here. Example.
    2. A citation covers all the text preceding it in a paragraph. So you don't need a cite after every single sentence. For eg: the "On November 15, near the end..." para needs just one Kasahara ref at the end.
  • Images—avoid placing images in such a way that text gets sandwiched between them.
  • Prose—several overlong sentences should be split in two, and much redundancy and repetitiveness can be removed. Examples.

This is a very interesting article; I'll try to return for a more substantial review.—indopug (talk) 05:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Cobblet edit

I have grave concerns about whether this article can be considered "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" per criterion 1c, since it relies nearly exclusively on Japanese and Western sources for a battle that took place on Chinese soil. For an article related to such a controversial and culturally sensitive subject as the Nanjing massacre I think a very high standard needs to be met in this regard. Cobblet (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of the English language sources did consult Chinese language sources in their own citations. The sources written by Masahiro Yamamoto and David Askew in particular used a large number of Chinese language sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's enough for the article to be considered "thorough" or "representative" in this respect. It's difficult to assess whether all significant views were represented fairly when Chinese perspectives on the course of the battle are rarely cited directly or even indirectly. For instance, Li Junshan's 為政略殉: 論抗戰初期京滬地區作戰 (p. 241–243), citing Tan Daoping (譚道平), gives an estimate of 30,000 new recruits (nearly double the 16,000 currently given in the article) among the 81,000 defending Chinese troops. Cobblet (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it might be okay if Tan Daoping is his source. Askew's article, which I used a lot, cites Tan Daoping very extensively all throughout his article. There are other featured-level articles which don't cite foreign language sources. For instance, Song dynasty cites no Chinese language sources and Japanese battleship Yamato and Guadalcanal Campaign cite no Japanese language sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, that's irrelevant to whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's featured article criteria at the present time. Note that none of the articles you mentioned have been through FAC or FAR in the last five years. Secondly, my concerns are over whether Chinese perspectives are represented fairly, which is not quite the same as suggesting that Chinese-language sources have to be cited directly, although the latter would go a long way toward showing the former. (The citation to Tan Daoping is on the bottom of the table on p. 243 – the table itself is a detailed list of the number of soldiers and new recruits by army and division. For example it's noted that 80% of the 2nd Army's 18,000 troops were new recruits.) Cobblet (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cobblet:Do you by any chance know of any English or Japanese language sources which give the "Chinese perspective" on the Battle of Nanking? I should have time this week to add them in if you know of any.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, are you really sure Askew's source doesn't qualify as giving the "Chinese perspective"? Askew mentions most of the data you just referred to, though he doesn't agree with all of it. Tan Daoping was a general in the Chinese Army and the figures Tan offers are thus a simple primary source. Askew analyzes Tan's estimates in considerable detail by comparing them to other Chinese figures. If Li Junshan merely copies down Tan's raw figures without analyzing them, then surely Askew is a better source for presenting the Chinese perspective.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'm no historian, so no. I'll note that the Chinese Wikipedia article (which is where I found the figure I mentioned) has a useful number of inline citations to Chinese historians and their work, but I have no idea if any of those sources have been translated.
I appreciate the work you've put into the article and I'm sorry not to be of much help – maybe there's someone on WP:CHINA who knows more about the subject than me and can be of more assistance. But I'm afraid we can't just ignore the Chinese scholarship on such a politically contentious subject. I cringe when I see no Chinese sources quoted among the four "leading estimates" of the size of the Nanjing garrison. I don't doubt what you say about Askew's source selection but there's nothing in the article that shows this. You could, for example, note how Askew arrived at the number of "73,790 to 81,500" Chinese troops which is in line with Tan Daoping's original figures – if Tan's indeed his primary source in this regard, that should be noted explicitly.
Simply asserting that "surely" Askew's analysis must be "better" than a primary source, and thus excluding the latter while not providing any details of Askew's analysis in the article, is insufficient. For example, how did Askew arrive at the number of 16,000 new recruits? Did he take account Tan Daoping's figure of 30,000; if he did, for what reasons did he reject it? Does he (or you, for that matter) subject Japanese sources (e.g. Shūdō Higashinakano, who you've quoted several times; not exactly the most objective of historians) to a similar level of scrutiny? We need answers to these sorts of questions if we're serious about trying to achieve NPOV. Cobblet (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that seems like a good idea and I'll do additional research on it, but it seems likely that this material will ultimately end up in a different article. For instance, while the article Battle of Guadalcanal does include scholarly estimates of the size of the Japanese garrison, it does not include an explanation of how the estimates were calculated or a break-down of the composition of each unit. However, a detailed explanation of how Askew's and Kasahara's combat statistics were calculated is worth including on Wikipedia, and that alone would probably fill at least one whole article, if not several. I will definitely look into this matter further later this year and next year, but I can't help but think that most or all of this will ultimately end up in its own article. A detailed unit-by-unit breakdown of the size of the Nanking Garrison Force could easily fill an article entitled Estimates of the size of the Nanking Garrison Force (which might itself possibly be a subarticle of another article entitled Estimates of Nanking's population in 1937). I will conduct more research on this matter.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask you to provide a detailed order of battle; just an explanation of which sources Askew relied on. But I've now looked at his article myself and have noticed that it actually quotes Tan's numbers I was referring to, in Table 1. The figure of 16,000 you quoted excludes Tan's estimates of the new recruits in the 2nd Army – while these recruits joined at Hankow and did not come from the Nanjing area, I think they should nevertheless be mentioned in the article. Cobblet (talk) 04:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added the information.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But my concern over how representative this article is of all the literature produced on the topic still stands. And the amount of effort it's taken me just to persuade you to add one piece of information you actually had access to all along discourages me from investing the effort of doing a full review of the article at this point. Coverage of issues such as Chiang's mentality and decision-making process before the battle (how did Alexander von Falkenhausen advise him?), the organization and bungling of the breakout attempt, the number of Chinese military casualties (and the issue of how whether people do or do not distinguish such casualties from casualties of the Nanjing massacre), and the overall assessment of the battle, would benefit from access to Chinese sources. I oppose promotion of the article until there is evidence that the work of Chinese and particularly Taiwanese historians (e.g. the official ROC history – see this volume of the 國民革命軍戰役史; and I've already brought up Li Junshan's work) has been consulted and their findings incorporated into the article where appropriate. If the work of massacre-deniers such as Higashinakano is to be cited uncritically, research from those who stand at the opposite end of the spectrum needs to be represented as well. Cobblet (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never had access to the source until you mentioned it in your last post. Askew only mentioned the 16,000 from Nanking, not the 14,000 from Hankou. Also, Higashinakano is not cited for anything related to the massacre, just for some basic uncontroversial facts relating to the battle which can be conveniently cited to him since his book is in English. I don't really think this issue should be seen as one that pits a Western/Japanese perspective against a Chinese perspective on the "opposite end", because most of the recent scholarship on the battle is fairly objective. However, if all you mean by "opposite end" are massacre affirmationists, then I think all the sources cited in the article except for Higashinakano are massacre affirmationists, not that it matters very much for this article anyway which is not specifically about the Nanking Massacre.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information about von Falkenhausen's stance. If there's any more specific information that you would like in the article I will certainly add it. Incidentally, I did consult the official ROC history, but it was not very detailed so I didn't bother to cite it. All the information from the official history was covered in much more detail by others sources like Tokushi Kasahara's book.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh one more thing, all the combat statistics in the article include only battle casualties, not victims of the Nanking Massacre. The expression used in the article is "killed in combat", and surely a reader of this article would not conflate "killed in combat" with "massacred". It's true that not every definition of "killed in combat" is exactly the same, but that's an issue for a different article.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not true; Askew's article quoted it directly per my previous comments. And you cannot lump together the wide spectrum of views among all Japanese partial-deniers and non-deniers into the same group, let alone draw a comparison between their views and the official Chinese stance. If everyone agreed on the basic facts of the battle, estimates of the size of the ensuing massacre would not vary as widely as they do – the history of Nanjing as a whole gets told very differently when one is trying to justify a casualty figure of 40,000 vs. a figure of 300,000.
I don't see a need to cite Higashinakano on "basic uncontroversial facts" any more than I see a need to cite Iris Chang on such things, and the presence of citations from one extreme end and absence from the other reinforces the seeming lack of neutrality that is my basic concern. Frankly, from what I've read I don't think I'd even trust Hata to be an objective source, let alone Higashinakano – I cannot take someone seriously as a historian if they disbelieve estimates of casualties higher than their own simply because the higher figures seem "unnatural" to them (since when do massacres have to be "natural"?), as Hata does in The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable; his methodology boils down to picking the number that feels right to him, and I have to wonder if that's how he handles all the facts he presents.
I see now that Askew and Yamamoto do incorporate Chinese primary and secondary sources into their work when discussing at least some of the topics I've alluded to, and would recommend citing the original sources indirectly via Askew and Yamamoto where possible (actually this should be done whether the sources are Chinese or not). By providing the original Chinese sources in addition to Askew and Yamamoto you avoid giving the impression that the article is based almost completely on Japanese and Western scholarship, which is the impression I got from looking at the current list of citations. The reader should not have to take your word for it that this article represents a comprehensive survey of the literature; it should be made as self-evident as possible. Cobblet (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Askew's article does not mention any specific figures about how many came from Hankou. When it comes to the battle, it's only the numbers that are sometimes controversial, not the facts of the battle itself. Also, I'm not so sure it would be advisable to cite the original Chinese sources for Askew and Yamamoto, because in the majority of cases the original sources are primary sources, primary sources like Tan Daoping for instance. Wikipedia tends to discourage the direct citing of primary sources, so I think it would be better if we stuck to the secondary ones. Furthermore, I don't think deleting the few citations to Hata's works would improve the impartiality of the article, because Hata's work is widely noted for its impartiality. The Chinese-American historian Daqing Yang noted that Hata's research on the massacre is the most impartial ever written. Marius Jansen deemed Hata's work the best scholarship ever written on the massacre.
I will delete the citations to Higashinakano, though incidentally I added in many of the citations to Higashinakano only because another user named Miracle dream insisted that I add them into the article in order to improve the article's neutrality. Neither I nor any other user was able to deter him, so I ultimately had no choice but to add it in. It did seem strange to me to add Higashinakano in in order to improve the article's impartiality, but by the same token it also seems strange that you want me to improve the article's impartiality by deleting Hata, the most impartial historian to write on the subject, and adding primary sources which are quite often not permitted by Wikipedia rules.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 59 is still to Higashinakano. And your continued inability to read what's in Askew's article astounds me – look at Table 1 as well as the first line of page 164. You're as much entitled to your personal opinion of Hata as I am to mine, but I can't believe you have the temerity to suggest that his impartiality is unquestionable when you yourself have noted otherwise. I'm not asking you to quote primary sources in vacuo, but with the support of secondary sources such as Askew and Yamamoto using the format given in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which is entirely acceptable on Wikipedia. Frankly I'm getting the impression that some of your latest comments were not written in good faith. I shouldn't have to make you correctly read the source you've cited eleven times, and I'm really not impressed by you trying to tell me there are "rules" that prevent you from dealing with NPOV issues. Cobblet (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I missed the table, but the first line of page 164 in Askew's does not say that at all. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article you cited above does note that Ikuhiko Hata is widely regarded as the best and most impartial historian on the subject, so I don't know what you're talking about in that regard. At any rate, I don't think you're being very clear about where the NPOV issues are. The "Chinese perspective" is amply included in the article, just not by using Chinese language sources. Rather, it uses impartial works of English and Japanese language scholarship which present all sides equally. If you were more clear about where the NPOV issues are, it would help me make further edits. For instance, you wanted more coverage of "Chiang's mentality and decision-making process", but what part of this section is NPOV? I could provide more information on "Chiang's mentality and decision-making process", just like I could provide more information on any topic(within limits of course, to prevent the article from becoming too long), but I wouldn't know whether or not the details would improve the neutrality because I don't know where the neutrality issue is to begin with. Does this section portray Chiang in too negative of a light? Does it portray him in too positive of a light? Does it portray those who disagreed with his decision in an inappropriate manner? I definitely could add more details to this section, but I wouldn't know whether or not the details would improve neutrality unless I knew what the neutrality problem is. It's the same issue with adding more details about how Askew calculated the size of the Nanking Garrison Force. I guess I could summarize a few dozen of the sources he used, but would that actually improve the neutrality? Just adding more details doesn't necessarily improve neutrality, and you still haven't told me what exactly the neutrality problems are with the three estimates provided.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you still can't comprehend the meaning of "In addition, according to T’an, 80% of the Second Army consisted of new recruits. These joined the Army in Hankow before reaching Nanking." Whatever. And you are either forgetting or ignoring your own words "By contrast, Takuji Kimura has criticized Hata as a "minimizer" of the atrocity... and Herbert Bix has described him as "the most notorious" of the "partial deniers" of the Nanking Massacre."

I'm repeating myself now, but I want it demonstrated clearly that Chinese sources have been consulted in the article, using indirect citations of them via Askew and Yamamoto if this is the best we can do. As far as I'm aware, the actions and words ascribed to Chiang and his circle come from Chinese testimonies: give the original sources of these testimonies through citations to Askew and Yamamoto or any other historian that quotes from them.

When you ask me, "Does this section portray Chiang in too negative of a light? Does it portray him in too positive of a light? Does it portray those who disagreed with his decision in an inappropriate manner?", my answer is "I don't know, because you don't tell me whether Yamamoto made up the statements on his own or if he got them from other sources that you haven't told me about." Right now statements like "Chiang insisted fervently on mounting a sustained defense of Nanking" or "had become increasingly agitated" rely solely on a citation to him. A reader without access to his work could construe this as a smear job by a Japanese historian trying to make Chiang look like an idiot and a madman, because you have not given the Chinese sources upon which Yamamoto based these statements. Do you see how without the appropriate citations, it's really easy to question the neutrality of many of the statements in the article in a similar fashion?

I would like every interpretation of a fact concerning the battle to cite the primary source originally making that interpretation as well as secondary sources supporting that interpretation. When I speak of meeting a "very high standard" with respect to criterion 1c, this is the kind of work I mean. With just citations to Japanese/Western secondary sources it is impossible to determine the degree to which the article satisfies NPOV – you've asked me repeatedly in this discussion to take it on your word that it does, but you've also clearly shown your word to not be very reliable.

So again, with regards to the garrison figures, I'd want to know the original sources each historian used to derive their numbers. If Askew's research is more extensive than that of others, say so and explain briefly how that's the case. I would characterize his work as essentially a slight downward revision of Tan's estimates. Ditto with battle casualties. Ditto with how the Chinese breakout was (mis)handled.

One more note, again on the neutrality of the chosen sources and how they've been presented – Durdin's journalism and the direct quote from him in particular portrays the Chinese as not just being routed, but embarrassed and humiliated. No doubt the fall of Nanjing was a catastrophic tragedy; but I have never heard the Chinese themselves describe it as an embarrassment in the same vein as events like the unequal treaties or the Boxer Rebellion or the Mukden Incident – as the article shows elsewhere, they were aware of the risks they were taking and I don't see evidence of them being surprised by the outcome. Durdin may be an accurate reflection of how the West perceived the course of events at the time, but the way you've chosen to present his quote on its own and without any counterpoint is again cringe-inducing. I suggest omitting the hyperbolic first sentence of the quote (good for selling papers in December 1937; bad for Wikipedia to present 77 years later – Durdin's no historian) and moving the rest of it into the "Aftermath and assessment" section. Cobblet (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well alright. It will take me some time to implement this change though. It seems strange to me though, that the article needs to mention every primary source on which the facts were based. I'm not aware of any other featured level article, actually I'm not aware of any article at all on Wikipedia, which takes the time to explain all the primary sources which historians used to write their works. Up to now I was under the impression that if a history book was deemed a reliable source, then it was not necessary to explain the primary sources that the historian used in order to compose his research. But okay, I will gather up my sources and gradually add in all the primary source documentation they used.CurtisNaito (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt it is an enormous task. But I'm not aware of anyone else trying to write one of "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer" on a topic this controversial. Your work will be "used by editors as an example for writing other articles" on similarly controversial topics. The Chinese government feels compelled to censor Wikipedia precisely because of articles like this one. It's a massive responsibility. Cobblet (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm gradually working on it, but I might already be getting close to the limit of what I can do. The books by Tokushi Kasahara and Yoshiaki Itakura include a list of primary and secondary sources consulted, but very few in-line citations referring to exactly which ones they used for a given paragraph. Thankfully, Askew and Yamamoto have plenty of citations on every page, but with them I often check the citations and find a lengthy list of five or more primary sources. For the sake of brevity, I've just been choosing a couple of what seemed to me to be the most important ones to mention by name, and then noting that a variety of other primary sources were also used on top of those ones.CurtisNaito (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this stage

  • Lots of work has clearly gone into this, but I have some concerns, so am opposing at this stage.
  • The prose could do with a decent copyedit, e.g.
  • "By December 9 they had reached the last line of defense, the Fukuo Line, behind which lay Nanking's fortified walls. On December 10 Matsui ordered an all-out attack on Nanking, and after less than two days of intense fighting Chiang decided to abandon the defense. Before fleeing, Tang ordered his men to launch a concerted breakout of the Japanese siege, but by this time Nanking was largely surrounded and its defenses were at the breaking point.", for example, has the repetition of "defense" in three subsequent sentences.* "
  • " the Japanese government at first kept strong limits on the area of fighting " - reads, to me, somewhat awkwardly.
  • "Within Nanking, the Japanese units on mopping-up duty " read very informally for an encyclopaedic article.
  • Some of the images seem to lack US tags, for example File:Iwane Matsui 01.jpg. There's a Japanese copyright tag there, for example, but no tag showing why it is free for use under US copyright law.
  • I wasn't convinced that File:Battle of Nanking 1937.jpg fitted well in an English-language, Featured Article - I simply can't understand what the map is trying to tell me as it's not in a script I can read.
  • The "Mopping-up operations and the Nanking Massacre" has three images in a three-paragraph section, and becomes a jumble of overlapping images and sandwiched text on my screen, contrary to the MOS guidance. Other sections have a significant number of right-justified images, producing a "wall of images" along the right hand side.
  • There's a lack of metric/imperial conversions. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all the above recommendations.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I appreciate the nominator is working to resolve issues but the review has been open a month and seems quite a way from achieving consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Per FAC instructions, pls allow a minimum of two weeks before nominating this again, or any other article, taking the time to work on the points raised above. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2015 (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) 01:24, 26 July 2015 [4].

Typhoon Nabi edit

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a powerful and damaging typhoon over 10 years ago. I noticed that it could be a ten year anniversary storm in a few months, so I wanted to nominate it. Other hurricane editors agree it's likely the best source of information for this particular typhoon, which I believe is one of the most important criteria for an FAC. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:SuperTyphoonNabi.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "winds equivalent to that of a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. By contrast, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) estimated peak 10 minute winds of 175 km/h (110 mph)". A contrast should be of two things by the same standard, not a scale with a wind speed.
  • "a high school football game on Okinawa was canceled" I doubt whether this is significant enough to mention compared with the other effects.
  • Hah, I had a feeling. I just included it because there wasn't too much info for okinawa. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gusts reached 72 km/h (45 mph) at the international airport on Guam, the highest in all of 2005." Is this significant? It does not seem high compared with wind speeds elsewhere.
  • True, but we usually mention whatever meteorological statistics we have for each territory. If this was in the Atlantic, for example, we'd include wind gusts in Bermuda, even if they weren't that strong. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The storm ultimately ended up bypassing the island, sparing the strongest winds and producing gusts of 85 km/h (53 mph).[" "sparing the strongest winds" sounds odd.
  • OK, I switched it around to "the storm's strongest winds bypassed the island". Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • slope failure redirects to landslide but maybe still worth linking.
  • "heavy rainfall flooded several rivers," Can you flood a river. I would say caused rivers to overflow.
  • I wasn't sure if they overflowed or not, so I just said "increased levels". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • overflown river - Wiktionary defines overflown as the past participle of overfly.
  • "Closed markets and decreased supplies caused the price of beef to reach record levels following the typhoon" Presumably in Iwakundam, but this should be clarified.
  • "On November 8, nearly two months after the dissipation of Typhoon Nabi, President George W. Bush declared a major disaster declaration for the northern Marianas islands." No change needed, but is it normal for it to take so long to declare a disaster?
  • Sometimes it's longer. Usually there is a territorial assessment, which is sent to FEMA. Unfortunately, they were rather busy in 2005 ;) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "damage" is repeated excessively, but this is probably unavoidable as I cannot think of a good synonym.
  • Yea, that's kinda a perennial problem with cyclone articles. It needs to be a word that is stronger than "affected" (which literally means that 1 mph winds could be reported in a region) but not so severe as "destroy" (for which there are many synonyms). It's a peculiar word for which there aren't many synonyms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed these comments! Thanks so much for the review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment edit

I'm afraid that after remaining open almost six weeks we still have quite some way to go before achieving enough commentary and support for promotion, so will archive this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2015 [5].

Ladislaus I of Hungary edit

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 11th-century King of Hungary who consolidated the Christian monarchy. He is considered as "the incarnation of the late-medieval Hungarian ideal of chivalry". Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- Borsaka, per FAC instructions, when a review has been archived you're expected to wait two weeks before nominating any other article (not just the same one), unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. We hadn't caught this one before it attracted some commentary so will leave it open, but pls follow the instructions in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, sorry for it. I did not notice the rule you referred to above. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but not without issues. If you're using a PC, click the "Ctrl" and "F" buttons simultaneously. In the little search box that appears at top right, enter the word "according". You've used this word 30 times. You need to inject variety, style and a bit of panache; you must avoid repetition.

For example:

    • 1. According to the Illuminated Chronicle, King Solomon took refuge in the Holy Roman Empire.
    • 2. The Illuminated Chronicle describes how King Solomon sought refuge in the Holy Roman Empire, observing how the king ...
    • 3. The Illuminated Chronicle supports this thesis and discusses at length King Solomon's journey to the Holy Roman Empire. Chapter XXX, for example, mentions the king's ...
    • 4. King Solomon then fled his homeland to seek refuge in the Holy Roman Empire, an episode recounted in great detail in the Illuminated Chronicle.
    • 5. The Illuminated Chronicle expands on commentary provided by other contemporary sources, observing that King Solomon not only sojourned en route in France but also ...
    • 6. A wealth of information about King Solomon's flight to the the Holy Roman Empire is provided in the Illuminated Chronicle: chapter XXX, for example, notes that ...
    • 7. The king's journey to the Holy Roman Empire is the focus of several chapters in the Illuminated Chronicle: chapter XXX, in particular, offers invaluable commentary on Solomon's ...
    • 8. While King Solomon's travails en route to the the Holy Roman Empire are recorded in the Illuminated Chronicle, many present-day historians have argued that ...
      • Singora, thank you for your review and suggestions. I will try to modify the text, although it would be difficult, taking into account WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The deal, very simply, is that you can't use the construction "according to" 30 times in an article this size. The problem has nothing to do with original research. Your prose -- as it stands -- it sub-standard. Any reasonably competent newspaper, magazine or journal editor would throw it out. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back tomorrow and perhaps offer more feedback.

Notes RE: Bibliography Singora (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. Just noticed that while all books show the publisher, none show the place of publication. This needs to be added.
    • Yes, you are right. The place of publication is never shown. According to WP:CITE, the city of publication can be added, but it is only an option. I would prefer not to add. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Go with the flow. Everyone else adds the place of publication. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, but I think that all sources cited can be identified based on the data provided in the "Sources" section. Providing additional information would not significantly improve the "user-friendliness" of the article. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. The The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles (Gesta principum Polonorum) is an early 12th century source. It's very old, but surely secondary rather than primary.
    • I think The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles is clearly a primary source: it is a chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're wrong, but I won't argue. Seek clarification from a guy called JohnBod. He seems to understand these things. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnbod:, I would highly appreciate your comments on the above issue. Is The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles a primary source? Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. A few references (the Illuminated Chronicle, for example) are not linked to the bibliography.
    • Yes, none of the primary sources are linked to the bibliography. Primary sources can rarely be "forced" into the citation templates. In order to be consequent, I would avoid to link any of them. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about "forcing". Just use the correct templates. All citations can be linked to the bibliography. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would be really grateful if you could provide an example. For instance, the Illuminated Chronicle looks especially problematic for me. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes RE: Structure Singora (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. I would encourage you to add a section entitled Historical sources. See, for example, Spanish conquest of Guatemala. You could use this section to introduce primary sources and acquaint readers with a few of the more scholarly secondary sources.
Thank you for your suggestion. My concern is that this section could easily be against WP:NOR. As far as I know there is no scholarly works dedicated to the historians who wrote of Ladislaus's life. I have no information of any scholarly works of the primary sources of Ladislaus's life either. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I disagree, but good luck with your nomination. Singora (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

  • File:Béla_elnyeri_a_koronát.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info
  • File:King_St._Ladislaus.jpg is claimed as own work, but also lists an author who is not the uploader
  • File:Derzs4.jpg is claimed as own work but the author is not the copyright holder
  • File:Laszlo-Coronation-ChroniconPictum.jpg needs a US PD tag (easiest just to change life+70 to life+100)
  • File:Zaruke_hrvatskog_kralja_Zvonimira_Celestin_Medović.JPG needs a US PD tag and is not own work
  • File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: where is this data from?
  • File:LaszloOradea.jpg needs a US PD tag and should also include the photographer's license
  • File:Szent_László_legenda_4.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fakirbakir, can I seek your assistance? Köszönet. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this review has stalled without sufficient commentary to determine consensus so will be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2015 [6].

United States v. Ramsey (1926) edit

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first murder investigation on an Indian Reservation by what would later become the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I believe that it meets the criteria for featured article. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • This one will make a great TFA ... Native Americans, the Supreme Court, the genesis of the FBI, a crime investigation ... this is going to appeal to a broad range of readers.
  • "United States ... United States ... United States": opinions differ on WP. Outside WP, it's no contest. U.S. (or US) has more support as the adjective (with specific exceptions). I made the edit.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Would suggest making the map slightly larger
  • File:Brown_hale.jpg: when/where were these images first published? Image description states pre-1923 but gives no details. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Increased map to 400px.
  • I'm not sure, but since Brown was killed in 1921, it had to be prior to 1923. The photo is from the FBI files on the case. GregJackP Boomer! 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had to be taken prior to 1923, but need not have been published then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I hadn't thought of that. What should I do to fix it? GregJackP Boomer! 03:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to track down either the original publication or more details about the source - this site attributes the images to fbi.gov, so you might be able to find some information there. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked there, no luck. I'll keep looking, but until then, I've removed the photo. GregJackP Boomer! 17:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm concerned at the extent to which this article relies on primary sources. Steve Smith (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steve Smith, I'm sorry, I'm not clear on exactly what your concern is. MOSLAW provides that Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. While primary sources are more "accurate", secondary sources provide more context and are easier on the layperson. Where primary and secondary sources conflict factually, the primary source should be given priority. Here, I have tried to make sure that every time I used a primary source I also used a secondary source for the same fact. For example, there are several laws dealing with Indians which are cited, and in each of these there is also a cite to either Kappler's book or another secondary source. The same thing where a case is cited, for example at fn47 the Ramsey case is cited, along with Donald Fixico's book. The use of both types of sources is comparable to Ex parte Crow Dog, United States v. Lara, and Menominee Tribe v. United States; all of which are featured articles and all of which have been Today's Featured Article on the main page. If you have some specific concerns I would be happy to address those. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2015 [7].

Murder of Dwayne Jones edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an anti-LGBT motivated attack. The murder made headline news within Jamaica and attracted further press attention abroad. International human rights organisations highlighted the killing as a symptom of the problems surrounding the lack of LGBT rights on the island. This article failed to receive much attention when it was first nominated for FAC last year, but hopefully will receive more now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BenLinus1214 edit

Hi, this is my first FAC review, but I do GAs regularly, so this shouldn't be difficult. Let's get started!

  • The non-free image in the infobox doesn't have a very specific rationale. I'm not questioning the appropriateness of the image, but the rationale should be better.
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, I would replace "gender" with "biological sex" unless you feel a reason to use the former.
    • Part of the problem here is that we have no reliable source stating what Jones' biological sex was; I assume given the context of the events that he was biologically male, but lack any source that expressly states that. Conversely, given the fact that his name was "Dwayne" and his close friends referred to him using masculine pronouns, we can assume with some certainty that he identified as male. Thus I think that "gender" is more appropriate here, but am open to further discussion on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it's best to find a wording that avoids using either term? Maybe "when discovered"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've gone with the following: "When a number of men at the party discovered that he was not a cisgender female, they confronted and attacked him." Do you think that that works ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I keep a database of articles on the Caribbean. Here I have found two articles that specifically state that she was a female but biologically male. This one from Policy Mic and this one from Maurice Tomlinson, possibly the best known Jamaican LGBT activist. Even though Maurice's piece states specifically Dwayne stated "I am a girl," and he is a RS, it is stated in a blog, which probably is not a RS for a FA. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about making a change to the article that replaces all male pronouns to female ones when referring to Jones throughout this article. Yes, they did say "I am a girl" when a mob confronted them, but given the context I really don't think that we can be sure that this was a genuine act of self-identification, given that it could well be an attempt to avoid being violently attacked. While I am 100% in favour of ensuring that Jones is described using their own gendered pronouns, I think it very important to note that Jones' close friend Khloe – a transwoman – was quoted as referring to "him". Given that Khloe would not only have had a very close understanding of Jones but that she would also have a strong appreciation of transgender issues, would she not have been cautious in ensuring that she used the pronoun that Jones preferred ? Given this, I think it more likely that Jones actually identified with male pronouns, at least at the time of their death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about the singular they? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you didn't mean for it to appear otherwise. As I said lower down I think you have masterfully addressed a situation that was vague to all parties involved. I don't know that there is another way you could address it other than as you have done. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "did not charge anyone" feels a little informal and does not include the important information that no one was even arrested. Especially given that the set of perpetrators is very clear, I would include that as well.
    • I've added that they did not arrest anyone, although have refrained from including the statement that the identify of the perpetrators is clear, because none of our sources actually state that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article specifically states witnesses claimed they could not identify the perpetrators [8] SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was picked up by media" is sort of informal--maybe "was widely discussed in media".
    • Changed to "reported on by media", as I am not sure that the story was necessarily "widely discussed" in UK and US media. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a big deal, but instead of titling it "early life", maybe it could be "background"? (in articles like Murder of Leigh Leigh)
    • Personally I prefer "early life" here as I believe that it better reflects the section's contents but am open to the opinions of others on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it clear (per your source) that Jones was probably kicked out of the house when he began to express his sexuality openly.
    • I'm a little hesitant on this point. There are two sources testifying to the fact that Jones was kicked out of his father's home, but only one makes the motive of this explicit, stating that the father threw him out "when he began to flaunt his sexuality"; however given that we don't explicitly know what Jones' sexuality was that presents us with a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no in-wiki links on your references throughout—when they apply, maybe you could add links to pages?
  • Make the first sentence in the "Murder" section less convoluted and more active: "he dressed as a girl and attended the "Henessey Sundays" dance party with Keke and Khloe at a bar in the Irwin area."
  • Be more specific about what the "Henessey Sundays" party is.
  • Does that sentence need four cites after it?
    • I don't think that it does any harm leaving them in, although am open to other opinions on this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second sentence, there might be some helpful links you could put, such as starting the sentence with "Jones successfully passed as a girl at the party".
  • Also, the Montego Bay picture would better fit the "Early life"/"Background" section than the Murder one.
  • Where's the bit about the friend attending church with Jones?
  • There's a sentence in both footnote 2 and footnote 5 about one of the perpetrators using a lighter to examine the size of Jones's feet--could you put that in?
  • "batty boy" is not a familiar epithet to many--of course, readers can just click the link, but it would be nice to specify that it is a Jamaican insult.
  • "at which point" would be better than "at which"
    • This seems to have been changed as I cannot find any instance of "at which point" in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify who the report that no one helped Jones was from—Maurice Tomlinson, a Jamaican LGBT rights activist, per your source.
    • I'm not entirely sure if this is necessary, and worry that it might impeded the flow of the prose a little. Again, alternate opinions welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Midnightblueowl: That's true, but if you don't want to put that in, you should probably change the wording of the sentence. "There were reports" makes it sound a little vague if you don't put who reported this.
        • But it says "there were no reports" rather than "there were reports" here. So adding Thompson here would entail saying "Thompson stated that there were no reports...", which to my mind is just adding unnecessary information at this juncture in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning of the investigation part, you could put a quote, as one is in your source.
    • Again, I'm not entirely convinced on this one because the quote from the police officer conveys pretty much exactly the same information as that which is already in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "four homeless youths" are you talking about?
  • Also put that Tomlinson set up Dwayne's House.
    • As far as I can gather from the citation used, Tomlinson did not actually establish the Dwayne's House charity himself, but rather only commented that he was "working with" them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tomlinson was heavily involved. This article states he was the "person pushing hardest for the shelter’s creation" but I believe the person who is actually functioning as the coordinator is Yvonne McCalla Sobers. [9] SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional link SusunW; I have added in to the article as an additional citation as to the establishment of the Dwayne's House charity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources state where Keke was during all this?
  • For a more descriptive topic sentence on the "Reaction" section, I would expand it to something along the lines of "Jones' murder made headline news across Jamaica, drawing criticism from human rights groups and others and renewing the debate over LGBT rights in Jamaica."
    • My concern with this change would be regarding citations. We have one citation that states very clearly that "Jones' murder made headline news across Jamaica" but not ones that clearly express the latter information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It did make headlines across the Caribbean. It did not cause any groups except those already working with the LGBT communities to criticize other than a few personal statements written as opinion pieces or social media posts by known activists. Can't provide documents, because there aren't any actual groups who expressed outrage other than JFlag, Barbados Glad, Unibam, etc. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image caption, link to Portia Simpson-Miller.
  • I think the image is good, but could you mention something in the text from footnotes 13 and 14 about Miller and maybe group all three together? Currently, you only have something about Miller cited to footnote 17.
    • I'm a little hesitant about expanding the caption too much, but if you have any specific suggestions I'd be happy to discuss them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few of the abbreviations for organizations aren't necessary, as you don't reference a lot of them again.
    • I have removed the abbreviations from the three instances where they are not repeated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica quote, I would cut it down to make it sound less awkward (e.g. ending it after National Anthem).
    • I have edited this sentence so that this is no longer a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have! :) BenLinus1214talk 17:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BenLinus1214: thank you very much for taking the time to provide these comments. They have clearly enhanced the article in various different ways. If you feel like you would be willing to offer an opinion on whether you would support or oppose this page receiving Featured Article status then that would also be very helpful! Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any of that helps you. I think you have covered the situation quite well, given that even those close to the victim were not comfortable assigning labels. SusunW (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my comments have been addressed in a timely manner and I think that it would make a very good featured article. BenLinus1214talk 20:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments form Curly Turkey edit

  • Feel free to undo any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments:
  • then made homeless by his father: kind of awkward wording
    • I've altered the wording to the following: "Jones was bullied in school and then forced out of his family home by his father at age 14. Homeless, he moved into a derelict house..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When his gender was discovered: I'm not as well-versed as I could be in these issues, but this should be "biological sex" rather than "gender", no?
    • This issue was previously raised by BenLinus1214 above, so I have discussed it there - feel free to join in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was beaten, stabbed, shot, and run over by a car: the rest of the article avoids the serial comma—you'll have to settle on one style
  • The event made newspaper headlines in Jamaica: only the papers?
    • While it is probably the case that the story was picked up by other forms of news media (it definitely appears on websites, for instance), we have an Associated Press source that specifically states that the story made headline news, so I am following their example here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why not just cut it to "made headlines"? The term "headline" is used in the TV news world as well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raised in a impoverished slum in Montego Bay:
    • shouldn't assume readers know that Montego Bay is in Jamaica.
      • I've added a brief few words to that sentence explaining where the city is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that note, outside of the lead it's never mentioned that he was Jamaican—we get "Jones' murder made headline news across Jamaica" in the "Reaction" section, which is the first mention of Jamaica. The lead is supposed to summarize the body (and thus be independent of it), so the fact that he was Jamaican needs to be made explicit in the body.
    • Is it known if he was born in Montego Bay, or only raised there?
      • I am unaware of any information specifying exactly where he was born. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • his effeminate behavior:
    • do we have examples?
      • Unfortunately I don't think so; I would assume that this is a reference to perceived effeminate mannerisms but lack any sources to testify to this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the wording could be seen as POV—we might want something like "behaviour regarded as effeminate" (or "perceived as effeminate", as you have in the lead).
    • I believe Jamaican English uses Commonwealth orthography (as you do with the dates), so I imagine this should be "behaiour" (ditto "neighbours", etc)
      • Agreed; my original script probably would have had Commonwealth orthography, so an editor more familiar with American spelling presumably made the changes at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones was known as "Gully Queen" among friends, and he won a local dancing competition: the wording seems to imply a relation between dance competitions and being called something like "Gully Queen". I have no idea what "gully" means—can we get a gloss?
    • "Gully" refers to life on the impoverished urban streets, and has similar connotations to terms like "gangsta". However I'm not entirely sure how to incorporate this into the article however, as I fear that it might constitute original research. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Gully Queens" refers to a group of Jamaicans who live in the sewer. Gully is a storm drainage ditch. for information here or here SusunW (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this; I have added the latter source with the additional information to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • who believed Jones to be biologically female: do you know anything good to link to here? Biological sex just links to Sex.
  • they accosted him: including the girl?
  • He was beaten, stabbed, shot and run over by a car.: Holy shit!
  • the Orange Main Road: is that article supposed to be there?
  • "Bc, the boy good! I'm catch me for true": the gloss is about as opaque as the original—can we get a gloss of the gloss?
    • Given that I have offered the best translation as I could, I think it best if this passage is simply removed altogether, unless there is someone who is fluent in Jamaican slang around ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The boy was really talented and truly fooled me would be my take on it. SusunW (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving "JFJ", "QCJ", and "HRW" raises the expectation that we'll see these later in the article, but we don't
    • I have removed the abbreviations from the three instances where they are not repeated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "find a common ground undergirded by the principles espoused in our National Anthem, "teach us true respect for all" and National Pledge".": something screwy's going on here
    • I appreciate that it's not the clearest piece of prose that I've ever read, but it is a direct quote and thus think it best if it remains in its current form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, at least one that that needs fixing is the secoond-to-last quotemark—where is the opening quotemark? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that BenLinus has also raised exactly the same point, I think it best if I conceded to the two of you and change the prose in this sentence. I have now done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your comments Curly! If you feel able to give this article your support for FA status then that would be greatly appreciated, but no pressure if you don't feel it worthy at present. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment edit

Sorry but despite being list under FAC urgents for some time, this hasn't attracted enough commentary for consensus to be determined and has been quite for several weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2015 (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) 14:26, 16 July 2015 [10].

Czech Republic edit

Nominator(s): Itsyoungrapper (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Czech Republic. I think it's not of the best articles on worldwide Wikipedia. It's good sourced, imaged and described article. Thank you Itsyoungrapper (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest early closure Sorry Itsyoungrapper, but from a quick skim of the article the FA criteria are clearly not met, and the article would require substantial amounts of work to meet them. For instance, it has large amounts of unreferenced materiel, including entire paragraphs: one of the FA criteria is that all content is cited to reliable sources. I also note that the history of this country since its formation in 1993 in its current form is only accorded about two-thirds of a paragraph, which is clearly inadequate and that some data is greatly out of date (for instance, the figure on the country's military budget is for 2006). Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2015 (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) 15:01, 16 July 2015 [11].

Juan Manuel de Rosas edit

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) • Astynax talk[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Welcome back, guys. First question: were you able to resolve the copyright issues mentioned in the last FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As was common, Rosas formed a private militia, enlisting his workers, and took part in the factious disputes that had led to endless civil wars in his country. ... Rosas became the quintessential caudillo, as provincial warlords in the region were known.": If the reader has to guess which people this was common for, they might guess wrong. Also, I can't tell if 1, 2 or all 3 things you mention were common. For instance, if you're saying that the first two things were common for caudillos, maybe something along the lines of: Rosas enlisted his workers in a private militia, as was common for caudillos (provincial warlords), and took part in the factious disputes that had led to endless civil wars in his country. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Dank. It's very good to see you again and willing to lend a hand here. Rural proprietors in Argentina had private armies (usually to protect them against Indian attacks or to meddle into their country's civil wars). I followed your suggestion and changed the text. The only problem left about the copyright issue was in regard to the last picture, a photo of Rosas' monument. Honestly, I had forgotten about it. I'm going to ask about the photo on Commons to find out what can be done. If indeed the photo can't stay, we'll simply remove it from the article. --Lecen (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picture can't stay. Argentine law allows for freedom of panorama regarding buildings, but not monuments. I changed the photo for one of Rosas'family vault at the cemetery in Buenos Aires --Lecen (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks much, I'll be back soon-ish. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A very solid and readable storyline. I read this one quickly, but I hope I caught most of what there was to catch. - Dank (push to talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Primer_Conquista_del_Desierto.jpg: what is the given source - a book, an article...?
  • File:Rosas_arenga_a_los_morenos.jpg: redundant to have both life+70 and life+100 - if the latter is correct the former is superfluous
  • File:Juan_Manuel_de_Rosas_exiled.JPG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a book. The original uploader forgot to add more details about it. I fixed the other issues as well. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I think it would be helpful to mention in the lead that when he was born Argentina was a Spanish colony and independence in 1816.
  • "When the Empire of Brazil began aiding Uruguay against Argentina, Rosas declared war in August 1851," I do not like the construction "When..." which implies the reader already knows what is referred to. How about "In 1851 the Empire of Brazil..."
  • "his remains were repatriated by the government" "Peronist government" would be more informative.
  • "Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata" You need to explain the (later) countries this covered.
  • Agustina López de Osornio is in red - is she notable enough for an article?
  • "Rosas was schooled at home, as was then common. Later, at age 8, he was enrolled in the finest private school in Buenos Aires." I would say "Rosas was schooled at home until the age of 8, as was common, and he was then enrolled in the finest private school in Buenos Aires."
  • " The British were defeated in August 1806, but returned in 1807." Maybe " The British were defeated in August 1806, and again when they returned in 1807." (It was an unauthorized expedition, but this is probably not relevant.)
  • "He delved into the production of salted meat" "delved into" is an odd construction. Maybe "He started a business producing salted meat"
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Dudley. I implemented almost all suggestions you made. Please check my edits. However, I didn't add "Peronist" to the lead because I fear that a careless reader might mistake it for "Perón's government". Nor I added the mention that he was born when Argentina was a Spanish colony, because I couldn't find a way into doing it without losing track of what was truly important. I hope you won't mind. --Lecen (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lecen I do not intend to comment further. It is a requirement for FAC that an article is stable, and although I do not know whether it is a formal requirement I would take that to mean that any application to the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed and closed, otherwise editors are reviewing a moving target. It might be better for you to withdraw the nomination and re-nominate once copy editing has been completed.
  • I also have doubts about the balance of the article. The lead presents him as a wholly unsympathetic figure who is a hero to the Fascist right, and yet you say below that he has been honoured by the left-wing Kirchners. This raises the question of whether the article is based principally on sources biased against him. You have also objected to specifying that he was honoured by the "Peronist" government because a careless reader might mistake it for Peron's government. However the term Peronist is constantly used about Argentina on Wikipedia (including in this article below) and elsewhere - it would be impossible to sensibly discuss the country if the word was banned. You might as well ban Marxist and Keynsian on the same grounds. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what do you mean by the article being unstable. I requested help from the copy editor guild to improve the article and an editor volunteered to help, which he did for the past few days. The shift between right-wing Fascists and Leftists in terms of Rosas' adoration is discussed in "Legacy" section. About balance as a whole, anyone who wishes to read a single book about Rosas would know whether I was biased or not when writing the article. Heck, even by taking a brief look at his article in the Britannica. Unfortunately, though, you seem unwilling to go beyond the article's lead, which shows why your argument is full of misconceptions. Patience. Thank you for your time. --Lecen (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stable" is a term used in the FAC guidelines. It means that an article should only be nominated when it is in its final form, and the only changes during the FAC process should be ones made as a result of the FAC discussion. As to your other point, I have read the lead and the legacy section, and I am confused why leaders of the left-wing Justicialist party wish to honour someone who appears to be the opposite of everything they stand for. I think this needs explaining. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Legacy section: "President Carlos Menem decided to repatriate Rosas's remains and take advantage of the occasion to unite the Argentines. Menem believed that if the Argentines could forgive Rosas and his regime, they might do the same regarding the more recent and vividly remembered past." Either you missed it, which is also repeated at the lead, or you didn't read the section as you claim you did. --Lecen (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did read it but forgiving is different from honouring. The South Africans established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to heal the wounds of the past, but they do not honour Verwoerd and put him on postage stamps. Dudley Miles (talk)
Comment: Certainly history is replete with examples of the process of rehabilitation for various political purposes that include both forgiveness and honor. Closer in time to Rosas: Robert E. Lee has been portrayed as everything from traitor, to freedom fighter, to misguided patriot, to champion of so-called states rights over federalism, by both major US political factions at times (and sometimes simultaneously). Lee has at times appeared on stamps, and even on coinage. As to article stability, there will always be editors tweaking for additions/deletions of material, style preferences or perceived clarity, even after gaining FA status. That this occurred during a FAC need not be construed as a stability issue, as there has been no substantive change to the narrative, which remains reflective of the sources. • Astynax talk 16:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- this has been open a month and a half without achieving consensus to promote, and has been quiet for two weeks, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2015 (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) 14:56, 16 July 2015 [12].

Gateway Protection Programme edit

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a refugee resettlement scheme operated by the British government since 2004. A longstanding good article, I unsuccessfully nominated it for FA status some five and a half years ago. After a long break from editing, I returned to Wikipedia recently and saw that the article was in need of updating. New source material had also been published in the meantime, and I have been able to use it to update and expand the article. The article is extremely stable (mainly because few other editors have bothered to edit it, leaving me as almost the sole author, which may be a problem - I don't know). I hope that it covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well-written enough to now be promoted. I stand ready to act to remedy any shortcomings in the article identified during this process. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead links
  • FN17/18 are formatted as a report series, but they're actually conference presentations
  • Be consistent in when you include locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I'm looking into this now. Just a query about your FN17/18 point: I used Template:Cite conference for these, so I'm a bit confused by your comment. Could you clarify? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The issue is distinguishing the conference details from the publication details. You will want to include the editors and ISBN for the proceedings, and I would suggest publisher as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. All of the issues you highlight should now be fixed, although I've posted a question here about why the conference paper citation parameters are appearing in a strange order in the reference list. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No reply there, but I think I've resolved this myself. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

An interesting article. A few comments

  • I made two edits, tweaking the text and removing two dup links
  • In your refs, web copies documents that exist in real life don't need retrieval dates, that's for web only pages
  • The title of the article is understood in headings, I'd suggest "Refugees resettled" instead of "Refugees resettled under the programme" and "evaluation" instead of "Programme evaluation"

I look forward to supporting soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jimfbleak. I'll look to address those points shortly. Thanks for your own edits to the article, too. Do you have a suggestion for an alternative title for the first section heading, Programme details? I agree with the suggestion to remove the redundant "programme", but "Details" as a header doesn't quite work for me. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered about that one, but I agree that "Details" isn't good. There's no point forcing the policy, so I'm happy for it to stand unless anyone else objects. In my own FAs I tend to write very short stubs to avoid redlinks. That's my preference, not policy, and you are under absolutely no obligation to do it, just floating the idea. It may not be worth it for you because most of my stubs are for plants, insects and parasites which, as species, are notable by definition, so one sentence and a ref is enough. That may not be the case with yours. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the other two headings and left the programme details one as it is. I think that I included the red links when I first started working on the article in the hope that they would inspire people to write articles on those topics. I might try to create some stubs at some point, but have a few other articles I want to focus on at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but this review has been open more than six weeks and seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2015 (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) 14:57, 16 July 2015 [13].

Mercedes-Benz CLR edit

Nominator(s): The359 (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating as this candidate received no input before being archived.

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. Mercedes-Benz effectively forgot about these cars in the years since but one has reappeared in recent years. The359 (Talk) 17:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am sorry that you have had to wait so long for review attention. At one time I used to patrol the FAC page for instances of neglect and would attempt to get the review kick-started. I don't have much time to do that now, but I certainly think you have waited long enough. Here are some comments on the first half of the article – I'll complete the review later.

Lead
  • "sport cars" → "sports cars"
  • "campaigned by Mercedes" – I'm not sure what this means, but creating verbs for nouns in this way makes for ghastly prose. Do you mean "promoted"?
  • "Three CLRs were entered for Le Mans..." State the year here.
  • " the drivers were given strict instructions to avoid the instabilities". These instabilities are previously mentioned as "aerodynamic instabilities", which sounds like a design issue rather than a driver's problem. What was he nature of the "strict instructions"?
  • "These incidents..." would be better as "This and earlier incidents..."
  • The remainder of this sentence is tortuously phrased: I suggest "... led Mercedes not only to withdraw its remaining car from the event immediately, but also to cancel..." etc
  • Three cars, ten "notable drivers" listed in the infobox. Did all of them actually get to drive one of the three cars?
Background
  • "a street legal production car" = jargon. Please say in plain English what you mean
  • "refined the CLK GTR platform..." Sorry, but you should be writing for a readership which may lack familiarity with technical expressions. What does "platform" mean in this context?
Development
  • You should open the section by specifically stating that the CLR was developed for the LMGTP category.
  • Rather than using legal terms like "divested" (albeit linked), why not state plainly what happened to the company?
  • "shared its lower half from..." You don't "share from". I think "derived from" is what you want.
  • Is there a link you can provide for "powerplant"?
  • "21,735 mi (34,979 km) had been covered by CLRs" should be recast in active voice: "the CLRs had covered 21,735 mi (34,979 km)"
1999 season
  • I'd reconsider this section title, which is really about plans and personnel rather than the events of the season.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and the rest of my comments:

Practice and qualifying
  • (first line): Redundant wording: "to be allowed to enter the race proper." This is implicit from the earlier part of the sentence. You repeat the same information later on, in "would have to qualify for the race on their lap times".
  • Strange choice of words: "efforts" and "programmes"?
  • Why was the No. 4 CLR involved in prequalifying when it had an automatic entry?
  • I'm getting a little confused. You said earlier that cars "were required to pass through pre-qualifying to be allowed to enter the race proper". But you now say: "Mercedes' three cars were allowed to participate in two days of practice and qualifying in the week leading up to the race in June". So was there further qualifying? (Later): from reading on, I gather that the next "qualifying" session was to determine grid positions; it may be worth clarifying this.
  • "to prepare a pass" is a bit jargony. Why not "to overtake"?
  • I'd delete the unneceaary words " further up the circuit".
  • As a general point, I notice that the formulation "due to" occurs several times in the article. It's one of those phrases that tends to jar with repetition, and it may be worth weeding out one or two.
Warm-up
  • The phrase "The CLR was swarmed by marshals" is a bit tabloidish, and I'm not sure it makes sense anyway; suggest rephrase
  • "instructed to not follow" → "instructed not to follow"
Race

Quite a gripping account, with just a few quibbles:

  • "Mercedes took the race start from the fourth and seventh place grid positions" – why so convoluted? Why not: "Mercedes started the race from the fourth and seventh place grid positions"?
  • "while Bouchut followed in fourth" – better to say he gained two places to achieve fourth position.
  • Why did Schneider not achieve first place when the two Toyotas pit-stopped, since he was in third place behind them?
Aftermath
  • "A Porsche 911 GT1, similar in design to the CLR, suffered a nearly identical accident the year before at Road Atlanta" – needs a "had" before "suffered"
  • "canceled" – my impression is that you are using British spellings, e.g. "programme"
  • "from 2000 onward" → "from 2000 onwards"

Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries on the wait, it's my first FAC so I come with no expectations of a timetable, when it's done it's done.
I've tackled all of the easy bits you listed. I'm not sure if my section title is any better than the one I had before, I'm struggling to think of something more appropriate. I also am not sure where you see ten drivers in the infobox, there are only nine and they are the nine race drivers who all drove the car in practice and qualifying. There was a tenth reserve and test driver listed in the prose but he is not listed in the infobox.
The explanation on pre-qualifying, practice, and qualifying is a bit convoluted, it's been difficult to put it into words. Effectively, in January or so the ACO announces guaranteed entries, previous winners and champions from outside racing series who can participate in the race. Then the ACO receives applications for entry from teams, which always outnumbers the number of spots available in the race (48 at that time). Pre-qualifying is held at the track for a day to whittle down the field to the best applicants, plus the guaranteed entries. However, since Le Mans is a temporary street circuit, you can't test there on your own, so guaranteed entries participate solely to gain testing knowledge on the circuit itself, something that can't be replicated elsewhere. Two weeks later, the 48 cars are allowed two days of sessions (Wednesday and Thursday) which are termed qualifying but effectively can be used for any purpose the teams want. The qualifying grid is determined from the fastest lap over those two days, but the teams have eight hours of track time over those days, so they are used for practice and qualifying at the same time. Besides the brief warm-up on the morning of the start of the race on Saturday, those are the only periods of track time the teams get in the week leading up to the race. This is an unusual procedure for most racing which follows a practice sessions-qualifying session-race format.
The use of the word programme is typical of racing, similar to Space Shuttle program. Here is an article on testing for this year's Le Mans which mentions teams having a programme. I have however removed the word effort from the article. The359 (Talk) 18:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your responses. As I am pretty ignorant of motor racing, I think I'll let a more knowledgeable editor look at the text to determine what further work needs to be done. Ignore my miscounting in the infobox. My impression is that the article is fairly close to FA standard and should get there with just a little more work, but I'll defer making a declaration pending the views of more expert eyes. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a day or two to complete the review.

  • "the design of the CLR's bodywork was pushed much lower to produce less drag": I think this needs to be rephrased. The design wasn't pushed lower; the design was changed so that the bodywork was pushed lower.
  • "Racing partner AMG were": I know in British English (which I assume this article is in) companies are plural, so "AMG were" is correct. Does that mean that it should be "racing partners", not "partner"? I've been out of the UK for so long I can't remember what would sound right in Britain, so please leave this as is if it seems OK to you.
  • "The race was won by the Mercedes' FIA GT rivals Porsche": why "the Mercedes'"?
  • Suggest linking to sprint car racing at the first mention of sprint races.
  • "Mercedes had earned a single guaranteed entry for Le Mans by winning the 1998 FIA GT Championship, which was utilized by Gounon, Tiemann, and Webber in CLR No. 4": suggest rephrasing to bring "entry" closer to the "which" which refers to it. Perhaps "By winning the 1998 FIA GT Championship, Mercedes had earned a single guaranteed entry for Le Mans, which was utilized by Gounon, Tiemann, and Webber in CLR No. 4." I'm also not crazy about "utilized". How about "which was assigned to", since the team that used the entry presumably did not make the decision themselves?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes thus far, but the sprint car racing you link to is not the sprint racing the article refers to. Sprint in this usage is simply to imply an opposite of endurance racing (motorsport). In other words, a race with a length similar to that of a Formula One Grand Prix, or roughly 2 hours, as opposed to the 24 hours for Le Mans. Sprint car racing is entirely different format of motorsport unrelated to sports car racing. There is no real link I can provide for sprint in this context as it is simply a non-endurance race. The359 (Talk) 17:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, I have added or refined several sentences in the article based on an interview with one of the CLR drivers that was published today, so you may have to go back and reread these alterations. The changes are here. The359 (Talk) 19:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All struck except the comment about sprint car racing; I take your point that the link is wrong, but perhaps a footnote could give the explanation you gave me here? More comments tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the ease of understanding, I have removed the word sprint. I have noted that the Petit Le Mans is an endurance, and the Laguna Seca and Las Vegas races are shorter. Hopefully this makes everything much simpler. The359 (Talk) 04:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments. I'll try to spotcheck some sources tonight.

  • "HWA GmbH, the motorsports division of AMG, which later became an independent company in 1999": "later" is redundant since you also give the date. How about "HWA GmbH, the motorsports division of AMG, which became an independent company the following year"?
  • Suggest linking CL-Class.
  • "Displacement was increased from 5.0 L (310 cu in) to 5.7 L (350 cu in) to compensate for the new air restrictor limitations in the LMGTP category,[3] and allowed the motor to produce approximately 600 bhp (450 kW; 610 PS)." The conjunction shouldn't be "and allowed"; if the increase in displacement is the primary cause of the increased power, I'd make it "which allowed"; if there were other reasons for the power increase I'd suggest a period and a couple more explanatory words to introduce the revised power numbers.
  • "nearly 9.1 m (30 ft)": the source actually says "at least 30 ft", so I think this needs to be rephrased. Also it's clear that the accuracy of that figure is no better than within two or three feet, so the decimal point on the metric figure seems unnecessary.
  • "continued on unhindered": "continued on" is redundant. How about "continued apparently unharmed" or "continued with no apparent damage"? I see from the "aftermath" section that there may well have been damage, so it might be worth using a phrase like "no apparent damage" to cue the reader for the later comment. Or if, as is probably more likely, there was indeed damage that was apparent to the team, but it was thought to be insignificant, we could say something like "was able to continue to race"?
  • "Mercedes-Benz immediately addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions before the race had concluded": "immediately" is unnecessary with "before the race had concluded", but I can see why you want it there. How about "Before the race concluded, Mercedes-Benz addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions", or perhaps "Mercedes-Benz immediately (before the race concluded) addressed criticism from other drivers and teams of its decisions"?
  • "Although no conclusion was made by Mercedes": what does "made" mean? Do you mean they published no conclusions, or were they unable to reach a conclusion?
  • I think a couple of the external links could be cut -- the Mercedes-Benz in motorsport link seems reasonable, but why are the others relevant to this article?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed most of the points except linking CL-Class as it is linked in the introduction. Are you suggesting linking it again or did you miss this first mention? See my comments below for addressing the See Also section. The359 (Talk) 16:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK on all the above; I did miss the initial link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment:

  • The first three sentences of the "Preparation" section are unsourced; the next footnote only sources information about Dumbreck.

Once that's fixed I'm ready to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alongside the Dumbreck source I have added specific sources for Lagorce, Lamy, and Heidfeld as the other newcomers to the team to cover their previous racing career, with a single source for the five retained drivers. The359 (Talk) 17:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fine article. A note to the FAC coordinators: I found a couple of minor issues in spotchecking the sources, so it might be good to ask someone to do a little more spotchecking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

I know very little about cars but might be a good judge of accessible prose as a moto-neophyte. I'll make striaghtforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The new cars, known as the CLK GTR, were designed for use both as a racing car and a road car available to the public as part of the series' regulations. - subject goes plural, singular, plural verb then singular noun. Can we use a collective noun ("set", "cohort" or something) for the "cars" as this will make it read better..?
  • I'd link 'transmission'
  • Do we need the See also items - if they are relevant enough, they should be covered in the body of the text surely...and if not, then aren't they a bit tangential to the topic?

Otherwise, reads well so on target for FA status I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the sentence to make everything plural, as it should be, so hopefully it makes more sense now.
Regarding the See Also section, I have removed two of the links. Mercedes-Benz in motorsport is difficult to work into the article as it is the 100+ year history of Mercedes in motorsports, so there is no really relevant link for it in the article as is. I'd consider it similar to a portal link. 1955 Le Mans disaster is relevant as it involves a similar accident at Le Mans in which a Mercedes left the track, killed a lot of spectators, and Mercedes immediately withdrew their cars and stopped racing at Le Mans for several decades. I'd consider it similar to a See Also section on an aircraft accident linking to similar accidents. The359 (Talk) 16:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, every so often there are some that are tricky to shoehorn in yet do benefit from a link, ok support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe that this article is worthy of a promotion to FA. The article is very well written and comprehensive in my opinion. Z105space (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

The image is a derivative of File:Circuitdelasarthe.svg, a public domain image. I don't deal with many derivative works so I'm not sure how exactly to lay that out. The359 (Talk) 15:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I was thinking more about the information conveyed, not the image itself as such. What information is the accident mark based on? And the map of the circuit? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The marks are based on a combination of videos and pictures and accounts in some of the article sourcing. Should I be citing the location of the accidents in the blurb on the thumbnail or on the description of the upload? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the map of the circuit though?The359 (Talk) 15:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the upload page is fine, then the information can be found from wherever the image is linked. As for the circuit, I mean the map itself. Is it based on a published map, and which? FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I did not create the original map, I'm not 100% positive, but I believe the maps used throughout motorsport articles on Wikipedia are all simply drawn from Google Maps or similar satellite images of the circuits. The359 (Talk) 16:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ping the original uploader, AlexJ. Seems he hasn't edited since 2013, so I guess it is ok for now, as long as sources for the crash area are added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded the image to Commons and have basic links to articles that describe the location, although I'm not sure how to cite sourcing on Commons as one would do on Wikipedia. Some of the referencing comes from simple videos and pictures of where the accidents took place and being able to identify where they are on the circuit. The359 (Talk) 01:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is a link, you can just link it like this[14] on Commons. Some might consider the method of marking the accident on the image as "original research", but remember, that is allowed for self-made diagrams and photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image is now sourced then. The359 (Talk) 15:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looks better! FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (recusing coordinator duties) - I apologize for dropping substantial critical commentary on a nomination so far into the process, but I found this to be dense, difficult to read, and awkwardly written. I am moderately familiar with motorsports and I found lots of turns of phrase that are strange to me. I also found things that don't make sense in the given context. I'll try to provide some examples below, but I think this needs a thorough copy-edit by someone fresh who is also familiar with the topic matter.

  • "Designed for ... regulations" just doesn't read well. We would normally write "to meet regulations" or similar.
  • "most notably at the 24 Hours of Le Mans" What causes you to write that? I've read through a couple of times and I'm having trouble picking out where that statement is supported in the body of the article.
  • "The CLR's bodywork was much lower in height" Unclear and imprecise. Less space between the body and the ground, or shorter overall?
  • The word "numerous" is used twice in the lead. I find it to be an unnecessarily vague term, considering the exact numbers are known. Numerous races could be 10 or 100—why leave it to the imagination?
  • "Three CLRs were entered ... after performing nearly 22,000 mi (35,000 km) of testing" This seems like non-standard writing. Cars don't perform testing.
  • "requiring a lengthy rebuild" Lengthy means what in this context? Comprehensive, or taking a long time? Either way, it's cloudy.
  • "The new cars, known as CLK GTRs, were designed for use both as racing cars and road cars available to the public as part of the series' regulations." I've read this a few times and I can't figure out what "as part of the series' regulations" is doing at the end of the sentence.

Most of these are from just the lead. Considering the topic matter, it should be a brisk, light read. You have great information and great research here, but I feel like it needs some TLC from a skilled copyeditor. --Laser brain (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed some of the issues you raised here, although not all quite yet. However I am looking for clarification of your statement on being a brisk, light read. Are you referring just to the lead or to the article as a whole? The359 (Talk) 17:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the whole article, recognizing that it might be difficult for you to action. I suggested getting a fresh copyeditor because sometimes new eyes can work wonders. --Laser brain (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but after more than two months we still don't have consensus to promote so I'll be archiving this shortly; pls seek the independent copyedit that Laserbrain recommends and then hopefully it will be third time lucky for this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/July_2015&oldid=674006429"