Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2017

< 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) 11:30, 28 March 2017 [1].

Passion (Utada Hikaru song) edit

Nominator(s): CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Japanese theme song "Passion" (English version titled "Sanctuary") by Japanese singer Utada Hikaru. A long-time fan of hers, I value these two songs amongst my favourite recordings of all time. I decided to re-furbish the article to get to a Featured Article standard. I have put it through one good article and one good article reassessment nomination, and both have come out good. I have severely improved the article since, noting a lot of errors regarding reference templates, spelling, grammar and punctuation and other small touch-ups. As mentioned, I have severly improved this article and hopefully will get the chance to see it achieve a Featured Article star! All constructive criticism is welcome, and PLEASE ping me if you need any direct conversations/comments. Much appreciated, CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 08:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment edit

The "Credits and personnel" has some J-names in FAMILY–GIVEN order and others in GIVEN–FAMILY. MOS:JAPAN calls for GIVEN–FAMILY for those born since 1868, except in special cases (Utada Hikaru being one, for some reason). Are all these names ordered this way deliberately? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Curly Turkey: My apologies for this; the names were given (and ordered by appearance) by the liner notes from the compact disc single; I've have changed it now, and thank you for your response! The Utada Hikaru name reference is detailed throughout its respective Wikipedia talk page. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 6 is dead and needs to either be archived or replaced with another source.
  • Please include an ALT description for the English cover and the music video screenshot.
  • I also agree with Carbrera comments. A product description from Amazon.com should not be used as it is purely promotional and not appropriate for Wikipedia.
@CaliforniaDreamsFan: Great work with the article! These are the only two notes that I can find while reading through the article. Once they are addressed, I will support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47:  Done all adjustments.
  • Support, great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Carbrera
I will look by this little by little before voicing my opinion. Here are my comments regarding some of the referenced statements/reviews:
  • Reference #15 – Eli Kleman is not a staff member from Sputnikmusic. He's just a member (and it probably shouldn't be used here).
  • Reference #35 is too unreliable for a featured article
  • Reference #81 – A product description from Amazon.com should probably not be used to describe the song's cultural impact
More to come, Carbrera (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Carbrera:  Done all first-handed adjustments.

Closing comment -- I'm afraid this review seems to have stalled without attracting sufficient commentary for determining consensus to promote, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2017 [2].

Nights: Journey of Dreams edit

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was unexpected. I spent a while building this, fleshing it out, and learning from my past FA nominations, in particular the game's predecessor, Nights into Dreams... (a Featured Article). I took steps to make sure the reception section reads as cohesive prose rather than consisting of an arbitrary list of reviewers themselves, and I also made the most out of the game's sources, so it should satisfy 1b of the FA criteria. I don't have much to say this time. Never played this, and judging from its terrible press, I don't think I ever will! JAGUAR  18:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please include an ALT description with the infobox image. The same comment applies to all of the images.
    Added. JAGUAR  18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current link for "a dream world" in the lead leads to an amusement part in Thailand. You correctly link it to the page about the plot device in the body of the article so this is the only one that needs to be corrected.
    Oops. Linked to Dream world (plot device). JAGUAR  18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about the dream world in the lead seems rather silly. A dream world where all dreams take place? I think that is kind of obvious from the phrase "dream world" and even more so with the wikilink.
  • What do you mean by the word "dualise" in this context? Could you provide further context?
    I replaced "dualise" with "merged", as it's an in-game word which refers to the merging of the player-character with Nights. It was mentioned prominently in various reviews so I thought it was worthy enough to put in the article, but then I realised nobody would understand it, so I removed all of them. I must have left that one by mistake. JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, That makes sense! Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing something in the phrase "and free imprisoned by bird-like Nightmaren". What is imprisoned?
    I think I got it the wrong way around—the player is meant to capture them, and collect the keys that unlock cages, I think. Quite difficult to confirm as I've never played this, but that's what the manual says. I've changed it to "capture bird-like Nightmaren". JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! That also makes sense. You did a really great job on this article for someone who has never played it firsthand. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Air Nights in quotes and in italics. Does it need to be in both, or should it just be in italics? I am not certain about this, but I just wanted to clarify this with you.
    I think it should be in just italics, as it refers to the name of a game nevertheless. Removed quotes. JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the game is designed with "a European style" in mind, but the only clear connections are with London. Do you have any other information about the European influences and style present in the game outside of those with London?
    Iizuka said that he designed the game to be more European-like, but the game is obviously inspired by London alone. There is nothing to support that the game takes inspiration from anywhere else (no Eiffel Towers etc), so I think we should go with the obvious and remove "Europe-inspired" from the article's body. I didn't really know what Iizuka meant when he said the game was designed to be more like Europe in the interview. Hope this is OK. JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that move to avoid ambiguity. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do you think you should include the track listing for the soundtrack in the "Audio" subsection?
    There was a discussion a while ago discouraging this, and now the guidelines state that track listings shouldn't be mentioned unless it has standalone notability, which doesn't seem to be the case here. JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. I personally think it is much better with the clutter of a track listing. Thank you for the clarification.
  • Make sure the citations are put in order. For instance, the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Reception" section includes a number of references, but they need to be placed in numerically order. I notice this in several places in this section so check the entire article to make sure this is corrected.
    Done. JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Overall, great work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2017
(edit conflict) Thanks for the review, Aoba47! I think I've addressed everything. The "inspired from Europe" part is ambiguous as I honestly think he was being too broad in the interview. The game has no influences of Europe outside London, so I don't think it would hurt to remove it from the article. Let me know what you think? JAGUAR  19:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Thank you for your responses. I think that the article is in great shape and on the level necessary for a FAC. I was wondering if you could possible help me with my FAC as well? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or the energy for it. Good luck with getting this promoted, and congrats again on getting the first one promoted to FA. I actually never heard of these games before reading through your articles lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, I'll take a look at your FAC and should leave some comments regarding comprehensiveness tomorrow. And thanks—I've never played this one myself but since I got the first one to FA I thought I'd may as well take a shot with this one! JAGUAR  19:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And I agree that is very fulfilling to follow through with something all the way to the end so I admire that. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tintor2

Sorry for the delay. There was a huge blackout in my town this week. From what I've read, I support this article, but I would nitpick that it uses too many times the word "Dream/s" to the point it could confuse readers. I would suggest changing some parts to predecessor or sequel. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! I'll throw in some synonyms. Hope everything is alright with your town. JAGUAR  17:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ProtoDrake

Aside from the usual thing I would note about archiving references (which judging from some of my early FA nominations isn't strictly necessary), I'll give this article my Support. It's in a good overall condition, it's easy on the eyes when reading it through, and it's understandable from a newcomer's perspective. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll start archiving the sources. I was going to do it yesterday... JAGUAR  09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Archived all except for two which couldn't be archived for some reason. JAGUAR  10:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • File:NiGHTS.jpg: Non-free cover. Using it to illustrate the game in the infobox seems fine for me. NFCC a bit basic but passable.
  • Forgot to update this. Done. JAGUAR  21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rationale is used in pretty much all video game articles? I've pulled a dozen examples from other VG FAs and found them to be identical? JAGUAR  21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with above, I don't know what other rationale can be used. They're all identical? JAGUAR  21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cover arts of soundtracks regularly appear in video game articles if articles on the albums themselves don't exist. It helps illustrate the topic and individual covers appear in FAs frequently. JAGUAR  21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images have good alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I've corrected the cover art's rationale but all of the others are identical to any other VG FA? I'm not aware of any alternatives. Or did you want me to rephrase the wording? JAGUAR  21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One typically uses one image in the infobox to identify the work. Images elsewhere cannot really be used for this purpose and thus you need a different reason for using non-frees elsewhere on a page, per WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've removed the infobox from the audio section. I think it added clutter to the article and didn't add much value anyway, so should be OK to remove it and the image along with it. JAGUAR  21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Source review edit

  • No link rot detected.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector indicates no problems.
  • Suggest folding note a into the lead sentence
  • Suggest sorting the bibliography into alphabetical order of author
  • Forgot about this. Done JAGUAR  12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repaired one reference
  • Spot checks: FN 11, 13, 14, 25, 26, 33, 38, 39, 40 reveal no problems
  • Thank you for checking JAGUAR  12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 30 in "Design": Iizuka stressed that he had always wanted to create a sequel and asserted that the failure of the Dreamcast had no effect on the delay of the awaited sequel The source says: did the closing of SEGA as a game system hardware manufacturer factor in on the delay of the next iteration of Nights? I-san: Not at all. The two don't quite match up.
  • I've removed the mention of the Dreamcast and rephrased. JAGUAR  12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 30: The original source is available [3], and archive.org didn't archive it properly. Suggest dropping the archive from the reference.
  • Another user kindly replaced the archive url with a working one. JAGUAR  12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 38: Archive.org didn't muck it up this time, but the original [4] is still there.
  • Removed the archive url. JAGUAR  12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Only one issue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: thank you for the source review! And sorry for the delay in getting to this—I've been busy this week and hadn't seen this until now. All of the issues should be addressed now. I hope I put the note in the lead in the correct place. Thanks again. JAGUAR  12:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on sources. No worries about the delay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: In common with a few video game articles, we have a few short "support" comments but I'm not sure we yet have the depth of review of prose or content that we need to promote to FA. I'd like a few more eyes on it first. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Syek88 edit

I come to this review as a video game neophyte. I focused on prose because others have focused on other criteria. I found the prose quite heavy-going, I'm afraid. My comments here are about the "Development" section only:

  • "A sequel to Nights into Dreams... with the working title Air Nights was prototyped for the Saturn and began development for the Dreamcast with motion control being a central element of gameplay." How can a video game, an inanimate object, "begin development"? Doesn't someone else have to develop the game for the Dreamcast? There seems to be a conflict between the (correct) passive voice "was prototyped" and (probably incorrect) active voice "began devlepment".
  • I understand, it does seem like an awkward choice of words. I've rephrased this to was originally prototyped for the Saturn and subsequently developed for the Dreamcast. I hope this sounds clearer JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yuji Naka confirmed that a sequel was in development during an August 1999 interview" - the syntax of this half-sentence is awry: surely the confirmation, not the development, occurred in the interview.
  • Restructured JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by December 2000, however, the project was cancelled" - should be pluperfect tense "had been cancelled".
  • "but subsequently noted in 2003 that he would be interested in using Nights into Dreams... as a licence to reinforce Sega's identity" - what does "use as a licence" mean?
  • It's referring to the licence of Nights into Dreams (or its franchise), but I think this was a bit clumsily worded, so I changed it to ... interested in using the licence of Nights into Dreams to reinforce Sega's identity. The series itself doesn't have a name. I also replaced "subsequently" with "later" as it's now mentioned before in the same section JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Discussion on a new game in the series had increased in frequency by 2006" - Is "on" the best preposition?
  • Changed to "regarding" JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the development of Journey of Dreams, Naka confirmed in retrospective interviews that he intended" - what are retrospective interviews? If they are interviews looking back at the development of the game, "had intended" would be the correct fit.
  • Thanks, reworded to "had intended". JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nights: Journey of Dreams was first conceptualised in November 2005, directly after Shadow the Hedgehog was shipped." - what is the adverb "directly" intended to convey?
  • Removed "directly" JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Game design took around six months and was primarily prepared by Takashi Iizuka, after which the actual development process begun." - This sentence is dealing with three matters - length of game design process, identity of designer, and commencement of development, but in an order that doesn't really make sense syntactically.
  • Restructured to Game design was primarily prepared by Takashi Iizuka and took around six months before the actual development process begun. Some excellent points here! JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the cancellation of Air Nights, Iizuka stressed..." - This sentence is too long and the two mentions of "sequel" are clunky.
  • I've cut the latter half of the sentence down a bit and replaced the second instance of "sequel" with "title". JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originally, the game had a full free-roaming 3D flight system, but proved to be too complex and "not as fun" as the core flight element" - Who said "not as fun"? Is this from Iizuka or an independent commentator?
  • Iizuka. Rephrased JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "existing elements of the original game." - "existing" is redundant in light of "original".
  • Good catch, removed. JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which included the Wii remote and Nunchuk, GameCube controller, and the Classic Controller" - all three items in this list need the definite article.
  • Added "the" before GameCube controller, as the Nunchuk is not a separate controller and can only be used with the Wii remote. I usually do this, but got confused when some reviewers discouraged me from adding a "the" before the noun, but I don't know if that's an American English thing... JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the latter two left for players who preferred using a "traditional-style" controller configuration" - why is "traditional-style" in quotes? Could you just say "traditional", with no quotes?
  • Removed. I can't remember why I put it in quotes. It looks much better this way JAGUAR  15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, in the next sentence, I'm not sure what the quotes around "hybrid" and "fun-to-fly" are intended to convey.
  • Oops, really don't know why I added quotes with hybrid. I thought "fun-to-fly" sounded too informal, which was why I added quotes to that, but I've removed both of them now. If it does sound too informal, I can always rephrase it. JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tomoko Sasaki reprised her role of lead composer from the original Nights into Dreams…, who was rejoined by Naofumi Hataya and Fumie Kumatani." - the "who" doesn't work as a connector.
  • "Sasaki elaborated that the original Saturn version used the console's internal sound sequencer, which allowed more control over the game's music, whereas the Wii version only played the recorded music directly." - This sentence goes over the head. What is an internal sound sequencer, what does it mean to play recorded music directly, and why does the former allow more control over the game's music?
  • It's definitely a music sequencer, although the source said "sound sequencer" and internal means it was built within the Saturn. According to the source, the composers had more control over the music in the original game as they could continuously change its game. Rephrased to which allowed them more control over changing the game's music as the player progressed through the game JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, Sasaki asked an employee from Delfi Sound Inc. to record an orchestrated-themed music for the game" - what is "orchestrated-themed music"? Should it just be "orchestral music"?
  • Changed to just "orchestral music" JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the team were aware that the game's characters would have more dialogue compared to the original game" - "compared to" doesn't work here; a simple "than" would do the job.
  • Sometimes "team" is conceived as singular and sometimes as plural. Compare "team were aware" and "team was aware". In my view, either is fine, but it should be consistent.
  • Changed to "were" throughout. JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the team was aware that Journey of Dreams had a greater sense of adventure as opposed to the original, the team knew that they incorporate a large amount of music variety into it so that players could enjoy a wider range of emotions." - "as opposed to" doesn't work (again "than" would suffice), and there seems to be a grammatical problem - perhaps some missing words? - arising from the word "incorporate".
  • Ah, found the missing word. Rephrased the latter half of the sentence to the team knew that they could incorporate a larger variety of music into it, and also replaced "as opposed to" with "than". JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to composing the music itself, Hataya also" - "In addition" renders "also" redundant.
  • "so that the right theme matched the in-game situation" - "right" is a vague word and I'm not sure you need any adjective there at all.
  • I would have changed it to "correct", but removed JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I do not think that the prose is "engaging and of a professional standard", as required by Featured Article Criterion 1.a. It is certainly at Good Article standard, but there is a clear gap between the two standards. Bearing in mind that I've only commented on a portion of the article, I think it likely that the article as a whole needs a bit of work, outside this process, to bridge the gap. Syek88 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Syek88: thank you so much for your in-depth review! I should have hopefully addressed all of your concerns. I noticed that the Nights into Dreams article recently had its ellipses removed, so I culled them from this article too. This is my first time nominating an FA without going through the GA process, so I think some parts of the development section were slightly unpolished. Thanks again. JAGUAR  15:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jaguar. I've reviewed the article by sampling about 30% of it. That's the reason I opposed straight up rather than just left the points as a comment with the potential for me to support: for me to finish the review I would first need to go back over the 30%, second go over the other 70%, and third start looking at issues other than prose. The second task in particular is likely to be at least two to three hours worth of time. I'm afraid that time would be better spent on reviewing a nominated article or two that are closer to the FA criteria. I am sorry that does not sound helpful. I just don't think this article was ready for prime time when it was nominated, and the work to make it ready would be best done outside this process. Syek88 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have addressed all of Syek's concerns and had already ensured that this article satisfies the comprehensiveness aspect of the criteria by using all accessible reliable sources. The reception section reads as cohesive prose, as it should, and I think the only section which needs looking at now is the gameplay section. I'll ask for another reviewer to help clear this up, and in the mean time I'll do another sweep of this article to be on the safe side, but I must say that I am slightly perplexed. JAGUAR  19:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what is perplexing. I only reviewed in detail 30% of the article. Given the number of problems I identified in that sample, it stands to reason that there will be similar problems in the remaining 70%. There are four sections at which I haven't looked: the lead, the plot, the gameplay and the reception. It is not possible to "satisfy all of [my] concerns" (please don't speak for me) other than by taking the article away, working on it, and probably putting it through a Good Article nomination or Peer Review. You can't expect a reviewer to act as a heavy copyeditor for an entire article through the Featured Article process when that work should have been done beforehand. Syek88 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK—I'm sorry if I sounded frustrated in my reply. I've asked for more opinions regarding the prose, and in the mean time I'll start checking through the gameplay and reception sections. JAGUAR  16:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

ok, I made these changes as I was reading. Check if they are okay. I think the prose can do with a little massaging. I will resume tomorrow as I need to sleep now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking through this. JAGUAR  22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what does "prototyped" actually mean anyway?
It's the past tense of prototype—I wrote it subconsciously and was worried for a second after reading your comment that it wasn't a word, but a quick check on Wikitionary confirms that it is a word. I can always replace it with something else if you prefer? JAGUAR  22:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so in this sentence, it means...what...that they developed an outline/mockup/just an idea? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed prototyped to "outlined" as the a sequel on the Saturn version never materialised, and was indeed just an idea, whereas "prototyped" suggests that something existed physically. JAGUAR  15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shane Bettenhausen and Sam Kennedy, thought the 3D was "amateurish" and suffered from basic issues - "basic issues" is uninformative..can this be clarified at all?
Elaborated JAGUAR  15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some reviewers denounced various aspects of gameplay - "denounced" seems an odd word to use here, why not "criticized" or "complained about"?
Replaced with criticised. JAGUAR  15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree in that the prose could do with some massaging. I am trying but my time is limited and I do miss things when there are a lot of tweaks needed....

Thanks for checking through this so far. JAGUAR  15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Despite the supports above, there are prose concerns expressed by Syek88 (who opposed) and by Casliber (who identified further problems). Given that I asked for deeper prose feedback, the fact that there are several issues despite the supports make me suspect that the article was not quite ready for FAC. I would advise finding someone to go over the prose away from FAC, maybe a co-nominator, and returning after the 2-week waiting period when the issues above have been addressed. I appreciate that this might be frustrating, but I think working away from FAC may be better for the article in the long run. Finally, I think this is a perfect example of why drive-by or quick supports are not always a help to the article or the nominator as they can mask deeper issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 [5].

D.Gray-man edit

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the series D.Gray-man by Katsura Hoshino. After doing a peer review, following some advices by fellow users and requesting copy-edits, I think it is ready to become a feature article. This is the third time I am making a FA nomination. I modelled it after the GA Shaman King and the FA School Rumble. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just tagging users who participated in the peer review. @Gabriel Yuji:, @Aoba47:, @ProtoDrake:, @IDV:, @DragonZero: and @Jaguar:.Tintor2 (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Note: It looks like my computer is kind of breaking considering it has just turned off itself three times in a row so I would appreciate if I get comments earlier because I'm terrible at using my Tablet in wiki.Tintor2 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aoba47 edit

  • Support: All of my comments have already been addressed in the peer review. Good luck with getting this promoted and great work with the article as a whole! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Jaguar edit

  • "...is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Katsura Hoshino and set in the 19th century. It tells the story of young Allen Walker" - I think this construction can be moved to the next sentence, so it reads ...is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Katsura Hoshino. It is set in the 19th century and tells the story of young Allen Walker. Feel free to ignore if you disagree
  • "to combat the Millennium Earl" - is the Millennium Earl a single character? If so, why the 'the'?
  • "It resumed serialization on July 17, 2015 in a spin-off magazine of Jump SQ, Jump SQ.Crown" - may sound better as It resumed serialization on July 17, 2015 after the release of Jump SQ.Crown, a spin-off from the magazine Jump SQ or something to that effect, but feel free to ignore or change
  • "They were created from the souls of dead people by the Millennium Earl" - 'the' again
  • "The author visited New York to research the series, and believes that the city has greatly influenced her work. Hoshino visited cemeteries for research" - just to clarify; is Hoshino the author?
  • "Ground zero at the World Trade Center (left after the September 11 attacks) and her guides' comments impressed her deeply" - change to She was deeply impressed by her guides' comments at Ground zero of the World Trade Center (left after the September 11 attacks)
  • "and she said that she would like to spend more time in New York" - is this relevant to the production section? It sounds too future-tense
  • "Hoshino considered continuing to use the name Zone and also considered naming the series Dolls or Black Noah" - repetition of 'considered'. Try changing one of them to "contemplated" for variety
  • The Ground Zero image caption doesn't need attribution if it's already mention in the photo's rationale (remove "(photo by Robert Swanson, www.internet-esq.com)")
  • "Despite being a sequel, Hoshino referred to it as "a completely new D.Gray-man anime"" - I think the quote marks can be lost so it just reads a new D.Gray-man anime
  • " most of Funimation's English-language cast" - remove hyphen
  • The image of Katsura Hoshino should be shifted to the left and the photo of Ground Zero to the right, so both don't obstruct the text underneath the infobox

Those were all of the minor issues I could raise, but other than that I think this article is overall solid and comprehensive enough to satisfy the FA criteria. Once all of those are clarified, I'll take another look and will likely support. JAGUAR  20:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks to your comments. I tried addressing all in the article. Also, the Millennium Earl is a single person but I thought in English we have to use "the" for these names like Batman's "Joker" who is always called "The Joker" (his real name is still a bit of a mystery). Feel free to comment more.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I wasn't sure if Midnight Earl was the actual name of one of the characters, so "the" seems to be correct. Sorry about that. Anyway, I've taken another look through and am happy that this meets the FA criteria, so I'll lend my support. Well done! I've got a video game FAC (nominated two hours before this one), if interested. JAGUAR  18:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 1989 edit

  • Support The article looks fine to me. MCMLXXXIX 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Narutolovehinata5 edit

  • I see only one minor issue with the article: Jump SQ.Crown is a red-link in the lead but it's a blue link in the infobox and the manga section. Could this be fixed? Otherwise, this is an easy support for me. As an aside, should this pass, this could be nominated for TFA for either May 31 (the manga's premiere date) or April 21 (Hoshino's birthday); the date is up to you, of course. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Still I don't think I can request this article to be promoted considering that while it has three supports, it still hasn't given a source or image review.Tintor2 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • Question: Did you use a tool to add the references, or did you add them by hand?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: No. This is actually the first time I hear about tools. You mean some references lack somethings?Tintor2 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, your ping didn't work. That's because pings don't work if you add them to your comment after saving, UNLESS you erase the old time stamp and make a new one. So if you want to add a ping to an earlier comment, you'd have to erase the "[[User:Tintor2|Tintor2]] ([[User talk:Tintor2|talk]]) 02:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC) and replace it with a new sig. Second, I glanced at the refs and thought there might be something odd about them, but I may be wrong. I will look carefully.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi:, I see. I don't know why but the Citation bot changed the state of an amazon reference leaving it with a problem. Should I revert it?Tintor2 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it alone for now. I'm thinking. I may need to think for a couple days. Just ignore me for a while.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per guidelines at WP:ELNO, esp. 5 & 15, and per WP:SPAM. And perhaps WP:OR.... First, any time you have a BOOK that cited as {{cite web}}, it's in violation of those guidelines. I have more bad news–after you fix this one, you'll also have to fix School Rumble. I'll wait one month before I take it to WP:FAR, unless you fix it... So here in this article are.. the same books cited twice, once as a book and once as a web page? I mean, I see ref #3 as [Hoshino, Katsura (2006). D.Gray-man, Volume 1. Viz Media. p. 61. ISBN 1-4215-0623-8.] a {{cite book}}, but then I see ref #35 is [ "D.Gray-man, Volume 1". Amazon.com. Archived from the original on January 29, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2016.] a {{cite web}}. The second one is in violation of the guidelines I mentioned, but are those the same book? If they are, then that actually makes it easier to fix because you already have a {{cite book}} version... but then about WP:OR: For example, for the ref#3 that I meantioned above you have the assertion:"Although Allen Walker is based on the previous comic's female protagonist, Hoshino made him look more masculine". You cited that assertion to the actual anime/manga, which in this case is a primary source. So.. did that book actually explicitly state that "Allen Walker is based on a female character, but more masculine", or did you just look at the picture and decide for yourself that's true? If it's the latter, then that's WP:OR.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Changed the part about Allen being based on the female character. Originally, all of the amazon.com urls were Viz media's sites. However, the site removed the original release dates (to the point webarchives didn't have them) of each volume so I had to changed them to Amazon in order to reference the release date. I don't really understand your issues with "Hoshino, Katsura (2006). D.Gray-man, Volume 1. Viz Media. p. 61. ISBN 1-4215-0623-8." is a page in that book where Hoshino talks about the making of the series.Tintor2 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tintor asked me to comment on this issue (I was his mentor for his last FAC); it looks like y'all are mostly in agreement now, but I had a few comments:
  • ELNO does not cover citations, only external links. It's explicit about that.
  • Anytime you cite a book using {{cite web}}, you're misusing that template. That's... about it. You're not violating any guidelines, because there are no strict guidelines governing how you format your citations (though FAC reviewers may still call it out, as it is quite wrong). So, citing an Amazon detail page doesn't violate anything that you listed there.
  • Though as Tintor pointed out, he's not- he's citing webpages with cite web. Because he's citing the release date, which is not printed in the book.
  • Lingzhi is right about using primary book cites for subjective information, but if it's actually an author's note it's primary but not subjective. Just to clear it up, though, @Tintor2: can you quote what exactly you're citing with that reference? Both here and in the "|quote=" field in the reference. --PresN 01:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean adding quotes? I can with some volumes that were translated but not with Japanese guidebooks.Tintor2 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose stands. Three reasons: 1) Ref formatting is inconsistent anyhow. I disregard your argument that "It's substandard, but it doesn't break the rules." That is pure laziness. But even if we can't object to laziness (but I do and will), the refs are inconsistently formatted anyhow (as described above; books are sometimes "cite book" and sometimes "cite web.") Format the book refs correctly. 2) FACs are our best work. Substandard work is by definition not our best work. Articles full of WP:OR and spam are substandard work. 3) I found WP:OR at first glance. More OR anywhere? Who knows? This article inspires zero trust, since its nominator has not yet learned the meaning of WP:OR. Apparently you need to do more mentoring.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can oppose for whatever reason you want, and citation formatting is a perfectly valid one. I was only commenting that it wasn't violating the guidelines that you clearly didn't read, given that ELNO says as the top in bold that it doesn't apply to citations.
  • "I found OR at first glance" - except you didn't, apparently, since it was citing an author's explicit comment, not the fictional work itself.
  • "It's shit", "shitty work" - I'm perpetually bemused how you haven't gotten blocked for this nonsense on either of your accounts
  • "Apparently you need to do more mentoring" - I was unaware that signing up to be an FAC mentor meant that I was responsible for making sure every future nomination never get opposed? Thought is was just about teaching enough to get the first nomination to be more likely to pass. Perhaps that's in some guideline you must have read in-depth. --PresN 12:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • here's the link to the book in questionthe book. If you can find text that says the author based the character on a female but made it more masculine, I'll withdraw my Oppose, apologize to everyone, and do any sort of copyediting or whatever you wish. I'll give anyone any barnstar you wish. If you cannot, I'll take a barnstar with the text, "Well, you were right." Is that a deal?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from D.Gray-man vol. 1="Allen is based on the main character of Zone-my debut manga-but that was a girl." also "I debated if Allen should be more masculine".
Also from D.Gray-man Official Fanbook
Gray Ark =When comparing the Allen and Robin, Hoshino notes that Allen is a "different kind of boy".
  • The fanbook is a different book. What page is that quote from D.Gray-man vol. 1 on?
    • Page 61, right after the first chapter.Tintor2 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose withdrawn. Good work and good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Alrights, been inactive for a while in this business:

Images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. Still, what image do you think should be removed?Tintor2 (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Moved Hoshino's image. Do you think one image needs to be removed?Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that File:D.Gray-manfirstissue.jpg does not seem to "significantly enhance the understanding of the article topic". It may need either deletion or much more material to support its importance. File:World Trade Center site 2004.jpg may also need removal if its source info cannot be improved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done.Tintor2 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: As both Hoshino's and the cosplayer's images clashed, I moved the former one to production and changed the caption. Do you think it's okay?Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Guess I'll remove the image review request.Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review by ProtoDrake edit

Having looked through the article, run it through Checklinks, and checked citation style and link validity overall, I think I'll give this article a Pass on source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: This has three supports, but I'm not yet convinced that we have the depth of review that we need for promotion. I'd really like some in-depth commentary on the prose and content before this is promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in trouble. My computer broke so I cant easily edit wiki. Can @PresN: or somebody else give me a hand? Still, there is time for the tfa.Tintor2 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808 edit

Support - I just went over the prose and did some copy-editing. Aside from the copy-editing, the prose was done very well and easily understandable. A lot of work has been put into this article and it shows. --JDC808 ♫ 17:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • I'm not clear from the plot section whether this is the plot of the books to date, or if it includes the plot of the other formats -- the anime series, or the spin-off novel series. It doesn't appear to; shouldn't that be covered too, if the article includes those formats? Or do you expect to have different articles for the series and the novels?
    The manga. Also, the novels' plot are explained in books. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears from the anime sections that the plot there mirrors the books, so I'll strike this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from the ending of the plot section, this is still a story in progress; I think the plot section needs an "As of the March 2017 episode" or something similar to make it clear that the plot only describes the story to a certain point.
    Still ongoing. Last chapter was released in January. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the draft received a positive response from Shueisha and the staff asked Hoshino to write the series": a bit stiffly worded. How about "However, Shueisha liked the draft and the staff asked Hoshino to go ahead with the series". Was she offered a contract at this point? Or was it just "we like it and will look at it again when you finish it"?
    That seems better. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the wording change for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After conceiving the Ark's role in the series, Hoshino decided to write a song when Allen is rebuilding." I don't understand this sentence -- what does "rebuilding" refer to?
    By playing a certain song, the Ark was rebuilt. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the Production section has no flow; it jumps from development to inspiration to a comment about the Ark to a comment about a song. What's the goal of this paragraph? What is it supposed to cover?
    Kind of like how she was first inspired from horror and next to science ficción. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    On rereading I think this is OK, so struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where the Akuma, the exorcists, and the Millennium Earl's plan to end the world": why "Earl's"? Is "plan" a verb or a noun here?
    The Millennium Earl has that plan. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed the grammar -- "Millennium Earl's plan" makes no sense since "plan" is a verb here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lavi is based on the protagonist of Hoshino's planned series, Book-man": D.Gray-man has been around for 13 years, now, so presumably Book-man is either no longer planned or has actually happened.
    It was never published. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I would say so, with an "as of" date. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoshino visited cemeteries, and was deeply impressed by her guides' comments at Ground zero of the World Trade Center (left after the September 11 attacks)." Do you know when the visit happened? Ground Zero looked very different ten years ago than it does today, so an approximate date would be good.
    Judging from the guidebook, it was around 2011. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'She chose "D.Gray-man" for its several meanings, most referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters. Although the title's meaning was not completely explained, Hoshino said that the "D" stands for "dear".' I don't think this is well-put -- it sounds like she had several reasons for the title but has not made them explicit; is that correct? If so I'd suggest something like 'To Hoshino the title "D.Gray-man" has several meanings, though she has not explained them beyond saying that most refer to the state of Allen and the other main characters. She has also said that the "D" stands for "dear".' Though I'm not quite sure what you mean by "state of Allen" -- mental state?
    Sounds better but Hoshino didnt explain Allens state. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can't explain it I think it should be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The story arc involving Alma Karma, featuring several characters, was difficult for the author; as a result, the arc in which Allen leaves the Black Order contained fewer characters per chapter." Seems like a non sequitur; can you explain?
    In a single arc, a lot of characters appeared in many chapters. In the next arc, there were les characters per chapter. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But why "as a result"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one or two places I saw a phrase like "recent story arcs"; be careful with words like "recent", which will age and no longer be accurate. If you can't drop "recent", put a date on Hoshino's comments.
  • "After D.Gray-man's dark narrative, Hoshino plans to write more lighthearted series in the future": are there any indications of when she plans to end the series?
    Actually, she is still unsure when to finish it. Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can cite that, I think we should say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you make those changes I made into the article? My tablet does not allow me to jump between the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still cant edit well here.Tintor2 (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding your signature to your comments, since you're editing on a tablet, and indenting them; yes, I'd be fine with making changes for your once we've agreed on them, but I want to finish reading and commenting before going back and editing. I'm afraid I'm thinking about opposing on prose grounds at the moment, but I want to read the rest before deciding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I really owe you.Tintor2 (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments -- I'll go back through the above, but I want to finish a pass first.

  • "Early in production, Hoshino was given an early version of the first opening theme": two "early"s in quick succession; and what does "given" mean here? Do you just mean she listened to it?
    • I guess we could replace the second early with shown.Tintor2 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Allen moving for the first time": what does this mean?
    • She doesnt state it but I an artist was moved by seeing ver work animated.Tintor2 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hoshino began to cry while the staff laughed": not enough context. I assume this doesn't mean she cried because she hated it, and staff laughed because they hated her, but I think we should get a bit more of a pointer: "cried with delight" or "with emotion", or whatever the source will support.
  • "wrapped" might be a bit jargony for some readers.
  • What could we use then? I am lost hereTintor2 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although it is a sequel, Hoshino called it a completely new D.Gray-man anime": a bit more clarification here would be useful, if there's more information in the source -- if everyone agrees it's clearly a sequel, is there some reason Hoshino considers it not a sequel?
    • She doesnt clarify it so I guess we should remove it.Tintor2 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to say the series went on hiatus twice, and then list them; just give the details of each one in turn -- and in any case you say it went on hiatus twice but list three hiatuses.
  • "was again serialized on July 17, 2015": "serialized" really refers to something appearing multiple times, so it's odd to give a single date. Do you mean just one episode appeared? Or that serialization began on this date?
  • The publication sequence is quite hard to follow -- have you considered presenting it as a table, with columns like date range, published in, # episodes?
    • That might work but I dont know about tables.Tintor2 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, this is just an idea but how about removing some publicaciones, leaving only the English ones?Tintor2 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first complete volume was published on October 9, 2004, followed with 24 more by June 3, 2016": suggest "The first complete volume was published on October 9, 2004, and the 25th volume, and last of 2017, appeared on June 3, 2016".
  • I definitely wouldn't oppose over this, but you might consider reducing the list of foreign licensees to just the names of the countries, or perhaps turning that into a short table. I think including it in some way is worth while, but it's a bit listy as it stands; not a big deal though.
  • I'm not familiar with other similar articles, so perhaps this is standard, but it seems that some of the information in the "Anime adaptations" section would fit in with the "Adaptation" section higher up. What's the reason for splitting the adaptation information between these two sections? What is supposed to go in each one?
  • "but the second season was not licensed since Funimation did not dub it": I don't follow this. Do you mean that because they didn't license it, it wasn't dubbed? That seems too obvious to mention, but the reverse -- that because they didn't dub it, they didn't license it -- is also odd, because they could have dubbed it if they'd wanted to. What's the point this is trying to make?
  • "Hoshino called the new series a sequel of the first anime, rather than a reboot" but above you say "Although it is a sequel, Hoshino called it a completely new D.Gray-man anime"; isn't that a contradiction?

I'm down to the Merchandise section; sorry about the slow progress, but I'm a bit busier this week than usual. Will try to get more done in the next day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the comments.Tintor2 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Mike I am interested in your ideas of reorganizing the article since the anime and manga project havent got a fa in a long time. Since my computer is still broken and if I am lucky it might come back in Friday, be bold.Tintor2 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Christie I went ahead and removed nonEnglish publishers from the sección publication. Any more suggestions?Tintor2 (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, have been busy with TFA on-wiki and with other things in real life. I should have more time to come back to this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments.

  • Why do we only get descriptions of the contents of the first two chapters of the third volume of the light novel?
    • The third light novel only has two chapters.Tintor2 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd suggest making it "first half" and "second half", then, to avoid having to say there were only two chapters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were followed by an illustrated book, D.Gray-man Illustrations Noche, on February 4, 2010. Noche was published by Viz Media on December 6, 2011." Since you've said earlier that Viz Media is the US publisher, I assume that the first sentence refers to Japanese publication, and the second to US publication, but this should be explicit.
  • "Manga author Katsura Hoshino grateful to the editors assisting her, said that she owes the series' success to them": needs to be rephrased.
    • Done.
  • The Critical reception/Manga section is in fairly good shape, although I think it would be possible to drop some of the quote attribution and paraphrase a bit more. A couple of specific points: "female manga artists arising from the late-1980s and early-1990s dōjinshi subculture": "emerging" would be a bit more natural than "arising"; and 'He wrote, "Walker is a solid hero with a dark past, the Millennium Earl is a menacing villain you'll love to hate", and the supporting cast had potential future interest.': it needs to be something like "and added that the supporting cast...", since the the second half of the sentence is not attributed to the reviewer's voice.
  • The "Anime" section has more problems. Just in the first paragraph, we get "praised" four times in four sentences; "similar to Douglass" (grammatically should be "similarly", though I'd suggest rephrasing); and "due to how it inspired".

Oppose. I know Tintor2 has made some changes in response to the points I've made over the last week; I will go back through later today and strike what I can, but as it stands I don't think the prose is FA quality. Tintor2, am I right in thinking you're not a native English speaker? I ask because of your use of "publicaciones" in a response above. If so, your English is very fluent, but I would recommend getting a co-nominator who is a native speaker -- even the most fluent non-natives are going to have a hard time getting prose to the level needed for FA. Copyeditors can help, but it would be even better to find someone who can engage with both the content and prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried addressing al your issues. Sadly, I am still writing from my tablet that has the habit of changing most words to Spanish.Tintor2 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've done my best to address a few points in the prose you raised above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take another look. If I don't get to it today it should be some time tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some points, but I think the prose needs more work to meet FA standards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Despite the supports above, Mike has raised some fairly big prose concerns. Given that I asked for deeper prose feedback, the fact that there are several issues despite the supports make me suspect that the article was not quite ready for FAC. I would advise doing what Mike recommends and finding someone to go over the prose away from FAC, maybe a co-nominator, and returning after the 2-week waiting period when the issues above have been addressed. I appreciate that this might be frustrating, but I think working away from FAC may be better for the article in the long run. Finally, I think this is a perfect example of why drive-by or quick supports are not always a help to the article or the nominator as they can mask deeper issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:54, 24 March 2017 [6].

Ahmad Maymandi edit

Nominator(s): HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ahmad Maymandi, who served as the vizier of the Ghaznavid Empire two times, and was one of the leading officials of his age. This article is currently a Good Article, but I really want to make it FA - I believe the article is well-written, which is why it got GA in the first place. Of course, FA is something else compared to GA, but I guess we'll see what happens. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Syek88 edit

I have read in detail the section of the article on the First Vizierate and Downfall. I have the following comments:

  • "The first vizier of Mahmud was a Persian named Abu'l-Hasan Isfaraini, who was chosen by Sebuktegin, although in reality, Mahmud preferred to have Maymandi as his vizier rather than Isfaraini." – This sentence directly contradicts the cited reference, which says: "Maḥmūd’s first vizier (384-401/994-1010) was Abu’l-ʿAbbās Fażl b. Aḥmad Esfarāyenī. According to ʿOtbī (in Jorfādeqānī’s version), Maḥmūd wanted Maymandī for the post but selected Esfarāyenī on Seboktegīn’s insistence. This account is not convincing, since Esfarāyenī remained in office for thirteen years following Seboktegīn’s death (d. 387/997), and Maymandī did not gain the post until 404/1013, three years after Esfarāyenī’s dismissal." In other words, the cited reference seems to be trashing the idea, quite convincingly, that Mahmud always wanted Maymandi in the post.
  • "Two years later [implying in 1013], Isfaraini fell from favor and Maymandi was finally appointed as the vizier of Mahmud." – The cited source, quoted above, says that Isfaraini lasted only until 1010 and that three years then elapsed until Maymandi replaced him. In other words, the article seems to get Maymandi’s year of appointment correct, but not the year of Isfaraini’s downfall. They didn't coincide in 1013.
  • "Maymandi quickly began centralizing the Empire, and restored Arabic as the administrative language of the Empire" – the verb "restored" implies success. The subsequent sentence, sourced to Frye, shows that there was no such success. Frye himself uses the word "attempt", which might be good to adopt.
  • Footnote 12 is cited to "Nashat and Guity" but it should be "Nashat and Beck". Guity seems to be Nashat’s first name. But the true author to credit is Julie Scott Meisami, who wrote the relevant chapter of Nashat and Guity’s book and which footnote 12 cites.
  • "According to Ghaznavid sources, the reason for Mahmud's invasion of the region was to avenge the murder of his brother-in-law Ma'mun II, but according to modern sources he used the latter's death as an excuse to expand Ghaznavid rule over the Oxus River." This sentence seems to involve reading a lot into the source cited. First, it is not clear what the "modern sources" (plural) are. Bosworth himself says that Mahmud’s invasion was "an act of sheer aggrandizement" and that Ma’mun’s murder was "casus belli". But is he saying that the murder was a mere “excuse” for grander territorial ambitions? Even if he were saying that, which is arguable, there is no other source cited. So the articles invocation of "modern sources", which implies multiple scholars if not outright scholarly consensus, is not supported.
  • "During the early 1020s, Maymandi urged Mahmud to invade Jibal, which was then under the control of the young Buyid ruler Majd al-Dawla. However, the real ruler of the region was Majd al-Dawla's mother Sayyida Shirin, which was already known by the neighbors of the Buyids, including the Ghaznavids. Mahmud, however, did not agree with him, and did not feel his empire threatened because of a woman ruling in the region." – These three sentences do not read well together. The two “howevers” are clunky. Perhaps the "and" in the third sentence should be "because he".
  • "In 1024, because Maymandi had gained a great amount of wealth during his career as a vizier, Mahmud removed him from his office, confiscated his property, and had him imprisoned at Kalinjar in India." – Footnote 15 supports the second half of this sentence but not the first. The reference stops at saying Maymandi was "disgraced and dismissed" and imprisoned but says nothing of him being wealthy or of that being the reason for his dismissal and imprisonment. It might be better to cite Yusofi (fn 6) for this: he gives a much firmer and more detailed account of the circumstances leading to Maymandi’s dismissal that supports everything the sentence says.

I'm afraid I'm inclined to oppose this nomination for now. Based on the sample of one section that I have performed, I think the article needs a thorough check for accurate relaying of information in sources. I also think that is best done outside this nomination process. It is only once that is done that reviewers could turn to issues like prose.

Having said that, I'd be very grateful to be corrected on any errors or misconceptions in my comments. Syek88 (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syek88: Thank you very much for your feedback, I will try to fix the problems in the following days. What do you suggest I should do btw? Should I get it peer reviewed? --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest going through the article line-by-line against the sources with a sceptical eye. Peer review probably isn't the best place for that because only you will have full access to all of the sources plus the background knowledge. I should say as well - don't necessarily think of these as "problems": it has passed GA and is a quality article that I imagine would have been very challenging to source and write. Syek88 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Mahmud_in_robe_from_the_caliph.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Mas'udIGhaznavidCoin.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin itself
  • File:Ferdosi_Square.JPG: what is the copyright of the statue in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: Given Syek's oppose, I think this might be best worked on away from FAC. I would recommend working through the points and pinging Syek when you are finished, and then nominating after at least the mandatory two week wait. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2017 [7].

Habits (Stay High) edit

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Habits (Stay High)", a song by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo. It was a commercial success in 2014, thanks to the original track and a remix version by record production duo Hippie Sabotage. This article covers the information about both versions of the song. It is currently a GA, but I think it meets the criteria for a FA, since it features important aspects about the song and I consider is properly referenced. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47
I will review this as I love this song!:
  • The image in the “Background and release” section needs an ALT description. Same for the image in the “Commercial performance” section and the image in the “First version” subsection and the image in the “Second version” subsection. Make sure that all of the images have ALT descriptions as it only appears that the infobox images have ALT descriptions.
  • Do you think that the following quote from the same section is really necessary ("means [the] most") as I would imagine that you can paraphrase this and get the same meaning? Same for the “huge” quote in the same sentence, and "did not get to finish too much" later in the paragraph?
  • You use the word “join” in close proximity in the “Buddhist movement” sentence and I would suggest adding some variety.
  • You use the transition “In an interview with...” in the final two sentences of the first paragraph of the same section. I would change one of the two.
  • Please finish the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” for both of the sound samples. There are two parts with “n.a.” for each.
  • You wikilink Lorde twice in the body of the article so please unlink the second instance.
@Paparazzzi: Great work with the article! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Good luck getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments. Thank you so much for your review! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Paparazzzi: Everything looks great to me! I can definitely support this nomination. I was wondering if you could possibly provide some comments for my FAC as well? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Either way, good luck with this and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has stalled somewhat and we have no consensus to promote in five weeks. Therefore, I am archiving, and the article can be renominated after the usual two weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2017 [8].

Heathenry (new religious movement) edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a new religious movement, the practitioners of which seek to recreate the ancient 'pagan' pre-Christian religions of Germanic Europe using sources like recorded Norse mythology. The article was awarded GA status in December 2015 and has seen wider copy editing and scrutiny since then; I think that the time is right for an FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The lead contains none of the information as to number of followers (pretty tiny) and geographic spread (mostly the Nordic countries) which occur naturally to those, like myself, who had never heard the term. This eventually appears right at the bottom of a very long article. On a skim, it seems good quality, but I don't know if I can face actually reading it to review. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment, Johnbod. I have added a brief half-sentence to the lede mentioning the demographic size of the Heathen community. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it a bit odd that several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article, and on top of that, associated with white supremacism, even before individual movements are named? That seems to associate them all with racism by default. It would be less awkward if movements like asatru had more in-depth articles about them each, but they are mere redirects. Yet we have articles about movements within the wider movements, such as Asatru Folk Assembly and Ásatrúarfélagið. This makes little sense to me. Seems the decision was taken here[9], but the arguments don't seem compelling to me, especially since many tiny splinter groups have separate articles. Also, the current title of the article seems confusing, compared to for example Germanic neopaganism. I had no idea what it referred to when I saw it listed, yet I'm familiar with Scandinavian asatru. Also seems most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several different groups with distinct origins are simply merged into this article" - the same could be said for our articles on Christianity or Buddhism. Many religions contain a great diversity of belief and practice within their ranks; to properly understand Christianity, one has to appreciate that it encompasses both the Ku Klux Klan and liberation theology, and both the Eastern Orthodox Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In this, Heathenry is no different, and it is important that the article reflects that. Forgive me if I misunderstand or exaggerate, but I feel that carving up this article into separate articles out of a belief that different Heathen groups are too dissimilar would be akin to deleting our article on Christianity through the argument that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism are far too distinct to be regarded as part of one single movement.
  • You mention the term "Asatru" as if it were a denomination of Heathenry, but the situation is more complex than that; some who call themselves "Asatruer" are universal Heathens, others are folkish Heathens. Similarly, most "Odinists" are folkish Heathens, but some are universalist Heathens. As a number of academics make clear (and this article mentions), there is no clear cut demarcation between "Asatru" and "Odinism". I'm certainly willing to concede that there may well be space for articles on Universalist Heathenry and Folkish Heathenry, but I don't think that that leads on to the idea that the Heathenry article itself should be disbanded.
  • The term "Heathenry" is not perfect, but as has been argued at the talk page over the past few years (resulting in a group vote that led to the article gaining its current name), it really is the best option available. As you can see, the article has an entire section on "Terminology" to better reflect the complicated terminological issues at play here. Moreover, with respect, I do not believe that the statement "most of the sources refer it as paganism, not heathenry" is true. The majority of academic sources on Heathenry refer to it as Heathenry, even if they regard it as a form of contemporary Paganism (this is all explained within the article). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a misunderstanding here, I'm not contesting that all these groups should be dealt with in the same article, it's the fact that they simply redirect here that seems odd. To go by your own example, we don't merge sub-groups of Christianity into the Christianity article either. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies for the misunderstanding, FunkMonk. I think it only right and proper that specific Heathen organisations (Asatru Folk Assembly, Ásatrúarfélagið, Odinic Rite, Heathen Front etc) have their own articles. At the same time I think that it would be difficult to have specific articles on "Asatru" or "Odinism", for example, because these are such contested terms. They do not comfortably designate specific denominations of Heathenry; they aren't as precise as "Roman Catholic" or "Anglican" are. For that reason, I think that the only reasonable option is to leave them as redirects to this article. As stated above however, there is perhaps room for the creation of specific pages on "Universalist Heathenry" and "Folkish Heathenry". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "New" is a relative term. The "new" in the title should be removed22mikpau (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "new religious movement" is well established within the academic study of religion and we have academic sources cited within the article which specify that Heathenry is categorised as such by scholars. The term is a necessary component within the article title because it serves to distinguish Heathenry (the religious movement stemming from the late nineteenth century) from heathenry as the term is used generally to refer to pre-Christian belief systems or irreligious behaviour. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get it, I just mean it might be better to use a term like "modern"22mikpau (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are missing the point here. New Religious Movement is a recognised name for a religion established in modern times. Wikipedia is not the place to change established academic terminology. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I'm afraid this has stalled somewhat and we have no consensus to promote in close to six weeks. Therefore, I am archiving, and the article can be renominated after the usual two weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2017 [10].

Oxford College of Emory University edit

Nominator(s): haha169 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I am nominating Oxford College of Emory University for consideration as a featured article. It has gone through FAC once before several years ago and failed. Since then, the article has been significantly improved, and has undergone a comprehensive copyedit by User:Twofingered_Typist (thank you again for volunteering your time and skills!) of the copyediting guild as well as additional improvements by myself and others. This article is about one of the academic divisions of Emory University, and I hope y'all find it interesting and well-written! I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions! haha169 (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - Not the most in-depth review at the moment but a few cursory comments as I go along...
  • Why no metric conversions?
  • Per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size, don't force image size. Your 170px width is well below the 220px default size and makes the illustrations appear quite small.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Commas, you need a second comma after the state in the "City, State" format.
  • It wasn't immediately clear to me what was being followed in Following this...
  • Students at Oxford automatically continue their studies in Atlanta after completing its curriculum. - What, specifically, does "Atlanta" refer to here?
  • "University of Oxford", not "Oxford University"
  • Does "generous" suggest magnanimity or abundance? Either way, probably not needed...
  • During those years - During which years?
  • It seems like the "thirty-eight U.S. states plus Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, and twenty-seven foreign countries" figures are meant to be remarkable, but we're not given any indication of how that ranks against other institutions. It would be nice to have a source other than the college itself to consider whether the student body is, in fact, notably diverse.
  • This may be a stupid question but I'm genuinely having trouble: the school was "founded as Emory College", but "was named after the late John Emory [...] and Oxford University." When did Oxford enter the name? Also, I think the intro should make it more explicitly clear that the campus in question continued to be used after the college "moved its operations."
  • The campus and the surrounding areas were planned and built - "Surrounding areas" quite vague
  • On December 23, 1839, the state legislature incorporated the land around the school into a new city called Oxford. - This is the first time we hear the name "Oxford" in the history of the college, but according to our article on Oxford, Georgia, the town was named after the school.
  • Over the years - More specific time frame needed.
  • sixty-five acres of land six miles from the city's downtown - The History of Emory University article lists the land as 75 acres, so I just wanted to verify which is accurate.
  • Our Ignatius Alphonso Few article says Asa Candler was Few's cousin. Was this known at the time?
  • as a functioning farm that operates its own community-supported agriculture and sells its produce at local farmers' markets. - Everything after "functioning farm" is unnecessary detail IMO.
  • I'd like to know precisely how many structures the campus contributes to the NRHP historic district.
  • Today, much of the college is organized around a pedestrian-only quadrangle ... The majority of the school's facilities are situated around the rectangular quadrangle. Seems repetitive.
  • two buildings that existed before the school was established - I thought Phi Gamma Hall was built well after Emery College was founded?
  • a library containing 97,836 volumes. - Seems unnecessarily precise and likely to change from day to day. I'd round it off to "nearly 100,000."
  • Is Nitya Jacob the only faculty member who has won an award?
  • Tiffany Stern needs a link or a description, as I have no idea who she is.
  • Make sure all your dashes are MoS-compliant, as in "2016-17 academic year."
  • Oxford College enrolled over 900 students; twenty-eight percent are Asian American, eight percent are African American, and nine percent are Latino. - That only adds up to 45%. If you're going to start an ethnic breakdown, you should do it in full. The source lists the Asian group as 28.8%, which rounds to 29%, not 28%. While I'm not certain, I would think that "Asian" and "black" are more inclusive and accurate than "Asian-American" and "African-American." Finally, where do you get the 900 enrolled students figure? I can't find it in the source.
  • If Oxford graduates continue to Emery as a matter of course, what's the difference between selecting Oxford or both Oxford and Emery when applying?
  • two hundred and forty-two students - Per WP:MOSNUM, values that can't be expressed in two words or less should use numerals.
  • Elizer and Murdy, a student residence hall which opened in 2008, is certified LEED Gold. - This image caption needs a source since the info isn't presented anywhere else in the article.
  • The zebra was nicknamed "Barcode", and a stuffed zebra overlooks the quad in Seney Hall as a memorial to the event. - Unsourced and of questionable necessity I think.
  • students began bringing larger four-legged farm animals - I'd probably remove "four-legged" since most farm animals are quadrupeds, and it doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding.

There's more to read through, but I think I can say with some confidence that the article needs more work. The above bullets are just some examples of things that tripped me up or need correction. The prose remains rough in places, but it's not terrible, and the whole page needs a check for MoS adherence. My bigger concern is that the article isn't very approachable for those of us not already familiar with the history of the institution. The intro has some strange ways of explaining things, and left me feeling more than a little confused. Parts of the article do have slight promotional overtones, which I'm not thrilled about, and once you get past the "History" section it's sourced almost entirely to the school itself. I recognize that for a relatively small college, there might not be many independent sources that discuss the campus or student culture, but I still wonder. I don't think the article is all that close to FA quality, but I won't oppose for now in case I'm way off-base or improvements are quick to arrive. Still, nice work, and I admire your dedication to improving the article. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review! I've taken some time to tackle some of the simpler concerns, but I will work through the rest of them as I have time. Some notes:
  • How do you create metric conversions?
  • The town is named after the University of Oxford, not Oxford College (the article on Oxford, Georgia says this, and I clarified that in both the lead and in history
  • Transcription mistake, it is indeed seventy-five acres
  • You're right about the two buildings; the source also says that none of the buildings from before the 1850s exist anymore, so I'm not sure where that came from
  • I will look into finding more faculty awards
  • The difference between choosing Oxford or Emory is the campus where one starts their studies. I've made this clearer in the "Admissions" section and the lead
  • While the historic district listing does list all the contributing buildings, it doesn't list specifically which ones are Oxford campus buildings, and which ones are off-campus. If I were to count and identify them myself, that would be original research
  • I have fixed most of the other smaller issues that you mentioned; however, your concern about most of the sources after history coming from the University is something that I'm not sure I can fix. I agree with you on that, but I have had to rely mostly on Emory's sources because little exists otherwise, although there are some sources from local newspapers and other places. I will work to improve the article further based on your very insightful and helpful suggestions! --haha169 (talk) 01:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick response! The NRHP thing isn't a huge issue. For metric conversions, see {{convert}}. {{convert|38|mi|km}} produces 38 miles (61 km), and {{convert|75|acre|hectare}} yields 75 acres (30 hectares), etc. When you've done what you can with the above list, please ping me and I'll take another look as soon as I can. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Juliancolton I've gone through your list and fixed what you listed, and then combed the article again in order to make certain elements more clear to someone who isn't as familiar with the topic, particularly the unique relationship between Oxford College and Emory University. Please let me know if those changes are sufficient! Additionally, I've given the article several more look-throughs, correcting errors and rewording sentences, as well as conducting some more research for third-party sources (of which I was only very mildly successful). Thank you again for your very in-depth and helpful review! --haha169 (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Few_Monument.JPG: should include a copyright tag for the monument itself
  • File:Oxford_city_plan_(1837).jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of license for the monument? I've been researching Commons' list of copyright tags and other similar images, but I can't figure out what to put there.
  • Based on the date given, PD-1923 would likely apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the city plan fall under Template:PD-US-unpublished? There is no record of the plans ever being published and is available to the public now only due to the Emory University Archives here. The listing itself has no copyright information, and only fell into their possession due to a "gift". The only thing that is certain is that the blueprint was drawn and completed in 1837.
  • Assuming it was never published before 2003, the unpublished tag should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Nikkimaria for your review! Sorry for not being able to fix your concerns, and appreciate your advice on how to move forward! --haha169 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I've replaced the license in the city plan to the correct one, and added PD-1923 to the monument. --haha169 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Syek88 edit

I'm afraid I must concur with Juliancolton that despite the article's obvious merit, depth and comprehensiveness, it looks in other respects to be a bit too far off Featured Article standard. I share Juliancolton's evident doubts whether it can be brought to that standard during the course of this review. I selected three short sections as a sampling exercise—Residence life, social clubs and student organisations—and have the following comments about them:

  • "All students are required to live on campus for the duration of their time at Oxford." This statement doesn't seem come with a supporting reference.
  • "occupancy size" - "size" seems to be tautologous.
  • "The newer residential halls, Elizer, Murdy, and Fleming Halls are all LEED-certified, with the former two attaining a "Gold" certification." - the sentence is missing a comma.
  • "Some of the food served at these two locations are sourced from the organic farm on campus." - "food" should be joined by the singular "is".
  • "In terms of recreation, Williams Gymnasium houses an indoor hybrid basketball, volleyball, and badminton court, an indoor track, indoor pool, weight room, and aerobic studio." - the way this list is cast, every noun should have the indefinite article following the first two items in the list.
  • This source does not support the statement that the Fleming Woods hiking trails are "commonly used by Oxford students".
  • "instead of pledging, students "tap in" to these clubs" - the "tap in" reference means nothing without an explanation.
  • In footnote b, "co-ed" should be spelt out in full.
  • "In order to counter this trend, the Leadership Oxford and ExCEL programs were designed in 1988 to help students enhance their leadership skills" - designed by whom? Students or the university?
  • "Student involvement in community service is encouraged" - I think this is an example of what Juliancolton refers to as promotional overtones, particularly in the absence of a source independent of the university.
  • How do we know from this source that the survey figures for community service relate to the 2012 year? The source might date to 2012, but all we know is that the survey was "recent", which could mean anything. Also, it appears that the relevant year was not a calendar year (as the term "year" implies) but an academic year.

At this stage I'm afraid I'm moved to oppose for the reason that if my comments in relation to those three short sections were extrapolated to the remainder of the article, it would be unavoidable to conclude that the article would best be brought closer to Featured Article standard outside the review process. Regards Syek88 (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well thought-out comments! Oxford College recently redesigned their website, so I spent a little time looking up archives and finding new sources. I also fixed up all of your suggestions above. I appreciate your honesty, and if you truly believe that this article cannot reach FA status through the nomination process, then I suppose there isn't much else I can do to satisfy your concerns. Thank you again for taking the time to review! --haha169 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open over two weeks now and we have a well-reasoned oppose from Syek and comments from Juliancolton that, while not explicitly opposing, suggest that this is still some way short of FA standard. This suggests that the article was not quite ready and I would recommend working with the reviewers away from FAC to polish it and bringing it back in at least two weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017 [11].

Nantes edit

Nominator(s): Oie blanche (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Nantes, a city in France. The French version was promoted a GA some years ago, and I started improving the English article by making a translation. I soon decided to start all over again, and I eventually wrote the current article. I am not a native English speaker, and I have not managed yet to have the text proofread for grammar mistakes. I requested a peer review for the article more than a month ago. I have not yet had any feedback, but decided to nominate the article anyway, while I still remember every detail, every source, and while I have enough time to deal with corrections and improvement. I have already nominated a number of FA articles on the French Wikipedia, and I tried to reach the same standard here for that article in English. Oie blanche (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have to say the unorthodox citation system in use is pretty unwieldy and confusing. I can't really tell what you're trying to accomplish by restarting the numbering scheme so many times in the Citations section, why they are separate from the citations above the subheading, why you are citing something just by the year, etc. If it requires explanation to be understood, it's probably not a good approach. --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly changed the layout of the citations. Is it any better now? Oie blanche (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, it's extremely unlike anything I've ever seen before. Is this approach common on the French Wikipedia? I'd get rid of all the "ref group=", and separate the works cited from the references. Mixing them in this manner is quite unique, and I don't think uniqueness is constructive here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would the system on John C. Calhoun be a good model for me to do the same for Nantes? Oie blanche (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to help you later this afternoon, 5 or 6 hours from now.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Suggest scaling up the hydrology map
  • Suggest using a different format for the galleries - the images are quite small so the captions are difficult to see in full
  • Since France has limited freedom of panorama, all images of 3D works should include an explicit indication of the copyright status of the work itself
  • File:Nantes.svg: should include copyright tag for original design. Same with File:Petites_Armes_de_Nantes.svg, File:Grandes_Armes_de_Nantes.svg
  • File:Noyades_Nantes.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Félix_Nadar_1820-1910_portraits_Jules_Verne_(restoration).jpg
  • File:Plan_du_Cenre-ville_de_Nantes_1909_révisé_1921.png: what was the creator's date of death?
  • File:Comblements_de_Nantes_-_Tunnel_Saint-Félix.png: what are the data sources underlying this map? From what original map was it derived?
  • File:Immeubles_bombardé_cours_Cambronne_à_Nantes_(rue_des_Cadeniers).JPG: where are we getting that license tag from?
  • File:Plan_relief_Nantes.svg: are links to the sources available?
  • File:LES_ANNEAUX.jpg: the image description seems to suggest that this artwork is copyrighted?
  • File:Aristide_Briand_Portrait.jpeg: don't find the "own work" claim here credible - this has been previously published on several other sites with no apparent connection to the uploader.
  • File:Jacques_Demy.jpg has no fair use claim for this article

Oppose Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I scaled up the map, and removed periods in captions, the galleries and most of the pictures for which copyright status was not clear or dubious. About freedom of panorama, I removed pictures which subject was a recent building. Do you imply that even obviously old buildings (19th century and before) need a copyright indication? About the flag and coat of arms: I am unsure about which copyright tag to include, as heraldry is not subject to copyright in France. About the two maps: I did not manage to find the original files or the date of death of creators. I found similar documents on the French National Library website (Gallica), one dates from 1917, the other from WWII. Both are considered to be in the public domain by Gallica even though the dates of death of the creators are unknown. Could I use them to replace the maps that are currently on the article? Oie blanche (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Older buildings and 3D artworks should include a tag indicating why they are in the public domain, eg. {{PD-1923}}. What would be the status of the Gallica works in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I opted for another solution (made a map on my own). I added coypright info for all the pictures of 3D works and removed the ones I thought copyright status was not clear. Oie blanche (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a quick note, the historical population table has uneven dates, and thus should have the "percentages=pagr" to show annual growth rate percentages. Also statements such as "when it experienced depopulation, mostly because of the Continental System." could use a citation. Mattximus (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put a citation and also put the parameter. Oie blanche (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Lingzhi edit

I overhauled the ref system to the point where it is mostly standard. However, it still needs considerable work. More importantly, I see about 10 deadlink tags. I suppose could wait patiently for 1 or 2 to be repaired, but 10 is too many. It may take time to find valid links or references to cover the info that is currently only supported by dead links. Take those two things (refs and links) together, and it begins to add up to too much.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for changing the citation system. I replaced all the dead links. Oie blanche (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: To have two opposes very early in this nomination suggests the article was a little unprepared for FAC. It also makes me thing that we are unlikely to get a consensus to promote any time soon. I would recommend working on this, particularly on the referencing, away from FAC and bringing back a little more prepared in two weeks' time. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2017 [12].

Steller's sea cow edit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Steller's sea cow, a large sirenian that went extinct in modern times. I believe this article's up to FA criteria   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • Will read through this soon, but at first glance, I see somewhat serious problems, but since you usually work fast and effectively, I think they can be worked out. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, it is a bit messy to combine all info about physical features, biology, and ecology, into one large section, it would be better to keep them in separate section, as in virtually all other articles, to keep focus. Now the section jumps wildly between unrelated subjects.
split   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are combining a section that should be abut distribution facts with unconfirmed "sightings" long after the confirmed extinction date. Info about such "sightings" (and anything else not based on facts) should be moved to the extinction section, as they have nothing to do with the confirmed historical range of the animal.
done, but I kept the part about Turner in the range section, and anything talking about its range up into the 1800s.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems quite short, but I guess not much is known about this animal. Have you looked through Google scholar and similar for further sources?
I'll get to expanding later.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notable fact that it had no finger bones is not mentioned, which also makes me uncertain about the comprehensiveness of the rest of the text. Perhaps there should be more purely descriptive info about the skeleton, all we have left of the animal.
Found this but it's really technical, and I can't understand a word of it. Think you can help?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can ignore the detailed description section of that article (unless you find something that is udnerstandable) and jump straight so summarising interesting bits of the conclusion and discussion sections of that article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added a paragraph   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the only known drawing from life was made by a Friedrich H. Plenisner[13], yet this article credits Steller himself. The drawing shown in this article also appears to be of uncertain origin. If your sources discuss the circumstances of these illustrations, it is very important info to add.
You mean add it to the caption or to the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To the article, but the caption would of course have to be modified accordingly. There are two issues that need to be handled: there were drawings made originally by Plenisner, which seem to be lost, and the drawing that is now in the infobox may be one of those. No other drawings of actual specimens seem to exist, and none were drawn by Steller himself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The caption does say "thought to be". Also, his full name is Friedrich Plenisner, right?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added section on illustrations   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why the media appearances are not listed chronologically?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old illustrations should have dates in their captions to show their historical context.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a clear close up of the skull, such as this[14], should be shown.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taxonomy section could describe the circumstances around the discovery in more detail, and explain the meaning of the scientific names. There also seem to be many unexplained synonyms. On what basis were they named?
The circumstances? They got shipwrecked. this link has a lot of info but I'm not sure exactly what is relevant. Should I talk about their first sea cow hunt?
Seems like a relevant addition. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added to the Extinction and sightings section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything on the meaning of the scientific names? FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anyone who says what "Hydrodamalis" means but "gigas" is Latin for "giant"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the intro begin with "the"? Glancing at the sources, few if any say "the Steller's sea cow", but you use it throughout the article. We should follow the majority of the sources.
Some people use it, some people don't. Since it starts with the name of a person, it could go either way, and I think it's alright. Do you still want me to continue?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should always do what the majority of sources do, so it comes down to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the article body should mention the full name, not just "the sea cow".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence reads "The Steller's sea cow grew to at least 8 to 9 m (26 to 30 ft) in length as an adult" I think that this wording doesn't work grammatically and is awkward prose. Something can't grow to 'at least' a range of sizes. 'at least 9 m' or 'sea cow grew 8 to 9 m in length' could work, or some other wording, but the current wording is not good I think.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "...grew to be 8 to 9 m..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Seems there has been a lot of good expansion of the article during the last few days, so I'll continue reviewing soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms like rostrum, papillae, and canthi could be explained. "Epoch" could be added after terms like Holocene.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had a large genioglossus, the muscle responsible for sticking out the tongue." Why not group this info with the rest of the text about the tongue further down?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added a sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure a gallery of largely repetitive or unrelated images is needed, per WP:Galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the ones that aren't talked about in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The group also attacked the boat " How does a sea cow attack?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exhibited childcare." Parental care would be a less anthropomorphic way to say it.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is quite a bit of behavioural info in the description section. I'd recommend renaming the ecology section "Ecology and behaviour" or some such, and moving the info there, as in most other animal articles.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the tail fluke was bilobed, which could be mentioned.
I said "forked" which is a synonym   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it in the article, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
oops, added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Dusisiren" Genus names do not need definite articles.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 1811, naturalist Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger placed Steller's sea cow under the genus Rytina, which many writers at the time adopted. However, the animal had already been classified long before this. Zoologist Eberhard August Wilhelm von Zimmermann had described its specific name as gigas in 1780, but placed it in the genus Manati. Biologist Anders Jahan Retzius placed it under the genus Hydrodamalis, 17 years before Illiger had described the sea cow as Rytina. He, however, described its specific name as stelleri, as Steller was the first person to describe it.[4] The name Hydrodamalis gigas was first used in 1895 by Theodore Sherman Palmer.[1]" What's the point of summarising this history in the wrong order? You should describe it in chronological order, otherwise it will be needlessly confusing to readers.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This may be due to unidentifiable remains" Wording seems strange. Due to the remains being unidentifiable?
changed to, "wrongly-identified remains"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many large bones during this time period, from which complete skeletons were erected." I assume you mean these bones belonged to different individuals, but were used to make complete skeletons? Could be stated more clearly then.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be better to order the illustrations in the gallery after the order they are discussed in the text.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their range at the time of their discovery" I think you need to name the subject in the beginning of a new section, "their" is too vague.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an online version of Stejneger's book about Steller's voyage[15], perhaps there is something useful that could be added. In any case, it contains a now public domain reconstruction of Steller dissecting a sea cow, which I have added, as I think is relevant enough (mentioned here[16]). FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would right align the photo of the sea otter, since it is recommended that subjects face the text, and then it would not clash with the section header under it.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the range section again, I still think the late survival claim by Turner is way too unreliable to have in a section that should reflect scientific consensus, not speculation. There must be a reason why the IUCN accepts an earlier extinction date, and we should reflect the consensus view here. All speculation on survival past 1768 should be placed under sightings. Furthermore, it is already mentioned earlier in the section that the sea cow existed around the Near Islands, so the Turner sentence doesn't add anything at all about the range, and therefore doesn't belong in that section, regardless of how reliable it is.
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would further suggest that you don't muddle up the info on the accepted extinction events with that about later sightings, and instead give later sightings their own header ("possible" or "claimed" sightings, to make it clear). See for example the similar section[17] in woolly mammoth. It is very important that we don't mix accepted views with fringe views haphazardly.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first fossils discovered outside the Commander Islands were interglacial Pleistocene deposits in Amchitka" Deposits are not fossils, so you need to add "were found in".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated below, you need sources that specifically say the sea cows mentioned by Kipling and Verne are Steller's sea cows, otherwise it is OR. The way different sources are put together to support a claim not stated in either one them (as with the Verne manatee) is WP:Original synthesis.
removed Verne's, but Kipling specifically says "Sea Cow" and it takes places in the Bering Sea   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added ref for Jungle Books that specifically says "Steller's sea cow"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should give years of publication for all the pop culture entries, for some reason you only give it for two.
I'm not citing the book, I'm citing the review/summary (where it actually explicitly analyses it)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in-text dates for when the books mentioned were published, not the sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a sourcing expert, but this doesn't look right at all for a book citation: "Species Evanescens (Russian Edition). Amazon.com. ASIN 9079625027."
it's not a book, it's the amazon summary that somewhat analyses the book   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I don't see a compelling reason why the pop culture section is even needed. Apart form the documentary, none of the entries are even about the sea cow, but only briefly mentions them. But I won't push for removal unless others do.
  • Again, there are still text under description which is not about physical description, but behaviour and ecology, such as "The forelimbs, according to Steller, were used as a sort of holdfast to anchor itself down to prevent being swept away by the strong nearshore waves around their habitat." and "Their large size was probably an adaptation to reduce their surface-area-to-volume ratio and conserve heat. Based on the larger average size of Pleistocene specimens from the Aleutian Islands, it has been hypothesized that the growth of Commander Island sea cows was stunted due to the marginalized environment with a less favorable habitat than the warmer Aleutian Islands."
moved   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "make great material" Sounds like a commercial, not like a neutral account. You could sya the bones are "well suited" or some such.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why the text udner "Commercial value" isn't chronological? You start by mentioning uses today, then jump back to the 1700s, and then forwards to the 1800s. It is especially puzzling, since the last paragraph about skeletons in museums seems very fitting right before the text about use of the bones today.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external links section could be pruned, some of the sites there are already used as sources in the article body, and other sites have no information not found in the article.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put "Portrayals in media" last, it makes more chronological sense.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the crew of the Great Northern Expedition were stranded on Bering Island, they hunted Steller's sea cow with relative ease; because of their large size, the challenge was hauling the animal back to shore. Their success inspired maritime fur traders on their North Pacific expeditions to stop by the Commander Islands and restock their food supply by hunting sea cows" Isn't this pretty much the same information as in the preceding sentences? If so, should be merged.
The success of Bering's crew in sea cow hunting attracted hungry fur traders who were hunting sea otters in the North Pacific   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sea urchins would have increased and reduced availability of kelp" How? I assume they eat the kelp?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should state specifically in the article that 1768 is the widely accepted extinction date.
It says "By 1768... Steller's sea cow was extinct"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also hunted for its valuable subcutaneous fat, which was not only used for food (usually as a butter substitute), but also for oil lamps because it did not give off any smoke or odor and could be kept for a long time in warm weather without spoiling." This info is repeated again in the commercial value section.
removed the purposes of the fat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and probably belong to an arctic cetacean" Singular would imply it was bones of a single species of whale, plural would be better.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't the book under further reading used as a source?
it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the further reading section is redundant. It is for publications not used as citations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any remains left from the sea cows killed in historical times? Brought home by people who had actually killed them? Or have they all just been found as bones?
found as bones as far as I know   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that was found exclusively around the Commander Islands" The article suggests they were found more widely.
added "at the time of their discovery"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • I think there could be a bit more general physical description and behaviour info in the intro.
is it good now or should I keep going?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some changes myself, but when the points above are fixed, I'll be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems there are two points left, then I can support. Better make them quick, before this is archived by a coordinator. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done. Sorry it took so long, the flu's been going around   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem for me personally (if this was a GAN, we could go on indefinitely), but FAC articles get archived if they have no supports after some time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this looks comprehensive to me now, and the structure makes more sense. I'd remove the further reading section if the book listed is also used as a source, but that's about it. Good to see this animal get some attention! FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde edit

Looks like a decent article, good job on getting it thus far. However, I think there are a good many prose issues, which force me to oppose until they are resolved. Vanamonde (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Any other comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment, but there are two issues: about singular/plural with respect to the animal and the phylogeny; which are still to be addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, all but two of my specific issues have now been addressed, but the issue with the phylogeny suggests to me that there might be other issues of source misinterpretation. Thus I am not willing to support this in the absence of a source review that does spot checks. At the moment I do not have the time to do this, but I might at some point in the future: and this will require a source review to pass in any case, so I do not think I am unfairly holding this up. Vanamonde (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Ealdgyth did a source review. Do you have any other comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "the Commander Islands, which is situated" shouldn't it be "are"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is the sole surviving member of the Dugongidae of which Steller's sea cow was also a part of." missing commas, and also some redundancy
added a comma after "Dugongidae"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'had a much thicker epidermis than other sirenians in response" Seems like odd wording; how about "than other sirenians, which they evolved in response"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other sirenians, they probably cared for their young." Other sirenians don't "probably" care for their young: the ones we know of definitely do.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Georg Wilhelm Steller had discovered Steller's sea cow along with the Commander Islands in 1741 on Vitus Bering's Great Northern Expedition where they were shipwrecked, and much of what is known about the sea cow in life comes from Steller's account on the island documented in his posthumous publication "The Beasts of the Sea"." This is a massive run-on sentence, and also seems ungrammatical: an expedition is a singular, not a plural.
pretty sure it's not a run-on, "they" refers to the crew of the expedition, and it's grammatically correct   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if correct, strictly speaking, it does not flow well, and is difficult to understand. Please break it up. Also, plural would only be correct if you introduced "members of the expedition" at some point.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though there were sightings proceeding 1768." What does "proceeding 1768" mean? I think "preceding" is what you intend: in which case, it is redundant with the earlier fragment
"proceeding" basically means "continuing past/through/etc." and "after," and it was intentional   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, perhaps correct, but I would prefer a more widely used phrasing.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They feature a role in various media" clearer as "are feutured in various media"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • "Their large size was probably to reduce" odd phrasing: I'd suggest "...size was an adaptation to reduce..."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede mentions the epidermis as an adaptation to cold, this section as an adaptation to abrasion; why the difference?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike other sirenians, Steller's sea cow was positively buoyant, meaning they could not completely submerge. " Singular vs plural
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there no information available about sexual dimorphism, or lack thereof?
nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ecology and behavior
  • "They may have also fed on seagrasses, but this could not have been a main food source" should be these seagrasses.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've mentioned above, the article keeps switching between referring to the sea cow in the singular and the plural. I think either is fine, as as long as it is consistent.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, actually, there are several remaining.
  • "although they could have been born year-round" the "could have" here is confusing. Did he actually say he saw calves being born year round, or only that he has no evidence that they are not?
"The young are born at any time of year, but most frequently in autumn, as I judged from the new-born little ones that I saw about that time"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So say it as he does.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • "It most likely went extinct" better to specify what went extinct, for clarity
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless I'm reading something very wrong, the text and the phylogeny are saying different things. The phylogeny shows Steller's sea cow as the more basal lineage, and the Cuesta sea cow as the more derived.
the cladogram says H. cuestae and H. spissa are more closely related to each other than to H. gigas   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've fixed that error, thanks; but I checked the source, and the depiction of the Dusisiren is different in Furusawa's paper than here. Why is that?
that's basically the cladogram version of the phylogenetic tree, I just lumped all the Dusisiren together instead of making individual branches for each one. Same basic idea's conveyed here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree. The source shows the dusisiren as a paraphyletic taxon, and suggests that H. Gigas and some dusisiren are actually more closely related than the dusisiren are to each other. This is a fundamental difference from the source. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " no osteological evidence of the existence of Steller's sea cow, that is skeletal remains" probably clearer as "no osteological evidence, or skeletal remains, of the existence of Steller's sea cow.."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a reference in this section to possible differences in the appearance of juveniles, but no mention of this in the description
The source says the drawing looks like a West Indian manatee calf which has those folds   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's what the text should say; it is OR to suggest that it looks like a juvenile Steller's sea cow.
"According to the proportions of the body it might represent a juvenile...for comparison the picture of a baby manatee [picture of a baby manatee above]...probably however this is, as Heptner believed, a 'heavily distorted' copy"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Range
  • "Their range at the time of their discovery was apparently restricted to the Commander Islands, which consists mainly of Bering Island and Copper Island," "consists mainly" is strange phrasing: "of which the prominent members are" might be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, it's probably best to be explicit that the range was the shallow seas off the coast of these islands: if I'm not mistaken, often quite far off the coast.
changed to "...restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remains of three individuals were preserved" should be either "are preserved" or "were found preserved"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extinction and sightings
  • I'm a little dissatisfied with the ordering of content in this section. The logical sequence would be "Indigenous hunting - first attempts at hunting by Europeans - Commercial hunting - extinction, possible later sightings - analysis"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial value
  • "Steller's sea cow bones are being sold commercially, however they probably do not actually belong to a Steller's sea cow specimen, more likely an arctic cetacean." Confusing sentence. Would suggest "Steller's sea cow bones are sold commercially today; however, these are highly unlikely to be genuine, and are probably those of an arctic cetacean."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suggest "As the animal is extinct" in the next sentence.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Portrayals in the media
  • I'm a little dissatisfied with the first two paragraphs of this section, as they seem to be borderline original research. The media in question obviously do not make the connection to Stellers' sea cow specifically; but do the sources do so? If the sources are also only mentioning a generic sea cow, then I'm afraid these paragraphs need to go. Vanamonde (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref for the Jungle Books one that specifically says "Steller's sea cow", and removed Vernes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the use of Amazon as a source is inappropriate. Given the context, using the work in question as a source should be okay; or you should find a reliable secondary source.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • If you are using a books as a source, it should not be labelled "further reading".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a couple of days. I'll copyedit as I go -- please revert if I screw anything up.

  • You give two different definitions for "papillae" in the "Description" section.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "15,160 centimetres (5,968 in)": this is from a 1751 source? I think it would be better to convert these numbers into metres and feet.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Takikawa sea cow and Steller's sea cow are more derived than to Cuesta sea cow": "derived than to" looks like a typo of some kind.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preserved in the South Bight Formation of Amchitka, a rare occurrence": what's the basis for "a rare occurrence"? I looked at the source and couldn't find anything to support, but I also noticed you don't have a page range on that reference (Whitmore & Gard).
"The South Bight exposure ... is a rare occurrence of late Pleistocene interglacial deposits in the Aleutians; the abundance of Hydrodamalis gigas in this limited exposure suggests that the species may have been widely distributed in the Aleutians at that time."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't clear what it was that was rare, so I've expanded this a little; I think that does it if you're OK with the edit. You still need to add the page reference to the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so it is much more likely that the animal died between 1710 and 1785": I think this is too strong a statement given that the source also says "all that can be said for certain is that the rib from Kiska is less than 1,000 yr old". Mention of the date range of 1710-1785 is fine, since they say that in the source, but the caveat needs to be stronger.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded this, as you'd taken the text almost straight from the source, which is not allowed per WP:PARAPHRASE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This population may have also had confrontations with humans": "confrontations" doesn't seem like the right word, since the aggression was presumably all one way. Do you mean "wiped out by" or "driven to extinction by", or something similar?
changed it to "interactions"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again:

  • "the ancestors of Dusisiren were associated with tropical mangroves, and adapted to the cold climates of the North Pacific and to consuming kelp": I assume this is meant to indicate a sequence, so perhaps make this "and subsequently adapted", as otherwise it's not immediately clear.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the page number fix above. Once those two points are fixed I'll support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took the page numbers back out of the Whitmore citation, after asking elsewhere how this situation is usually handled. At Broad-billed parrot, for example, the reference Hume 2007 is 76 pages long, which is too much for a reader to search through for a citation, so for that reference short form citations were used to point directly at the pages cited. For the shorter articles this wasn't done. Personally I'd prefer to see every citation supported by a page ref directly to the pages the reader would need to see, but that's not a FAC requirement. For Whitmore, since you're using it to support multiple facts, it's not appropriate to put in the page numbers, and that's why I deleted them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's for book refs. Whitmore is a journal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Vanamonde93, have you had a chance to look at this again? I think you wanted someone to look at the sources, and I believe Mike Christie did so in his review above. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a couple, but I don't think I would claim I've done a full source review; I certainly didn't verify formatting. However, I did a couple of spotchecks in following up one or two of the questions I had. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was the spot checks that I was thinking of rather than the formatting. A source review could be requested at WT:FAC as we will need one anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jens Lallensack edit

I just started reading and will add comments below as I go

Lead

  • There are some termini which should be linked, such as blubber, bristles, kelp
  • As opposed to teeth, it had an array of white bristles, – I think this could be clearer. Where are the bristles located, and what are they used for? Perhaps better "instead of teeth" than "opposed to teeth"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph has many short sentences starting with "It". Perhaps add more prose?
merged some sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georg Wilhelm Steller discovered Steller's sea cow – I would add "Naturalist Georg Wilhelm Steller" or something similar, such information is very useful for the reader.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • much larger than the extant sirenians of today; – a tautology, since extant and today mean the same.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in the mouth are the bristles and keratinous plates located? And how many keratinous plates?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The small eyes were parallel to the nostrils, halfway between them and the ears – I don't understand this sentence.
fixed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • it used sphincters – Sphincters is linked, but the linked article does not explain the term (?), perhaps add a short explanation?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "irises" and "sea otters"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its tongue was rough with short lingual papillae, small structures on the tongue that give it texture – I don't get the point here yet (I mean, what does this tell me?), what does it mean that the papillae are short, are they shorter than in other sirenians?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • larger on the vertebral side and narrower towards the neck – with "vertebral side", are you referring to "posterior"? This sounds like "medial" to me.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deltoid tuberosity, the part of the humerus that is attached to the deltoid muscle, was large and shield-shaped. – Any inferences? Are the fins more powerful than in other sirenians because of a larger muscle?
not that I can see. Should I just delete it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and on the proximal end of the anterior side of the radius was a tuberosity which connected to the brachialis muscle – Now you start using anatomical terminology (which is not linked), it would be better to use more common terms here. Hm, you give very specific detail here; imho it would be better to point out why this information is notable.
the source never mentions any inferences. Should I just delete it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments will follow tomorrow. It appears to be a interesting, well-researched article. So far I see two general problems:
    • Language and Prose; understanding the article is sometimes not as easy as it should be, at least for me (I am not a native speaker though).
    • Detail. Of course, I don't have a general objection against detail, but if you state something like "on the proximal end of the anterior side of the radius was a tuberosity which connected to the brachialis muscle", you should also add why this specific information is notable. Without this information ("this is important why …") the reader will not have a chance to learn something from it, and might get the impression that he is flooded with unnecessary, unimportant and random detail. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The heart of Steller's sea cow was detached from all sides, and enveloped in a loose pericardium which formed a cavity in the thorax; so, instead of facing perpendicularly, it made an oblique angle to the back. The base of the heart was surrounded by a 1.3-centimetre (1⁄2 in) layer of fat. The pericardium was fastened to the inner wall of the diaphragm. The lungs were white and extended from the chest cavity into the abdominal cavity. They were encased in a thick membrane and were, like the heart, detached. The liver had three lobes, one of which was small, anvil-shaped, and situated between the other two lobes. It was encased in a fibrous membrane. The gallbladder was absent, but it did have a common bile duct. The kidneys were large, measuring 81 centimetres (32 in) in length and 46 centimetres (18 in) in width. The stomach was also large, measuring 1.8 metres (6 ft) long and 1.5 metres (5 ft) wide. The entirety of the intestinal tract was 151 metres (500 ft) long.[11] – I feel a bit uneasy about this whole paragraph. Again, a lot of detail, and the question if everything is notable enough. But what bothers me the most: This is based on the original historical account of Seller himself, from 1751. I do not want to say that this information is flawed, but basing a biological description on such a historical account is close to original research, since the content has to be translated into the modern biological context. And you have to decide yourself which parts of this information are notable in this modern context. For example, you elaborate which organs are detached, but is this observation even specific for the species, or rather a common trait in mammals (if so, the information would be worth nothing here)? In my opinion, it would be much better not to use the historical source directly, and instead rely on recent scientific reviews of these historical sources (e.g. Forsten and Youngman 1982, which is not cited in the article yet).
    so delete it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the detail: The two things mentioned above (deltoid tuberosity, and radius tuberosity), yes, I really would remove this. It just does not help anybody. Other details you give however are absolutely fun, and I really don't want to see them removed. The problem is that the selection of this information appears arbitrary. For example, you give the color of both the iris and the eyeball, but you do not mention the body color of the animal itself, which would be a much more important thing to know?
I don't see where he explicitly states the colour of the animal. Should I delete the eye part?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removed part about deltoids   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot continue reviewing before Friday, unfortunately. I would be interested to make some additions/changes myself, if you would be fine with this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Dusisiren, the sister taxon of Steller's sea cow and other hydrodamalines, had reduced phalanges (finger bones), it is possible that Steller's sea cow did not have a manus. – I am confused, I thought Hydrodamalines would include Dusisiren, or is the article Hydrodamalinae incorrect?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steller noted that it grew thin during the frigid winters, indicating a period of fasting. – Does this mean that it willingly abstained from eating (as "fasting" would imply)? Or is this because food is not accessible?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much like Steller's sea cow, the ancestors of Dusisiren were associated with tropical mangroves – Does this sentence lack a "those" ("Much like those of Steller's sea cow")?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phylogeny section: Since you are mentioning hydrodamalines later, you should introduce this group also. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added a brief sentence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The range of Steller's sea cow at the time of its discovery was apparently restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands, which consist primarily of Bering Island and Copper Island,[28][27][9][11] and which remained uninhabited until the Russian-American Company relocated Aleuts from Attu Island and Atka Island to hunt sea otters. – The most important info here is not given: When does this happen?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Pleistocene interglacial deposits are rare in the Aleutians, so the discovery suggests that sea cows were abundant in this area during the Pleistocene. – You can't say "abundant" based on only three specimens.
late Pleistocene interglacial deposits are rare, so the discovery of even one specimen would indicate some level of abundance (and the source also draws the same conclusion)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dating may be skewed due to the marine reservoir effect; the large reserves of C14 in the oceans cause radiocarbon-dated marine creatures to appear much older than they actually are by several hundred years, but the size of the necessary correction is not know; it has been estimated to be between 450 and 1,000 years. – First I would suggest making two sentences out of it. Second, "it has been estimated to be between 450 and 1,000 years", do you mean the "size of the correction"? If you mean the fossil itself, you don't need to give to datings. I would suggest to shorten this info.
I made it less confusing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This population may have also been hunted into extinction by humans.[27] – Please specify: Driven into extinction by native or western people? Could be a bit more elaborated. I see this is discussed below in "extinction". Then I would suggest just remove this sentence in section "Range".
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose (given the limited time remaining for this nomination) – as I'm still concerned with the quality of the article. Main concerns include the prose, the content (in some sections it still appears a bit as a collection of random information rather than a coherent buildup of information; a lot could be added to the description section), and the sources used. I also have to agree with Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) that the rothauscher website might not quality as a reliable source, and a lot of content in the article is based on it. Better use the original sources directly. But still, I think the article is almost there, on the edge of becoming FA. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
looks like rothauscher is a book. I fixed it. What could be added to the Description section? All that comes to mind is listing the size of random parts (like different bones and organs). For the record, the only thing said about bones (other than shape) is that they are huge; seriously, the only thing I can find is a bunch of statistics basically saying they're huge   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ealdgyth edit

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • What makes this a high quality reliable source?
it's well-sourced and I think it's either a book (Die Stellersche Seekuh) or a summary of that book ISBN 978-3-8370-1793-9   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it gives a list of references which are all German journal articles and books (but there are some in English)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
looks like it's a book. I fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 (Berta, Annalissa) does not have a place of publication, but the rest of your book sources do. Needs to be consistent.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 (Stellar) - I cannot get the ISBN to work here -
I don't see the problem, it works for me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
added OCLC numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 (Berta, Sumich, Kovacs) does not have a place of publication, but most of the rest of your books sources do. Needs to be consistent.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19 (Domning) - same as the two above.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is ref 20 (Marsh, Helene) a book? If so, it needs a place of publication like most of the rest of your book sources.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not required, but could we source "The range of Steller's sea cow at the time of its discovery was apparently restricted to the shallow seas around the Commander Islands, which consist primarily of Bering Island and Copper Island," to a slightly better source than the tertiary Brittanica.com?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and remove the Britannica source, as it's not really up to the standards of most of the rest of your sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 28 (MacDonald) ... needs a place of publication to conform to most of the rest of the book sources.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra picky but ref 31 is actually from the Yale University Press, not "Yale University" - and it (you guessed it) needs a place of publication.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a spot check of sources is needed, it'll have to be someone else, as I don't have access to most of these sources.
Except for the above quibbles, the sources all look to be of high quality and reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that I think that finding more modern sources for the description would not be a bad thing (referring to the above discussion.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SUPPORT by Elmidae edit

edit: Article seems in fine shape now, and presents a concise and very readable summary of most of the salient data information we have about the species.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things I noticed:

  • Description: "Its large size was probably an adaptation to reduce its surface-area-to-volume ratio and conserve heat", in the first paragraph of the description section, links to Surface-area-to-volume ratio#Biology. While this is technically correct, it may be more helpful to link to the specifically biogeographical instantiation, Bergmann's rule, since as far as I know all adaptive interpretations of the sea cow's massive size have suggested this particular driver (heat conservation) rather than any of the others mentioned at the current link (nutrient exchange, buoyancy, etc.).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description: In the second description paragraph, the length of the bristles is given in inches, converted to cm; all other measurements are given in cm, converted to inches. I assume that this is due to difference of usage in sources, but at least the length of the tongue is cited to the same source as the bristles (translation of Steller's original), so maybe a double check re "original" units might be good here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are already wikilinked in the Description section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Range: "One study in 2004 reported sea cow bones discovered in Adak Island and Buldir Island" => "on Adak Island and Buldir Island"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Range: "This population may have also interacted with humans" strikes me a needlessly hedged. The cited article makes no bones about the suspected 'interaction', which was hunting to extinction. So maybe "This population may have also have been hunted to extinction by humans"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extinction: Just checking - did Steller himself suggest that flooding might be a cause of mortality, or is that a later interpretation based on his report? The reference to the original report suggests the former, but I can't check (my net access is coming through a pinhole today).
he said in his journal that there was flooding and went on to explain   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potrayals in media: The double cite of the Kipling story to two separate editions of The Jungle Book seems a little odd, as text should be identical in both editions (Kipling gave none of these stories an overhaul for subsequent imprints).
one is the actual copy of the story, the second one is to verify that he is talking about a Steller's sea cow (because in the first one it just says "Sea Cow")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, looking forward to its front page appearance :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "with crater-like bores most likely from ectoparasites". I do not think this is a correct use of "bore", which means a hole drilled in manufacturing. Maybe "depression"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says that Steller's sea cow fed solely on kelp, but the main text that it was probably its main food soruce.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It only ate the soft parts of the kelp, and consumed the tougher stem and holdfast when they washed up on shore in heaps." This is contradictory - it did and did not consume the tougher parts?
changed to "attacked"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It may have also fed on seagrass, but this did not occur in sufficient quantities to support a viable population, and so could not have been the main food source. Also, the available seagrasses in their range, Phyllospadix spp. and Zostera marina, were probably too tough or occurred too deep for Steller's sea cow to consume." This also seems contradictory - it may have fed on seagrass, but the evidence suggests that this was not possible. I would delete.
a lot of sources list seagrasses as an albeit small food source (the ones the talk about food anyways)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the larger average size of Pleistocene specimens from the Aleutian Islands," This is a bit confusing as it is the first mention of the former Aleutian population. Perhaps "Fossils have been found of an Aleutian Islands population during the Pleistocene, and they are larger on average than the Commander Island sea cows,"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow, but from what I have read so far I am inclined to oppose. The article cites a translation of Steller's original paper, even though the translator expresses doubt about its accuracy and it is an original source which is probably only accepted in part by modern researchers. An example is the statement that sea cows were monogamous. It is unclear how Steller could have known, and a statement that they were apparently monogamous in the main text becomes definite without the "apparently" in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
according to Steller, they lived in family groups (multiple sources concur that's what he said), with one male, one female, and their offspring; and basically everything known about Steller's sea cow behaviour comes from Beasts of the Sea   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open for nearly two months now, and we have had a lot of commentary but we have two fresh leaning opposes, plus a remaining earlier oppose. Despite the support this article has received, I don't think we have a consensus that this meets the FA criteria, and the opposes are certainly valid ones. Therefore, I am archiving this nomination as I don't think we are close enough to promotion after a long time at FAC. This can be renominated after the usual two week wait, but I would suggest working on this away from FAC in that time with those who have made suggestions, and bring it back when the work has been done. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2017 [18].

Louis Leblanc edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An ice hockey player who recently retired after a somewhat disappointing career. It's been a GA for a while, and now that he's retired there shouldn't be much effort to keep it at a high standard. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Yves works ... Marie works": Some will object per WP:ASOF, but that page isn't a black-and-white guideline. I'm not sure what to tell you.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the editing, always good to have someone else go through my writing and clean it up. As for the note about the parents and their work, I'm also struggling to come up with something better, so feel unless someone else knows a different way to saw that it isn't really something that matters for the time being. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I'd suggest adding "As of 2010", and "As of 2013" to the statements about Leblanc's parents' jobs, and Leblanc's relationship with Wozniak. Other than that I think this is in good shape and expect to support once you make that change. I've copyedited; please revert anything I messed up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the wording, and thanks for the edits. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66, including image & source review edit

  • Keeping in mind that I know very little about ice hockey, I'll take a stab at this.
  • Two duplicate links. Installing this script will make it pretty easy to find them
  • Images appropriately licensed
  • External links OK.
  • The titles of some English-language refs are in title case, others in sentence case. Pick one or the other, preferably the former, as they're all titles.
  • Spotchecks support the citations.
  • Nothing jumped out at me regarding prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll wait until tonight to do a re-read to see if I spot any prose issues that I didn't catch on the first pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is fine, but there are still a ton of articles that need to be put into title case; it doesn't matter if that's how the newspapers or websites did it themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moisejp edit

General comments:

  • The lead mentions spells out and wiki-links various league names, such as United States Hockey League (USHL), Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL), and American Hockey League (AHL). In the main text, United States Hockey League (USHL) is spelled out and wiki-linked on its first mention as one would expect. By contrast, QMJHL and AHL are not. I would suggest you spell these out and wiki-link them.
  • 2009 NHL Entry Draft and NHL Central Scouting have wiki-links, but it would probably be an idea to spell out and wiki-link NHL itself on its first mention?
  • The article seems to assume that the reader already knows the hierarchy of the leagues, and that the AHL is a developmental league for the NHL, and that the goal of players is to succeed in the NHL. Would it be an idea to somehow make this clearer for people less familiar with hockey? Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junior:

  • "Canadiens General Manager Bob Gainey also applauded Leblanc's choice to move to the United States and play in the USHL rather than stay in Quebec with the QMJHL, considering it a more difficult choice for the sake of his development as a player, showing his good character." This sentence runs on quite long, with the final clause tagged on a little awkwardly. Consider breaking this up into two sentences, or using a semi-colon to break it up?
  • He forfeited his NCAA eligibility. Is there extra context that is implied? For example, that he would have otherwise considered continuing playing for Harvard while waiting to start playing for the Canadians? Or something along those lines?
  • The third paragraph in this section is confusing. First sentence: "On July 30, 2010, Leblanc signed a three-year contract with the Canadiens." Two-thirds down into the paragraph: "After attending his first training camp with the Canadiens in September 2010, Leblanc was sent back to the Juniors." Third sentence in the paragraph: "When Leblanc left Harvard, he joined the Montreal Junior Hockey Club of the QMJHL for the 2010–11 season." The wiki article for 2010–11 QMJHL season says it started in September 2010. So is this the Juniors that is mentioned two-thirds into the paragraph that he was sent back to? If so, why this order of events for the paragraph?
  • "His QMJHL rights had previously been owned by three different teams. Originally selected by Val-d'Or in the 2007 QMJHL Draft, the team traded him to the Chicoutimi Saguenéens on January 8, 2009.[10] His rights were traded again on June 5, 2010, when Chicoutimi sent him to the Juniors." Would the chronology be clearer if this was combined into the previous paragraph? Also, "selected by Val-d'Or in the 2007 QMJHL Draft" is already mentioned in the previous paragraph and is a bit repetitive here.
  • "He finished the 2010–11 season with 58 points in 51 games for the Juniors." It took me to figure out that that the Juniors was the nickname of the Montreal Junior Hockey Club. At first I thought it was just talking about the Junior League in general. If you rearrange the paragraph as i mentioned above, maybe it will also help to keep the context of the team's name clearer.
  • "the Blainville-Boisbriand Armada... would subsequently trade Leblanc to the Shawinigan Cataractes, though he never played for them." So he was under contract with the Montreal Canadiens, but he got traded from one junior team to another? That's a little confusing to me, and could be confusing to other readers as well.
  • Why didn't LeBlanc play for the Cataractes, and what were the circumstances of his move to the Hamilton Bulldogs? I see from the Hamilton Bulldogs wiki article that they are the affiliate team of the Canadiens. That seems important to mention.

I have quickly skimmed the rest of the article, and at first glance it seems to have fewer issues than the first part. If you resolve the issues in the first part of the article, I'll come back and look more closely at the rest. cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Syek88 edit

As Moisejp has commented substantially on the first half of the article, I'll focus on the second half. But like Moisejp, I'd reserve to myself the opportunity to look at the other half later.

  • What is a "two-way contract"? If it means no more than that the contract has two parties, it is just a "contract".
  • "Leblanc also had exams scheduled around the time of the camp." This is the first time we hear about a "camp"; the reference is unexplained.
  • "ranked fourth in team scoring" What does this mean? That he was the fourth top-scorer on his team?
  • I understand the point made by another reviewer above about tying some of the personal facts to 2010 and 2013. However, it screams "out of date". I think it might be better to drop the detailed information about the father's career in favour of a general description of his occupation. And anything other than a four-year-old note about Louis' relationship status would be better.
  • Like Syek88, I'm also not totally comfortable with the "As of" approach, but I didn't mention anything initially because I couldn't think of a good solution right away. But I would support you trying Syek88's suggestion and see if you can make that work. One other idea: Are there any sources that say his relationship with Aleksandra Wozniak started in 2013? Then you could say, "In 2013, Leblanc started a relationship with..." It would be ideal to maintain the article in the future and note any changes that may occur. But even if the article wasn't 100% maintained, at least "started" would sound less out of date than "as of... was". Moisejp (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does not say that he joined the Lac St Louis Lions at age 15. Further, unless I'm missing something, I can't verify from that source that he twice led the Triple-A league in scoring.
  • "Leblanc was the first francophone selected in the first round of the Entry Draft by the Canadiens" - the source says French-Quebecer, not francophone.

My current inclination is that this isn't at FA standard. I think there are issues with both prose (Moisejp's issues are largely along these lines) and accurate relaying of information in sources. The question is whether it can get there through this review process, and I'm not sure. Syek88 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

This nom has been open two months and it's concerning to see two new lists of issues being raised re. prose and referencing. I know it's a letdown after all this time but I think it best we archive this now to allow the outstanding points to be dealt with away from the pressure of the FAC process. The article can be renominated after a minimum two weeks has passed; I'd suggest discussing improvements made in that time with the reviewers above before bringing it back here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

William Pūnohu White edit

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

 Doing... — Maile (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyvio/close paraphrasing checks
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector. The return of 83.2% "violation suspected" is primarily due to two large block quotes in the article, appropriately cited as to their source. Other items flagged are common phrases and proper nouns (names, titles, etc.). i.e. "the opening of the legislature", "annexation to the United States", "the Queen and". Returns that show a lesser percentage, are flagging the same issues. Nothing to be concerned about.
  • Individual spot checks on citations with Duplication Detector show nothing of concern.
  • Checklinks tool gives false positives on some links as "Heuristics resolved as likely dead" and "Error code indicates dead status", but checking each one shows the links are alive and working fine.
  • Bibliography section
  • Helena G. Allen book, wikilink publisher Arthur H. Clark Company, and the first instance any other publishers that have a Wikipedia article.
  • Sources
  • Citation 56 - "William, White (January 9, 1894) correspondence is a primary source, used only in conjunction with a secondary source, so it is allowable in the place and purpose for which it is used.
  • Sources used are in accordance with MOS.
  • Formatting
  • Consistent throughout
  • No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
  • Citations are appropriately placed in every paragraph
  • Table citations in their own column

KAVEBEAR everything looks pretty good on your sourcing, nice and detailed, appropriately formatted. The only thing I have suggested above is under Bibliography; you ought to wiki link the first occurrence of each publisher, if Wikipedia has an article on them. — Maile (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Source review is completed, and everything looks good. — Maile (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open over a month with little feedback, and nothing has happened for quite a while. I think it would be best if this was archived now. If the nominator wishes to renominate before the usual 2 weeks, please leave a note on my talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2017 [19].

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) edit

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about first installment in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise. I have fixed the quotes issue in this article. It is heavily sourced, and has been a Good Article for quite some time. It appears to have no unreliable sources as well. It is very detailed (but not too detailed) and looks almost perfect. For these reasons, I believe Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) meets the Featured Article criteria and should be promoted to this status. TheJoebro64 talk 12:18 PM, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - TheJoebro64, you appear to have had limited involvement in developing this article compared with Tezero (the previous nominator) and others. I don't see where you have communicated with the principal editors about nominating the article. We normally require the involvement of those who built the article since they will be familiar with the sources used, etc. Another big concern is that the opposition from the last nomination has not been addressed. Several major sources were mentioned that have been neglected, and they don't seem to be in the article still. I recommend withdrawal of this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I concur with Laser Brain: this nomination should be withdrawn because the problems outlined in the original FAC have not been addressed. The development section is woefully incomplete -- and in places inaccurate -- because it does not incorporate the wealth of information found in Pix 'n Love's The History of Sonic the Hedgehog. It also fails to include material on the development and marketing of the game covered in other important sources such as Sega Mage Drive/Genesis: Collected Works and Console Wars. Until information from these sources is integrated into the article, it fails the well-researched and comprehensive FAC criteria and should not be nominated again. Indrian (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I was going to comment earlier and echo that this was largely Tezero's work and that it is shy from meeting the comprehensiveness part of the FA criteria. JAGUAR  22:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 [20].

Acne vulgaris edit

Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris and underwent significant refinement during the last FAC. I strongly believe the article should be featured as a significant amount of effort has been poured into this article (by multiple editors) to ensure that its discussion of acne vulgaris is comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to a general readership. This is a very important topic since the condition is nearly ubiquitous (one of the most common skin conditions worldwide). This article aims to provide all readers (general and professional) with an informative summary of the underpinnings of this condition and to address any questions those affected by the condition might have (e.g., safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities). I believe this article to be an example of Wikipedia's highest quality work but am certainly open to constructive feedback to further refine it to reach FA, if applicable. Thank you to those reviewing the article for your consideration. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CFCF edit

Reserving a spot for a coming review (may not occur in its entirety before the 10th of January). Prior to the full review I may perform some minor c/e and adjustments. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, and thank you responding so quickly CFCF. I do have a question for you. What is it about the procedures part in the lead do you feel needs clarification? So far other readers have felt this section was clear so I'm curious to hear your thoughts about that part. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right: well procedures is a little vague — considering quite an industry exists offering all-manner of "facials". It would be better to explain this as "medical procedures" or some qualification that explains that much of what is on offer does not work. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will start by going through the prose for issues with readability and clarity, diving into specific sources later. For what it's worth this likely fulfills all the criteria for FA already. However it is an important topic and when it reaches the main page the article should be a good as possible. Some early points:

  • Images are important as there is significant variation in presentation:
    1. We should try to find images that show acne on different skin types. Acne looks very different on dark skin
    2. We should try to find quality images of acne of varying severity.

These are not necessarily requirements for FA, but if we can we should include them. I will take a look if I can find anything. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree with everything you said CFCF. We do have photos that exhibit some variance in acne severity and on different skin colors. We don't have any high-quality images of acne vulgaris on someone with very dark skin and my last review of the Wikimedia Commons images was unrevealing. If you know of a good image, I agree it would be worthwhile to include. I have no objection to rewording procedures as "medical procedures". I think the efficacy is well-addressed in the body and we don't go into significant detail about the relative efficacy of medications, lifestyle changes, or the medical procedures in the lead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking and will continue looking for images. Unfortunately there aren't that many in the medical literature that are free. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's pretty much what I expected but thanks for looking. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to keep my comments coming rolling and I hope they do not overwhelm you.

  • This article currently redirects from "acne", yet makes no mention of other types of acne such as
    • acne rosacea
      • I'm not sure what you mean. When I search acne rosacea this redirects to the rosacea page. This is briefly covered in the differential diagnosis section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • acne inversa (hidradenitis suppurativa, Wikipedia's use of that name is debatable, should potentially be moved to acne inversa)
There is some debate whether these should be classified as acne or not, but they are widely referred to as such and I think about a sentence differentiating them from acne vulgaris is due in the classifications section. I am able to provide you with a high quality source that describes both the classification as such as well as the controversy surrounding the classification.
That's a fair point. I have seen the literature refer to hidradenitis suppurativa as acne inversa. Which source did you have in mind for the classification/controversy? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't agree that the hidradenitis suppurativa page should be moved to acne inversa since it's not really a type of acne and its pathogenesis has more differences than similarities. I found a good 2014 Clinics in Dermatology review that sums it up nicely. I'll add a brief mention that it is sometimes referred to as acne inversa but is not truly a form of acne vulgaris. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of "background erythema" — a strong factor differentiating acne vulgaris from acne rosacea
    • That specific phrase wasn't used but rosacea is discussed in the differential diagnosis section as above. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackhead is explained as an open pore, but is also referred to as an "open comedone", this should be in classification
    • I'm unclear on the suggested edit here. The discussion of blackheads' definition is within the classification section already. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention of juveline acne needed
    • I'm assuming you meant juvenile acne here (which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page to link to). Hasn't been featured in any acne review I've seen so far. If you have good sources demonstrating this deserves mention, I'll take a look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention of papullopustules needed (simple as we mention both papules and pustules in the classification
    • I haven't seen this mentioned in any review I've seen so far. Do you have an illustrative source that mentions a papulopustule as a characteristic acne lesion? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF:, I have to question whether the term "papulopustule" is widely accepted as a proper term for a type of characteristic acne lesion. Use of this term does not appear to be widespread as evidenced by the paucity of mention in the medical literature, see here [21]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could potentially mention secondary infection with other microbes such as s. aureus
    • That's reasonable. Where in the article did you have in mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should carry information on classification of scarring, mentioning: hypertrophic (common), keloid (rare)

To fulfill this I can offer help finding images and accessing sources, mail me if you need help with sources. I have sources for all the statements above.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF:, I believe I have addressed each of the suggested edits. Are there any further comments or suggestions or would you be willing to support the FA nomination at this point? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF:? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the FA nomination. More work can be done, but when it comes to medicine — there is no article where this isn't the case. I may end up adding some things myself prior to the main page feature. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by My Core Competency is Competency edit

Comment - Wow... You have done such a great job improving this article! Here are a few initial thoughts: Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is used to treat active acne, not just scars (I am most familiar with red light therapy; check Pubmed for a reference). Microneedling and subcision are two other common treatments for acne scars ([22], [23]). Cryotherapy with dry ice was once a very common treatment for acne (see [24]; you can probably find a better reference), maybe you can add it as a historical note (I think some docs still do this). Hydroquinone should definitely be mentioned for treatment of PIH. For meds where both oral and topical forms are avaliable, it should be made clear which form is being referred to in the article (for example, is "dapsone" being used to refer to oral dapsone or topical dapsone gel; the same applies to clindamycin as another example). I would like to see Whey protein specifically added as a cause (that's a big trigger in people taking protein supplements to enhance weight lifting). I know this is an article on acne "vulgaris", but it would be nice to see the various subtypes of acne briefly mentioned, including other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (see: [25]). A bit more coverage of drug-induced causes would be a plus too, for example, acne from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (cetuximab, panitumumab) and small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (eg, gefitinib, erlotinib, lapatinib (see [26]). Perhaps olumacostat glasareti should also be mentioned as a possible future treatment (see: [27]). Cosmetic adhesive pads could also be mentioned as a treatment (see here [28]). Also, some comments on the role of cosmetics/make-up might be beneficial (both with respect to concealing acne, as well as acting as a possible cause of acne (comedogenic vs non-comedogenic products)). Perhaps the US iPledge program should also be mentioned with regard to oral isotretinoin (see [29]). Though acne lesions are rarely biopsied to confirm the diagnosis, there are distinctive features visible in a skin biopsy specimen when examined by a pathologist under the microscope; it might be nice to have a description (and photo if possible) of that dermatopathology in the article (you may need a better reference, but see [30]). Would a "Notable cases" section be a good idea, as is seen with other FA's like here [31] and here [32], a "Etymology and pronunciation" section like here [33], and/or an "Other animals" section (apparently cats can get acne, see here [34]; though you'll need better sourcing for your article)? And a question I have is this, is it a problem that some of the references are quite heavily cited, such as this one: [35] (I don't know if there are any pertinent wikipedia policies regarding this)? There are many other fun references that could be used for this possible feature article (I think this is a great one, for example: [≤http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/479093]). Another thing you might try is to find author email addresses in the reference articles you have used and email those authors inviting them to comment here (that might give you some really useful feedback). Additionally, I wonder if the article name should instead be reversed to simply acne with a redirect from acne vulgaris (perhaps someone else at the Medicine project can chime in on that); then all the various subtypes could be merged into and redirected towards this article (most of which are stub type articles). Maybe a "Further reading" section could be added at the end of the article (obviously not required, but I find it to be a nice addition (see [36])). But overall, fantastic work! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Core, that was a rather large block of text you left so I'll try to work through it in order.
  • I'll look into the photodynamic therapy part to see if I can find high-quality evidence to support the assertion that it's used for both acne & acne scars and report back with what I find.
So, just to clarify, the article does not say photodynamic therapy is used solely for acne scars. I think the article makes it pretty clear that it's used for acne vulgaris itself too since it discusses its mechanisms involve reducing bacterial (e.g., P. acnes) load and reduces sebum production. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The microneedling search you linked there is mainly from one journal (which is not MEDLINE-indexed) and was not mentioned in a slew of high-quality review articles so I would question how common this really is as a treatment for acne and/or acne scars. I'll have to look into the subcision part more.
I've added a few lines about the microneedling treatment in the procedures section for the sake of being comprehensive. It appears to have received limited study for acne vulgaris and scarring so far but it has been reviewed in JAAD so I agree that it's worth mentioning. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look more into cryotherapy but very few (1-2) cover this topic for acne vulgaris so if it was once common (per that 1968 paper), it doesn't appear to be anymore.
I performed another search for cryotherapy and acne vulgaris and there's very little mention. Cutis has an article that discusses it but it's a low impact journal so it's questionable whether it really merits inclusion in the article since it doesn't appear to be a prominent treatment. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take another look at the PIH section re: hydroquinone.
A brief section discussing hydroquinone has been added to the treatment section since it is a frequently used treatment for acne-associated PIH. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention of other acne subtypes would add unnecessary length to the article (which is already quite long, IMO) and there are dedicated Wikipedia pages to drug-induced acne (although those need a considerable amount of work). I believe those pages would be the more appropriate places to include discussion of the medications you mentioned (e.g., EGFR inhibitors).
  • I'll take another look at the dapsone bit to see if that requires clarification.
I've clarified that topical dapsone was meant in one sentence where it was ambiguous. The formulation of clindamycin under discussion is clear in each instance it is mentioned in the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a high-quality source you can cite regarding the whey protein claim? Most review articles state diet has not been conclusively linked to acne vulgaris incidence or severity as the current article states.
per [37]...[38]review-[39]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't see whey specifically mentioned there. Also, @My Core Competency is Competency:, in [40] you said you thought the article could do with a good copyedit. Where do you think it could use this specifically? If you can identify problematic areas, I'm happy to address them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you linked for the cosmetic adhesive pads is not a high-quality one (not a MEDLINE-indexed journal).
  • If you have good sources to suggest for inclusion regarding the makeup to conceal acne, that might be a useful addition to the society/culture section so I'd be interested to hear your suggestions about that.
  • I think specific mention of the US IPledge program might be a bit too U.S.-centric for the article but that's just my two cents. If the consensus is that this is okay for inclusion, it might be worthwhile mentioning in the retinoid or society/culture sections.
  • A brief addition of the histopathology is not a bad idea but it will be hard to incorporate that into simple language for a general readership. I'll look into that more.
  • I'm unsure about a notable cases section. It might be a reasonable addition to the society/culture section if we can find good examples.
  • I personally don't think the etymology section is particularly important since that's discussed in the history section.
  • It's okay to cite a review heavily if it's an influential and important review. I think there is definitely adequate diversity in the reviews included in the article considering there are over 100 references. Additionally, many of the claims referenced to that article are also supported by other reviews as well so I think we're fine there.
  • The JAMA article you cite is an old primary source so I wouldn't recommend its inclusion.
  • The further reading suggestion is a nice one if you have any specific sources you would like to present for review.
  • I would vote to keep the article as acne vulgaris since it's established in the very beginning of the article that it's referring to what is colloquially called acne. I think naming the article itself "acne" is too vague since there are so many subtypes. @Doc James:, @Opabinia regalis:, @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, any thoughts about these suggestions? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler, my initial comment was from just an initial skimming of the article. I can give you more feedback once those initial issues are fully addressed (and I do think you have overlooked a few of my initial comments (probably by accident)). With regard to copy editing, again it is not my strength, but I can say that subjectively (to me), this article does not flow/read like one of Wikipedia's best articles. Here are just two examples/honest questions I have:

"Boxcar scars are round or ovoid indented scars with sharp borders and vary in size from 1.5–4 mm across." Is the right type of dash used here and should there be a space between the "4" and "mm" ? (I don't know) Is a comma needed after "ovoid"?
"Frequently used combinations include the following: antibiotic + benzoyl peroxide, antibiotic + topical retinoid, or topical retinoid + benzoyl peroxide." Should plus signs be used here? Or should there be words instead?

I think you should have multiple copy editors look this article over again.

Whey protein is mentioned in the full text of that article (search reference 18 for "Whey"). And with regard to references, the ones I provided above were just to get you started. I realize better sources need to be found for some of the facts/issues I mentioned (but they are out there and you can find them). On a related note, think about what your audience would want to know about; take a young woman for example. She is going to want to know about cosmetics (do they cause acne, can she use them). There needs to be some coverage of cosmetics, including cosmetic adhesive pads, etc.

My feeling is that opinion on the length of a FA is irrelevant and subjective (it takes the length it takes to make an excellent article). My preference would be that you change the article name to "acne" and redirect from "acne vulgaris" as well and merge in all the obscure subtypes of acne into this article (like pomade acne - that is never going to be more than a ~1 sentence stub anyway). Once all those are merged in (see here for a good list [41]) then you can have a really interesting "etymology section" talking about all the obscure names, including what "vulgaris" means (common). Plus, people are going to search for "acne" not "acne vulgaris".

While this may be controversial, and I don't have strong feelings about it, Brad Pitt might be one option for a "notable cases" section (Google him and acne scarring - he is "known" for his bad skin).

Here are some ISBN's for further reading: 0723435715, 032331967X, 0323244750, 0071669043.

--My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific comments do you think I have overlooked Core? I'm pretty sure I addressed just about everything you mentioned earlier and have incorporated many of your suggestions into the article. The ones I didn't were generally ones I disagreed with or did not see good sources to support the idea. No comma is needed after the word ovoid and I'm pretty sure that type of dash was felt to be okay by Grammarfascist (and many others who have read through so far so I'd be surprised if someone changed that) and none of the aforementioned seemed to have any issue with the + sign (but if someone vociferously advocated for the word "and" there, I wouldn't be opposed since it's so minor a change). I'm not really sure why the article doesn't read to you like one of Wikipedia's best. I think article length is important (within reason) for the sake of readability. We must keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia for a general readership and if it's endlessly long then few will read it. I'm going to agree with Opabinia and say the article should remain acne vulgaris. I think the other acne articles simply need to be developed. If we add in all the other forms of acne, that's going to lengthen the article even further. The article does come up if the term "acne" is searched so we should be okay there, but I'd be interested to hear what other members of the community have to say about these matters. I'll take a look into the whey/acne link but from what I've seen the consensus amongst secondary sources is there is no convincing link at this time. Lastly, why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article? As above, what reference(s) do you suggest for this? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, looking into the question of a link between whey and acne, I find it interesting that the most recent JAAD guidelines from 2016 say that observational evidence (often very limited by retrospective design and self-reporting to say the least and no RCT evidence) has suggested a link between dairy and acne severity but found that milk (especially skim) was associated yet cheese and yogurt were not. It strikes me as peculiar that other dairy products such as yogurt would not show the same correlation if this were truly attributable to whey protein. Granted, this is totally my own analysis on the matter and inadmissible as WP:OR, but I felt it was worth mentioning all the same. Taken together, since whey protein is mentioned in a JAAD 2014 review already included in the article, I think it's reasonable to allow brief mention but whey protein's link does not seem to have much evidence behind it at this time. I have added a brief statement covering the topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Things you have yet to address at all: adding brief mention of other conditions that are closely related (such as SAPHO and PAPA syndromes) (this is a separate issue from adding in the subtypes of acne), adding mention of olumacostat glasareti as a possible future treatment, adding an "other animals" section, and emailing article authors for feedback. With regard to copy editing, if you can get User:Tony1 to look at this article and he thinks it's ready for FA status, then I would be satisfied on this point (I did post on his talk page here [42]). I have also already answered "why do cosmetics need to be discussed in this article" and references are out there (search through here [43] and see more specifically here [44], [45], [46], [47]). With regard to other initial content issues that remain unresolved, I suggest you solicit many more opinions from other less biased third party users regarding: mention of the US IPledge program, addition of notable cases, addition of an etymology section, addition of cryotherapy, changing the article name to "acne" and merging in all the various subtypes (including adding drug-induced causes of acne), addition of dermpath findings, the presence of heavily cited sources (is that a problem?), addition of a "Further reading" section. I would love more users (10+ ?) debating these issues, not just you and I and two other users (this is healthy for the FA process). For the time being, I oppose this nomination.--My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there is essentially zero chance of 10+ users weighing in on topics like "should olumacostat glasaretil be covered". (But here's one more: there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments to an already long article about a disease with many existing treatments.) Also, Wikipedians are perfectly capable of making judgments about whether an article meets the FA criteria; while there have been other projects aimed at soliciting external review, contacting outside authors has never been an expectation at FA. As for the cosmetics thing, see also my comments in the first FAC about body image and media representations - I could believe there's an article waiting to be written at acne in popular culture, but I'm not sure it needs to be in this article. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is unreasonable to hope for more users participating in this FA review, even if they don't chime in on all the questions raised. Regarding asking outside authors to review this article,I suggested that idea thinking it might be helpful, not an expectation (though I have brought it up again as Tyler did not respond to the idea); I don't feel strongly about this issue. Cosmetics, on the other hand, I do. This is a general article about acne with no mention of cosmetics, no matter how brief - it is a major omission. I don't think a whole section is necessarily needed, but some type of coverage is. And concerning olumacostat glasaretil and "there's no need to add unproven, still-in-development possible treatments", have you read the "research" section in this article? By your reasoning essentially that entire section should be deleted (which I would not agree with). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's slightly premature to oppose the nomination based on the above issues since I'm actively addressing them. I have tried getting other editors over here (pinged above for opinions though I think 10+ is a little ambitious) but I'll ping them again. @Doc James:, @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, @Ozzie10aaaa: any thoughts about Core's suggestions and concerns? More opinions are always welcome and strongly encouraged. Core, I'll try to address your concerns that have not been sufficiently addressed. I left a comment for Tony yesterday so we'll see if he answers soon and has any additional ideas for copyediting but I did make some tweaks yesterday that should improve the article's readability. Regarding your suggestions/concerns above, I'll address them in order.
  • I had previously grouped the concern you had about SAPHO and PAPA syndromes into the same issue as not mentioning the various acne subtypes. I'll look into this issue more to see if mention is warranted and report back soon.
So, looking into the matter further, the most recent reviews I found discussing SAPHO syndrome specify that acne conglobata and acne fulminans occur in up to 25% of patients with this rare syndrome and these seem to be regarded as dermatologic entities distinct from acne vulgaris (unless I'm missing something) but other reviews do mention variable severity of the acne so perhaps acne conglobata and fulminans are simply severe forms of the acne vulgaris spectrum. Is that correct Core or would you view that as a misrepresentation of the definition of acne conglobata and fulminans? If these are just severe variants of acne vulgaris, then I agree it's worth mentioning and have a good review article from Clinics in Dermatology I can use to add this information and a few other syndromes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did briefly look at the olumacostat glasareti trial you linked earlier. I have to look into it more to see if it merits brief mention in the research section.
I think this is still too preliminary to warrant mention after further review of the cited trial. The results are encouraging but it's a single phase IIa trial of relatively short duration. The other treatments mentioned in the research section are largely reviewed in a secondary source so I think we can wait for a secondary source to emerge covering olumacostat glasareti (very interesting novel MOA though!). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel strongly about the other animals section but certainly don't think its absence should preclude an FA nomination from going through. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think about this idea.
  • I don't see where you explained the need for discussion about cosmetics. In your original suggestion, you mention cosmetic adhesive pads should be mentioned and link to a non-MEDLINE indexed journal (which I did address above since it's not a high-quality source though I'm sure you're right that high-quality sources do exist). Additionally, you suggested mentioning the use of makeup as a cause of acne but I believe this belongs in the acne cosmetica article. With respect to the use of makeup to conceal/minimize the appearance of acne, I believe that may have a place in the society & culture section though I would need a good source (thanks for linking the PubMed search-I'll explore that).
  • I think it's reasonable to have other opinions on the IPledge question. I still think it's a bit too U.S. centric but if consensus says otherwise I'm happy to mention it.
  • I'm looking into dermpath findings so stay tuned (This was addressed above as a good suggestion in my earlier comments and it hasn't been forgotten).
  • I maintain that with >100 sources there is adequate diversity despite some reviews being heavily cited (as above, this is addressed by the fact that most of the statements supported by some of these heavily cited reviews are verified in others).
  • I don't feel strongly about the notable cases section but I think it's optional and shouldn't preclude upgrade to FA.
  • I still don't think cryotherapy is worthy of mention and would be WP:UNDUE. It's very sparsely mentioned in recent high-quality literature (from the search I did anyway but if you come across high-quality sources really discussing it, please let me know)
  • I think the mention of the drug-induced acne belongs in the acne medicamentosa article since that seems to have enough of a distinction to not call that true acne vulgaris but a more specific form of acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler - I can see you are working hard on this article, and you’re doing a good job! I took some time to reflect about this FAC the last hour, and I really don’t want to dig in any further on these issues. Whatever you all decide is fine with me. If you do end up adding a notable cases section, you could reference celebs who have admitted to having acne and endorsed Proactiv in commercials (see specifically [48]). I will not stand in your way any further and look forward to seeing what the ultimate acne FA looks like! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@My Core Competency is Competency:, that's entirely up to you. I'm certainly not trying to dissuade you from participating. In fact, I encourage you to stay and wait to see what other editors think since we value your input. As you can see, I am incorporating many of your suggestions and I do think they are helpful. I'm not suggesting that you're obstructing anything but I do disagree with some suggestions you've made (that's certainly allowed and okay-this is why we have discussion). Since you're a dermatologist, can you weigh in on the question I posed about the acne conglobata/acne fulminans and SAPHO/PAPA syndromes? If you could provide some insight about that, it would certainly help clarify whether their mention is appropriate. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I do not agree with MCCiC about mentioning SAPHO and PAPA, these are just one of a multitude of disorders that display acne as part of their presentation. I mean if we don't stop there we're going to have to list them all by name. Certain mention of disorders which present themselves with acne may be due, including acne medicamentosa, but hardly more than a sentence, making it undue to mention SAPHO and PAPA by name.

We should remember that this is a Wikipedia FA, not a full Cochrane review, frankly these requirements strike me as far from what FA entails. None of our FA's are anywhere near perfect, and if we expect perfection we will simply get nothing. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Opabinia edit

I reviewed this article in some detail in the previous FAC round and just re-read it. While I still think there's probably room to expand the "society and culture" section, I haven't found as much material as I would've expected and think this subtopic may actually be better off covered elsewhere, somewhere like body image. In response to the above, I think the article's current name is preferable. I'm out of nitpicks and I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I reviewed this ages ago, so I was surprised to see it pop up again on my watchlist recently. Regarding some of the issues raised below, I had also suggested including more on the social/cultural aspects of the condition, and I agree with Sarah on the narrow point that MEDRS refers to medical claims and should not be used to exclude sources from other academic disciplines that relate to social/cultural/etc. issues. However, at the time I looked for potential sources on this, I found much less than I was expecting. There is plenty of primary material (magazine articles, makeup ads, TV sitcoms and young adult books with pimples as plot points, and so on) and plenty of academic work on body image in teenagers, but surprisingly little of the latter specifically about acne. "There must be sources!" isn't really an argument, or an actionable recommendation. I'd be in favor of a brief mention of the size or scale of acne-related product sales in the cosmetics industry, though, if you can find sources on that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Opabinia, I hear you. There's no dispute about whether MEDRS applies to social/cultural things. I'm fine with using non-medical sources but they still need to be high-quality sources (and preferably ones I have access to so I can read them and then add them). However, cosmetics do indeed have ties to medical phenomena. That's an indisputable fact that remains pertinent to the conversation. I have been working on many different issues (feel like I'm pulled in all directions) and it is on my list of "to-dos" for this article to expand the S&C section with some high-quality sources. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi333 edit

Continuing from where I left off during the last nomination...

I'm going to take on a review of the article's MOS compliance (criterion 2) now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Criterion 2a (MOS:LEAD): pending review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a few minor edits to the lead to improve clarity/flow. Overall, the lead appears to conform to MOS:LEAD. It has an appropriate image/infobox, the first sentence adequately establishes the scope and is correctly formatted, it is composed of exactly 4 paragraphs which is consistent with the paragraph limit for long articles, and the lead paragraphs adequately summarize the article IMO. As of right now, I think that the current lead conforms to criterion 2a. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Criterion 2b (MOS:LAYOUT): since this is a medical article, the section ordering is indicated by MOS:MED. From looking at the TOC and a cursory inspection of the sections (mainly to identify any single sentence paragraphs and see how section hatnotes were used), I can see that the layout conforms to MOS:MED#Diseases or disorders or syndromes. There's no issues with the formatting in the EL section, the image layout is fine (per my image review during the last nomination), and the correct infobox for a disease ({{Infobox medical condition}}) is used in the article.
    In a nutshell, I see no issues with the current layout. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Does the article pass this criterion in your view @Seppi333: or are additional edits needed? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerDurden8823: I'll take a look tomorrow. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I spot-checked about a quarter of the ~100 references in the article and every one of them is consistently formatted. I'm satisfied with the reference formatting based upon that sample. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Criterion 2 overall (general WP:MOS compliance): I've gone through the article to find and fix formatting issues relevant to MOS:NUM/MOS:DATE (partially done via script), MOS:NBSP/MOS:DASH (partially done via script), MOS:TEXT, and MOS:ABBR. The revisions made by me and the nominator during my image review in the last FAC fully addressed my concerns relevant to MOS:IMAGE and MOS:ALT/MOS:CAPTION. I'm not going to go through every aspect of the MOS since this isn't actually necessary for FA promotion; however, based upon a fairly thorough examination of the article's source and the article itself, I don't see any further issues with any of these components of the MOS. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Seppi, that sounds great. Once you've finished reviewing the last few criteria about the lead and citation formatting/consistency, please be sure to let me know if anything needs fixing and I'll attend to it immediately. Once that criterion is satisfied, please let me know if there are other issues you see with the article (if you care to comment on them) and elaborate if you support or oppose the FA nomination. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seppi333:, any updates on your assessment of MOS compliance? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll follow up soon. Sorry for the delay. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seppi333:, any update? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've reviewed the lead section. I'll tackle the citations sometime in the next week or two. This is going to be pretty tedious. From a cursory look, the author and date formatting is slightly inconsistent. E.g., some dates use a day, month, and year - others just use a month/year. I'd suggest just cutting the day and using a consistent month/year format. The author formatting in most citations is "[last name], [first and middle initials w/o periods]; [2nd author last name], [2nd author first and middle initials]; etc."; however, some citations include a period in the initials or do not initialize the authors' first names and middle initials. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on tweaking the citations for consistency to make your review easier when you do it. Thanks for reviewing the lead! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion based upon my review of the MOS and images (criteria 2 and 3). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

I think we are OK for source and image reviews. That leaves us still needing a spot check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing; I'll leave a note at WT:FAC. Additionally, I'd just like a non-medical editor to glance over the prose to check for accessibility for the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV edit

Hi TylerDurden8823, I have a question about this sentence: "Cigarette smoking is not recommended as an approach to improving the appearance of acne because of its numerous adverse health effects." Young people with acne reading that might think it would be helpful to start or continue smoking. What does the source say to support the sentence? SarahSV (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means, especially within that paragraph: "Other workers have voiced concerns related to creating a vaccine designed to neutralize a stable community of normal skin bacteria that is known to protect the skin from colonization by more harmful microorganisms." SarahSV (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlimVirgin I'm happy to answer your questions. I'll address them in order. Regarding your question about the first sentence you mentioned about cigarette smoking, that seems like a very significant misreading of what it clearly says-that cigarette smoking is NOT recommended as a way to improve acne. The reason this sentence is included is because the relationship between cigarette smoking and acne severity is unclear and studies have been mixed (as it mentions in that paragraph). Some studies say smoking cigarettes makes it worse, others say it has no impact, and others say it improves acne appearance. However, since cigarette smoking is known to have numerous harmful effects on a person's health, it's obviously not recommended for this purpose since reliable and safe medical therapies are available. Here are some pertinent quotes from the cited article: "Whether or not acne is caused by, exacerbated, improved, cured, or is not associated with smoking remains controversial.31,125–130" and "Although it is possible that smoking could ameliorate acne, further experimental research in this area is unethical due to the harmful effects of smoking. Further observational research is likely to perpetuate previous problems in reporting bias and confounding. Clinicians are recommended to advise against smoking despite some evidence suggesting it is beneficial with regard to acne."
With respect to the second sentences you mentioned, the article is referring to concerns being raised about vaccines aimed against P.acnes. on the skin. "P. acnes is thought to contribute to the process of acne but is also a part of the normal skin's flora of bacteria/microorganisms and therefore concerns have been raised about designing vaccines training the immune system to target this particular bacterium since the skin's natural bacteria flora is thought to have beneficial properties as well. I hope that clears up the confusion. If not, I'm unsure what is confusing you about the sentence. Please let me know, thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. I didn't misread the first sentence. I know what it says, but any hint that smoking might help acne could cause teenagers to start or continue smoking. I think we shouldn't mention that unless the source is very clear that it might help (but that, of course, no one should smoke for that reason). As it stands, it seems like a passing remark in the source. Remember that his/her readership and ours are very different.
Re: the second sentence. The sentence makes no sense in the context of that paragraph. Who are the "other workers"? What kind of workers, and in what sense "other"? Is it the vaccine from the previous sentence or some other? SarahSV (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other problems:
  • There's almost nothing in "society and culture" (which is a poor choice of headings; I know it's MEDMOS, but that offers suggestions—no need to stick to them if they don't make sense). You mention anxiety, depression, etc, under "prognosis", but it might be better here (along with social isolation, employment problems, thoughts of suicide).
  • "There is no clear evidence that use of oral retinoids increases the risk of psychiatric side effects such as depression and suicidality." Then why mention it? You should first explain what the issue is, then you can offer rebuttal. That's the problem with the smoking sentence too.
  • I see you changed the smoking section on 3 February 2016 to say the opposite of what it said before. The current version depends heavily on Bhate and Williams (2013). Can you say why you're prioritizing that source? SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article simply reflects what the literature states-that it's unclear how smoking influences acne but it's not recommended to be used as a tool to help acne. I think it's fine as it is but I appreciate the feedback. I don't think teenagers will interpret these statements as an endorsement of smoking for acne. I believe others who have reviewed the article would agree since no one has seen these statements as problematic or ambiguous. I think it's quite clear and doesn't even hint that smoking might help. I disagree with the characterization of the smoking sentence as needing a better definition of why smoking is not recommended. I think that's clearly explained. Exactly as you said, the article states that smoking should not be used for this purpose (or any really, but that's a separate issue). There are other reviews that discuss the relationship between smoking and acne as well and it's not an infrequent question. Regarding the second sentences, I can reword it a bit since looking at the original source I don't see which specific groups are being referred to as skeptics/opponents of such a vaccine. Other would be referring to those who oppose the vaccine (as opposed to those who favor it, which I thought was pretty clear since it's a two-sided issue pro- making a P. acnes vaccine vs anti- making a P.acnes vaccine).
Regarding the other issues you've raised, this has already been discussed (see above discussion) regarding the society & culture section (widely used across various medical articles and I don't know why you're saying it's a poor choice of heading, but if you have a better suggestion, I'm open to it). I agree this section requires further development but it's not a strict requirement for FA (as covered above) and will be continued to be developed. However, a major limiting factor is a lack of high-quality sources discussing it (let alone ones I have access to). Regarding the oral retinoids, it's a pretty strong implication that if they were studied for depression and suicidality, that there were concerns about those issues. It seems redundant to say "concerns have been raised about oral retinoids being linked to an increased risk of psychiatric side effects such as depression and suicidality; however, there is no clear evidence to support such assertions." If other editors agree that this is unclear or necessary, then that's fine (but so far you're the first). Argh, edit conflict! Oh, and the British Journal of Dermatology is a fine source. I changed what the section said that day because I found new information from a newer review. It's never good to stick to old information purely because it's just been there. If new information is found and it contradicts the old information and is high-quality, it should be acknowledged. That's what was done. The current version acknowledges that there is debate as it states in the literature. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon within the medical literature as understanding about a certain topic evolves over time. To say the smoking section "depends heavily" on the Bhate's review seems somewhat misleading to me. It's true that many sentences in that section are cited to that source but two other reviews have also been mentioned and it's only a few sentences. I'm happy to include other reviews if I can find them if you're concerned about a lack of diversity there (though sometimes you have to accept the limitations of the currently available literature) and there are only so many reviews on a topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I don't think teenagers will interpret these statements as an endorsement of smoking for acne."
If teenagers read on Wikipedia that smoking might make their acne go away, they might start or continue to smoke. Adding "but don't do it; adverse effects, etc" is pointless, because when you're 16, adverse effects lie in the distant future, which is never, whereas acne is now. So if you're going to include that sentence, you will need several sources who are very clear about the existence of a possible positive association between smoking and acne relief. Don't include it because of a passing remark in one source. SarahSV (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to hear other opinions. I don't agree that teenagers are at higher risk of taking it up or not quitting because of that sentence. I also disagree with saying that discussion of adverse effects and that it's not recommended are pointless statements. I meet people every day who have no idea about cigarette's harms (and I also meet many who do and smoke regardless, but that's neither here nor there). There are few reviews that discuss the relationship between acne and smoking. There is one from 2011 that I don't have access to and I'll try to see if someone can get me a copy since that may help with the diversity of included reviews. However, the current version of the article reflects the controversy in the literature. Some reviews say it definitely worsens acne whereas others say the impact is unclear. You say "several sources" will be required, but how many is that? I still disagree with the "passing remark" characterization. @Seppi333:, @CFCF:, @Doc James:, @My Core Competency is Competency:, @Ozzie10aaaa:, @WhatamIdoing:, what do the rest of you think? Does this sentence require modification or removal or is it fine as it is? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: smoking again, you wrote above: "Some reviews say it definitely worsens acne whereas others say the impact is unclear." Yes, but you are saying more than that. You are saying that it might help, and that: "Cigarette smoking is not recommended as an approach to improving the appearance of acne because of its numerous adverse health effects." That's a red flag. I want to know that the sources fully support you on there being an association between smoking and acne disappearing. SarahSV (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia reflects what high-quality sources say and we have done that. The content does not say acne is improved with cigarette smoking (it says one review says it's unclear whether smoking makes acne worse, better, or doesn't change it at all and that another review says it clearly worsens acne and its relationship with acne is therefore controversial. Your description above sounds to me like a serious misinterpretation to me. We do not say there is an association between smoking and acne disappearing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously not communicating clearly enough here. Apologies for that. My concern is this. You have written (in an article that will be read by young people): "Cigarette smoking is not recommended as an approach to improving the appearance of acne because of its numerous adverse health effects (bold added)."
That is, there is only one reason not to smoke to improve the appearance of acne, and that reason is the adverse health effects. Other reasons might be that it wouldn't help, or that it would make the acne worse, but those are not the reasons given. Instead only one reason to avoid smoking for acne is offered. Therefore, the implication is that, were it not for those adverse health effects, smoking to improve the appearance of acne might be recommended. SarahSV (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the preceding sentences clearly demonstrate that cigarettes are not a reliable way to improve acne regardless of its negative health effects so I still disagree with your conclusion. That was a helpful clarification though on what you were trying to communicate though so thank you for that. We'll give DoctorJoeE some time to respond. If he doens't, that sentence can be reworked or removed (it's not essential to the article). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to James' tweak. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the "other workers" sentence: DoctorJoeE added it in March 2015. DoctorJoe I was wondering what "other workers" refers to in the sentence: "Other workers have voiced concerns related to creating a vaccine ..." SarahSV (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SarahSV, I'm not sure I understand your question. The paragraph before the one I added discusses the theoretical possibility of developing a vaccine targeting P. acnes as a treatment for acne; I added (and sourced) the caveat that other workers (specialists and researchers) have pointed out that it may be a very bad idea to neutralize a stable community of normal skin bacteria that is known to protect the skin from more harmful microorganisms. It's an important point, and I would object to removing it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorJoeE, I don't see where in the cited article (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20958-in-development-a-vaccine-for-acne/#VRoBMbqL6QY) this claim is made (except perhaps in the author's own words). I don't see anything in the article about a group of skeptics/scientists/etc voicing opposition to the development of such vaccines. This appears to be the pertinent section of the cited article: "This showed that antibodies to P. acnes might reduce pimples. However, a stable community of normal skin bacteria is known to protects the skin from colonisation by nastier germs. A vaccine that encourages the body to indiscriminately attack P. acnes could cause worse trouble than acne." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Except perhaps the author's own words"? Really? What else do you need? The concern about immunizing human hosts against normal flora is a widespread concern in the medical community. If you need more cites, I'll provide them, or you can easily find them yourself. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorJoeE, yes, really. In this situation, I think plenty more is needed. I see no mention of the author's credentials anywhere near this story (though even a well-credentialed author should not replace critical thinking, but that's an aside). I'm not suggesting that immunizing human beings against their own normal flora isn't a concern, but it's vague in this article who is concerned about it so I do think other sources are needed here for additional specificity (since it seems to be causing confusion for readers who is concerned about the implications of such a vaccination strategy). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't mention iPLEDGE. Also, again in relation to the sentence: "There is no clear evidence that use of oral retinoids increases the risk of psychiatric side effects such as depression and suicidality", the consent form for isotretinoin refers to these side effects, so that needs to be expressed differently. This is a good source.
The sentence about oral retinoids not having clear evidence of an increased risk of psychiatric side effects is quite well-sourced. Since this is the second time iPLEDGE has come up, I will add a brief mention though I still think this is being belabored a bit in excess since it has its own Wikipedia page already and would be more appropriate on the isotretinoin page. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence needs to be unpacked. There is a black-box warning, and patients have to sign a consent form saying they've been told of these possible side-effects, yet the article says only "there is no clear evidence that ...". SarahSV (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the correct name is acne vulgaris since the term acne is used for various skin conditions (somewhat erroneously). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The medical name is acne vulgaris. The common name is acne. WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I don't care. Do what you want. Doc James, any thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a requirement for FA and I found little to no mention in the literature (which I find rather striking). Acne cosmetica has its own page and should be further developed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FACR 1(b): "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". From the title onwards, this article discusses the medical aspects, but it largely ignores the non-medical. There's a billion-dollar global industry devoted to cosmetics to hide acne and other blemishes. SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then, present high-quality sources for use. I have yet to find any and have not seen any others recommended. Again, it's still not an FA requirement (I disagree with the above characterization of this lacking in comprehensiveness). I find it odd that not one single review in the medical literature would mention this since many of them discuss the social stigma (at least none that I could see). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden8823 (talk • contribs)
Core supplied several medical sources [49] [50][51] [52], and there are lots of non-medical. SarahSV (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slim, only one of the sources you presented here is of adequate quality. [53] is a recent study but a primary source; [54] and [55] are not MEDLINE-indexed (a marker of poor quality). The only one that's okay (and I will review) is this one [56] since it's a MEDLINE-indexed review from a journal with an okay impact factor. That's why I did not use the sources Core presented earlier. I critiqued many of the sources he presented above before and outright stated this but I'll see if the one acceptable source you provided has anything valuable to add. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need the sources for a cosmetics section to be only MEDRS; you can include others. SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, they should be. Where are you proposing this cosmetics section go exactly when the articles you present are from medical journals and yet shouldn't be subject to MEDRS standards? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "One trial found a relationship between acne and obesity" is based on a 12-year-old source. If this is what Core meant, that a discussion of cosmetics for concealment should be included, rather than as a cause for acne (which would be acne cosmetica), then this was unclear from his previous comments and your earlier ones. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but other sources have said the same. WP:MEDRS generally favors secondary source within five years, that's true, but it's not an absolute requirement and this sounds a bit like recentism. I'm happy to replace it with a newer review that says the same thing but you'll have to give me a chance to look. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, there's no rush. SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You've changed the sentence to "Few studies have examined the relationship between obesity and acne", sourced to [57]. What does the source say? SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send you a copy so you can see. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence could use a tweak: "With increasing [antibiotic] resistance of P. acnes worldwide, antibiotics are becoming less effective." That says they're less effective because they're less effective.
No, that says they're less effective because of antibiotic resistance (which is the how). I think the sentence is fine as it is. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be written differently. You could add that they're less effective because they're used so much. SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of the antibiotic section says: "Antibiotics are **frequently** applied to the skin or taken orally to treat acne and are thought to work due to their antimicrobial activity against P. acnes and their anti-inflammatory properties." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the point I'm making, which is that the sentence in question reduces to tautology. One way you could fix it is by explaining that use/overuse of antibiotics to treat acne has caused resistance, which means they are less effective. That is, I'm suggesting that you unpack the point for the general reader. SarahSV (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images: the article contains just three images of acne. It would be helpful to have others of varying severity, including on different ethnicities. If there are no good free images on Commons or Flickr, you could ask for help from dermatologists.
SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed at length above (see the discussion between CFCF & I). We have tried looking and not found great accessible images of varying ethnicities and severities though the article's current illustrations do show some variation in terms of severity and appearance based on skin color. This is also not a requirement for FA but certainly an area that can be further improved over time. That aside, how many images do you think the article really needs? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a wall of text at the moment. Have you tried writing to dermatologists? Images apart, it would be helpful to reach out to a few for reviews/suggestions. SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not well-versed in the process of getting images uploaded to, properly copyrighted, etc. that's out of my wheelhouse. As I said before, it's not a requirement for FA but I agree that additional high-quality images would be useful. CFCF and I discussed this at the beginning of his comments. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler, one thing I've noticed is that, when someone raises an objection, you reply with "this has already been discussed", and refer them to someone who has not objected. There's no point in doing that. You've requested reviews, and here they are. Please use the objections to make the article better, rather than batting them away. Having said that, I do realize that this is very frustrating process for nominators. SarahSV (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, yes, that's because I'm annoyed when someone hasn't read the above conversations before trying to contribute new comments (that's what's needed-fresh blood and fresh comments rather than rehashings). You'll see my responses to the issues raised below are quite different in tone because they're less frustrating/new. Sarastro requested non-medical editors come here but I already thought the article had undergone considerable review but I agree with having multiple perspectives. I hate repeating myself and many of the comments have seemed excessively nitpicky for an FA review (this has also been noted above many times in the previous conversations). You've brought up a few good points, which I've largely addressed, but I disagree with many of the raised suggestions. But to your initial point, it's the repetition that's aggravating and burning me out. That's why I sound exasperated (because I am). So, I would kindly ask that we keep the repetition to a minimum. As a courtesy, please take some time to read the conversations. I recognize it's not a requirement (but it would be nice). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we've read the previous discussions, but we disagree. If a dermatologist says that no mention of cosmetics ia a major omission, then s/he's probably right. I noticed it too, as a non-medical editor (and as a woman). Core also told you there were some problems with the writing, but for every example I've given you of those problems, you've told me that I'm wrong. The examples include a sentence someone else added, which isn't supported by the source.
I completely understand the frustration, because this review has been long. But Core's was a most thorough review, and the issues aren't resolved. And Seppi supported only on images and MoS. Another problem is that the article is overly focused on the medical, with lots of jargon, and isn't really accessible to the general reader, even though the main readership may be teenagers and other young adults. I know that the jargon is unavoidable up to a point, but I wonder whether more could be done to introduce plainer language. I've also wondered how you chose the sources you focus on most. SarahSV (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we disagree. I do respect the expert opinion of an individual dermatologist but not necessarily above the consensus of major reviews. I disagreed (as have other editors (see above)) with several suggestions Core made including discussion of therapies that they mentioned were once commonplace yet not mentioned in any of the recent literature (even on occasion). As I said above, if Core meant that the mention of cosmetics as a form of disguising acne should be mentioned, that's reasonable but I don't think that was clearly communicated before. I took Core's comments to mean as we should discuss cosmetics as a cause/contributor to acne and that's where I disagreed for aforementioned reasons. I did not get the sense that you had adequately read the above conversations since certain points raised seemed redundant and were fully discussed (i.e., images of acne severity). Core did say he disagreed with how some things were written but other editors have looked it over and didn't seem to agree so we've had new eyes on it. Just because I don't agree with your suggestions doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. I have made adjustments you suggested and I made many of Core's suggested edits, so I don't appreciate the insinuation that I'm somehow being uncooperative. That has also been a significant driver of my frustration. Many of the comments above have not, IMO, focused enough on the content, and have been personal (suggesting I'm ignoring ideas or implying I have ulterior motives or things to that effect with statements (like the one below)) and that's not constructive. I'm allowed to disagree and the issues are largely resolved (and I don't appreciate your suggesting otherwise). Which ideas have I not responded to? (iPLEDGE is on the backburner but I haven't forgotten if that's what you mean but I did address it above). Many of the critiques I see above are vague. You say there's too much medical jargon (Bruce1ee said the same), but you have to consider that perhaps I don't see it. So be specific, where??? And you're right, some level of jargon is unavoidable. You'll have to explain what you mean about "I've also wondered how you chose the sources you focus on most." TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking how you decided which sources to use. Based on the ones I can see, it's often unclear how they were chosen. For example:

You use Bhate and Williams 2013 13 times. That article has a paragraph on chocolate (p. 479). But you use Ferdowsian and Levin 2010 (both from PCRM) as your source on chocolate, although they barely mention it. They say: "No study has established a positive association between acne and chocolate, saturated fat, or salt intake." You use that to support (leaving out saturated fat): "Effects from other potentially contributing dietary factors, such as consumption of chocolate or salt, are not supported by the evidence". Bhate and Williams agree, but they include a study in which chocolate did appear to make a difference, one that postdates Ferdowsian and Levin, so B&W 2013 is a better source.

Ferdowsian and Levin 2010 is one of five sources supporting: "there is weak observational evidence suggesting that dairy milk consumption is positively associated with a higher frequency and severity of acne." But F&L don't say the observational evidence is weak. They describe two prospective cohort studies and say there was a "significant association". It's to be expected that PCRM would stress the link, which is why they're perhaps not the best source for this point. But if you do use them, you have to reflect what they say. SarahSV (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a loaded question and one that typically wouldn't be well-received. It's the manner in which it was asked that I find irksome. I would (again) strongly urge you to focus on content rather than critique how I select MEDRS-compliant review articles. Why on Earth are you counting how many times a specific review is used? Talk about nitpicky...sheesh. Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are collaborative efforts so I didn't add everything and don't own the article. I was unaware of the PCRM ties but don't think it invalidates the sources. The Bhate references used in the article are appropriate and Bhate has authored many of the recent review articles about acne. You're correct that Ferdowsian & Levin in their 2010 article don't describe the observational evidence as weak. The purpose of their citation there is simply to confirm the observational nature of the evidence (not to comment on its strength/weakness). Melnik doesn't describe the evidence as weak either but it's obvious from his reviews that he strongly believes in the hypothesis (his review was only included to really have a comprehensive balance of viewpoints even though the mainstream has yet to accept this association as valid or strong). However, the significant limitations/weakness of the observational evidence is supported by the 2014 JAAD Brosnick review, which is more pointed about just how limited the observational data for that association really is and specifically states it's rather low-level evidence. Therefore, they're being used for what they said. I would even argue for removing the Melnik sources (it seems to be a minority opinion from what I can see and I can't verify the Nestle Nutrition Melnik source, which I didn't add). The use of the Ferdowsian & Levin 2010 review is fine for the claim about chocolate and salt. Saturated fat seems to be less controversial (not popularly discussed in the literature so I would question whether it even merits mention but don't care about that strongly). It verifies the claim regardless of how much they discussed the issue. However, I've added a second review for reinforcement that has more extensive discussion of how weak that evidence is too so your concern should be addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that the approach to sourcing doesn't have coherence. The article needs to present a coherent account: this is the key secondary literature, and these are the key issues covered by that literature. Dermatologists should be able to read this article and agree on those points. Not to have noticed that one source is PCRM is a concern. Anything about diet in this article needs (ideally) a non-conflicted source.
Re: "collaborative efforts so I didn't add everything and don't own the article", FAC nominators are expected to be able to vouch for everything in the article. SarahSV (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mainly 1(b). Tyler, I'm sorry, but I'm going to oppose. I think this is an excellent GA, but I agree with Core that it needs more for FA. Several reasons:
  • The "society and culture" section, or whatever you prefer to call the non-medical, needs to be developed. This isn't only a medical issue. In particular, cosmetics are important. I'm not suggesting you write a lot, just something like—these ingredients will make it worse; these won't; this is how to conceal it. You don't need medical sources to discuss the make-up and the industry. As it stands, the article is written from a purely medical perspective, and perhaps from a male perspective.
  • The epidemiology section seems under-developed.
  • There's a lot of jargon. I don't like simplifying vocabulary unnecessarily, but quite a bit of this is limited to a specialist readership, e.g. "Activation of TLR2 and TLR4 by P. acnes leads to increased secretion of IL-8, TNF-α, and IL-1α." Sometimes it would be easy to explain. For example: "Notable adverse effects of microneedling include ... tram track scarring." "Tram track scarring" isn't a blue link, so the reader would have to google it. You could add a brief explanation in brackets (ditto with anything similar; even when blue-linked it can be helpful to do that, so that readers don't have to keep clicking).
  • This sentence needs to be introduced by explaining why you're mentioning it: "There is no clear evidence that use of oral retinoids increases the risk of psychiatric side effects such as depression and suicidality."
  • Two examples have been given in the last couple of days of sentences added by others that weren't supported by the sources, so the article needs a final check. One is still in the research section: "Other workers have voiced concerns related to creating a vaccine designed to neutralize a stable community of normal skin bacteria that is known to protect the skin from colonization by more harmful microorganisms" (source). Not clear who "other workers" refers to.
  • The following and anything similar could use a copy edit: "Azelaic acid is thought to be an effective acne treatment ... Additionally, azelaic acid has a slight skin-lightening effect ... Azelaic acid may cause skin irritation but is otherwise very safe." and "Salicylic acid is a topically applied beta-hydroxy acid ... Additionally, salicylic acid opens obstructed skin pores ... Salicylic acid is known to be less effective than retinoid therapy ..."
  • It could use a terminology section, or at least a sentence in the first section. Neither acne nor vulgaris are explained, although earlier versions of the article had a terminology section.
  • It needs something about bullying and social exclusion. There is nothing on the social consequences. I can find one sentence in the body (in Prognosis) about the psychological aspect: "There is good evidence to support the idea that acne has a negative psychological impact, and that it worsens mood, lowers self-esteem, and is associated with a higher risk of anxiety disorders, depression, and suicidal thoughts." (Also, that should be tightened to "Acne worses mood, etc.") Given that the first paragraph of the lead includes this, apparently as a major issue, the article should say more about it.
  • The conclusion of the smoking section makes no sense:
  • "Some reviews have found that cigarette smoking worsens acne[7] whereas others have found unclear effects.[3][8] Cigarette smoking is not recommended as an approach to improving the appearance of acne because of its adverse health effects.[3]
The last sentence is a non sequitur. It implies that smoking might help acne, but this is the first hint of that. If there's evidence to that effect, it should be explained, referring to multiple, high-quality sources (and written very carefully). Either that or the final sentence should be removed.
Other suggestions (not reasons for the oppose):
  • The title should be Acne, per COMMONNAME.
  • It needs more images. Dermatologists will almost certainly help. You could write to the authors of your main sources, and perhaps they'd agree to read the article too.
You're obviously not happy about this, and I'm sorry for that. You've done tremendous work on the article, and you're very close to getting it to the next level. SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC) (expanded SarahSV (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Slim, respectfully, you're wrong, your oppose is premature, and I'm really rubbed the wrong way by your conduct. It very clearly demonstrates an abrasive lack of listening and thus forces me to repeat myself (again). You say you're sorry but it comes across as insincere when you ignore multiple requests to solely focus on content rather than my editing approach. The issues you rehashed are still being *actively* addressed (i.e., active discussion on the Newscientist source) and thus the oppose is premature (just as Core's was before he struck it out, which you should do as well). My approach has been quite systematic and your concerns are unwarranted. Not knowing that two authors of one review article in this entire article are affiliated with PCRM is hardly grounds for an oppose or concern about my approach to entering articles (the very idea is laughable). As I said above, I don't care if the article is renamed acne vs acne vulgaris (and this was addressed above). Your implication that dermatologists couldn't read this article and agree on it (controversies aside) is unfounded (citing an n=1 in Core is inadequate). I still disagree with you about the smoking. Other editors seem to as well (i.e., Doc James adjusted it and didn't see the need to adjust it the way you're suggesting).
The point about jargon is invalid (at least for the toll like receptors bit since they're explained earlier in the section with simpler terminology). There's really not a good way to simplify TNF alpha, interleukins 1 and 8. It already says inflammatory chemical signals. I don't know what more you want there. If you look at other medical FAs, you will still encounter some medical jargon (and I did ask you before for specific examples but received none until now though Bruce1ee provided some examples which have been addressed). 'll see if I can figure out a simpler way to say tram track scarring but it's likely going to be quite wordy to describe it (and only occurs 1-2x in the whole article so that's a very minor point). And, second time I'm asking how *many* images, in your opinion? Please be specific. Slim, you presented medical articles for use for the cosmetic issues, but then say medical articles don't need to be used and MEDRS need not apply. That seems very inconsistent to me. WAID just presented her suggestions yesterday. How about giving someone a chance to review & incorporate them, hmm? I've been working on the article a lot but I don't have 24 hours a day to do so, so I would request some patience while changes are being introduced before arriving at a conclusion about the overall nomination since you've raised new unique concerns every single day. If you're asking me to write to dermatologists for additional photos and reviews, that's not going to be an overnight process. "The epidemiology section seems underdeveloped." Very helpful specific feedback. I have no idea why male vs female issues are coming up. There are entire sections dedicated to acne care specifically in pregnant women and paragraphs about the use of oral contraceptives for acne. I'll also add I've been working well with other female and male editors. It's really just been you. This is absolutely ridiculous. At this juncture, I cannot take your suggestions seriously Sarah and I do not think I can work with you any longer. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WhatamIdoing edit

A few comments:

  • Concealer is, in Western societies, a gendered product, which may account for its relative lack of prominence in articles like this and in academic sources. This article should mention the type of product and link to the page. Depending upon the content, a trade rag might be a perfectly acceptable source (e.g., for "sold X million in Europe last year" claims). OTOH, I think that should be considered ===Self-care=== rather than ==Society and culture==.
  • Acne cosmetica should probably be mentioned and linked in the article, under ===Differential diagnosis===.
  • If you want to expand ==Society and culture==, then see the notes that I left at Talk:Acne vulgaris#History and culture. (Tyler doesn't have access to the book [a geolocation restriction?], so you'd have to add the material yourself.
  • On the question of isotretinoin, I'm not feeling the need for a discussion of psychiatric side effects. I don't doubt the statement – "clear evidence" isn't required for product labels (when the effect is a preventable death, you want to warn people now and perfect your evidence later), and evidence that seemed clear when the label was approved may become murky later – but I don't think it's obviously relevant to this article.
  • This page reminds me why I never encourage anyone to submit an article to FAC.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, thank you for your terrific suggestions. You are correct that I don't have access to that book (I have no idea why). Since multiple editors have now suggested the addition of acne medicamentosa (although you're the first to have a specific recommendation as to where it might go), a brief mention is reasonable. I have no objection to adding a self-care subsection or something similar under society & culture. I agree with you that no further discussion of the lack of clear evidence for isotretinoin is needed. I don't have a strong objection to adding a brief background sentence (i.e., that these concerns were raised but that does seem rather obvious if it was studied since no one studies whether isotretinoin makes you laugh at inappropriate times since that's never been a concern). I agree that if there's even a hint of a possible signal when it comes to something so important that pharmaceutical companies would have a warning for liability/medicolegal reasons even if high-quality evidence to support such an association is lacking. And yeah, amen to that last point. I may never do it again after this terrible experience. Truly awful. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bruce1ee edit

These are drive-by comments from a non-medical editor (as requested by Sarastro1 above):

  • Classification section: the statements "Large nodules were previously referred to as cysts" & "the term severe nodular acne is now the preferred terminology" give no indication when these changes occurred – when were nodules no longer referred to as cysts, and when did severe nodular acne become the preferred terminology?
It's often very, very difficult to find a precise time when such a change happened. It's usually a gradual process so I highly doubt I'll find a reliable source that says it changed in year X or after event Y. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infections section: is the statement "One particularly virulent strain has been circulating in Europe for at least 87 years." with reference to the date of the source? If so, perhaps that date should be mentioned.
I don't understand the question/requested edit. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the source of that statement (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924382/) 87 years appears to have been calculated from "London 1920", giving 2007 (1920+87). Am I reading that correctly? My question is, was the source written in 2007, and should the 87 years not be referenced to 2007? If I'm completely off course, please ignore this point :) —Bruce1eetalk 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I'll look into that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the article more closely, it's not entirely clear to me how this 87 year figure was derived. I do see the London 1920 figure you mean but I see nothing about 2007 and the review article was published in 2010. I see mention of London 1920 and Norway 1997 (which would be 77 years and perhaps they made a mistake but that's only speculation). So, it's hard for me to say, but the article itself was not written in 2007. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article may have been published in 2010, but is it not possible it was written in 2007. Regardless, as it stands the source doesn't support that figure, and my feeling is that unless the figure is adjusted to match the source, or another source is found, that statement should be removed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I don't have any hard proof that it was written in 2007. It's speculative on our part. I don't feel strongly about keeping it in since it is a little bit nebulous which specific time frame that 87 years figure refers to. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce1ee, once that issue is addressed, what do you think about the nomination? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a support. I'd like to see a reduction in "medical jargon", but I said below, to cover this topic in sufficient detail, some jargon is necessary. —Bruce1eetalk 07:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on reducing the jargon. Will need 24-48 hours. Additional specific examples would help expedite that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another run through the article and simplified it further in a few spots so it should be better. If you see any other areas that you think are able to be simplified that I've missed, let me know. As you said before, there will be some jargon that can't be simplified (I can't simplify complicated sounding names of certain cytokines) but I have also added a visual aid to the pathophysiology section which should also be helpful. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the prose as a non-medical layreader – I think your simplifications have helped. I see you've also removed the "87 years" statement, thank you. Good luck with the nomination. —Bruce1eetalk 14:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • References: the link in ref.no. 33 ("Frequently Asked Questions: Acne") is dead.
Good catch, I've fixed the link and it should work now. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a layperson I found it an interesting and largely accessible article – it does tend to become a little bogged down with medical jargon, but I guess that's what's to be expected in articles of this nature. —Bruce1eetalk 19:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce1ee, which medical jargon do you mean? I'll simplify it if I can but there's only so much I can do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example in parts of the Pathophysiology section ("Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is the main driver of androgen-induced sebum production in the skin.[2] Another androgenic hormone responsible for increased sebaceous gland activity is DHEA-S ..."). I understand that to cover this topic in sufficient detail, "medical jargon" is necessary. But I must add that the lead section summarizes the article nicely and I believe is quite accessible to laypeople. —Bruce1eetalk 22:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can come up with a way to simplify that further without sacrificing meaning. But yes, there is going to be some language that will be difficult to simplify and some medical jargon is necessary. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hanif Al Husaini edit

  • Comments: When I look for ref 97 (Eby, Myra Michelle. Return to Beautiful Skin. Basic Health Publications. p. 275.) to find its ISBN, if exist, I found it in Google Books and it says there are only 184 pages but how can it cite p. 275? Perhaps the Google Books link is not the cited book. If no, please add ISBN, year and other citation details so others can find that book. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Husain, that's a really good point. I actually didn't add that content and it's been there for a while. When I searched for the same book I encountered the same discrepancy you did regarding the page count. I'll see if I can track down the editor who added the content to clarify. If I can't, I may just have to replace that with a better source (probably should anyway). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Binko100, it looks like you added this content [58] a while back. Can you comment on this, please? Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this user does not appear to be terribly active (no edits since 2015) so I'll just look into obtaining a better source for citation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The information has been corrected and now has a better source to support it. Thanks for bring it to my attention Hanif. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Just a note to say that, with quite a lot of support, there is no danger of this being archived any time soon. It is quite safe for everyone to take their time. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that point, Sarastro. I appreciate that. I'm perhaps slightly edgy after the first review was closed a bit prematurely but I'm glad to know the time pressure isn't on quite as strongly. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoria edit

Moved to talk page.

Comments by Sandbh edit

I was prompted to review this article by the commentary on the use of the word "however".

Based on a quick scan, the article appears to be close to FA standard. Upon reading it closely I noticed several prose issues and a few presentation issues. Now, I do agree with an early reviewer's comment that "None of our FA's are anywhere near perfect, and if we expect perfection we will simply get nothing". Even so, I feel the prose in this article, and some aspects of its presentation, don't yet reach the standard I would expect of an FA article.

Bumps aside, I have so far found the article relatively easy to read, which is a good sign.

General
  • Please review the frequency of the words "also" and "however". The article has 20 of the former, and 13 of the latter. This is too many.
The use of the term "also" has been addressed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The count is down to 6x also and 7x however, which is much more tolerable. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what Latin terms such as vulgaris, inversa, and rosacea etc mean.
I think the etymology of rosacea and inversa are outside the scope of this article. Vulgaris is reasonable since the medical term is acne vulgaris. I still have yet to hear why the word however is not suitable for encyclopedic prose (this was the primary purpose of Victoria's ping). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant vulgaris (L. 'common') or something like that. No etymology required. I like Latin but like to know what the words means without having to look them up.
Yes, I understood what you meant. I think that's fine for vulgaris. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I looked briefly at this article a little while ago and frankly, as a general reader, was put off by so many citations in the lead. There is nothing in the lead that I can see that is controversial or so complex that it would necessitate a cite. Wikipedia is an encylopedia for the general reader; it is not a medical encyclopedia.
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia not a medical encyclopedia but there are guidelines/stylistic points for how to write a medical article specifically and many medical FAs have citations in the lead (omission of citations in the lead (on my read) is also not an FA criterion though I understand if it doesn't agree with you (but this is often controversial based on who is asked).
MOS:MED does not require citations in the lead (from what I could see). MOS:LEAD suggests citations in the lead may be required for complex, current, or controversial subjects. The great majority of FA articles have no or only a few citations in the lead. I don't care what other medical FAs have in their leads. This is your article and I'm reviewing it. There is nothing in the lead that I can see that warrants a cite. What cites there are are unnecessary. I contend that the article does not currently follow the style guidelines, which is an FA requirement. (I'm not as grumpy as what I've just written may come over as). Sandbh (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know MEDMOS doesn't require lead citations. As I said before, this has been controversial and preference has varied widely in the community. I personally don't feel strongly about citations in the lead but saying there are no controversial remarks in the lead is something many users would disagree with (e.g., many readers out there have strong beliefs about the relationship between acne and diet, sunlight, hygiene, etc-addressed in more detail in causes, but who knows if they'll scroll that far). I won't characterize this as "my article" Wikipedia:Ownership of content and I think it's relevant that multiple other medical FAs have citations in the lead. If that's a true failure of meeting FA criteria, then those other articles are not true FAs and are not being held to the same standard or it's not a true criterion. I think additional opinions regarding the absence/presence of citations in the lead would be important to this point. I'll follow whatever the consensus may be. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect none of the other reviewers would mind if the mundane, non-controversial citations in the lead were removed. I worry that it's a bit late in the FAC process to seek to obtain consensus and then follow that. In the absence of other reviewer views on this point and noting my objections, I'd take that---if I may be so bold---as consensus, and remove 'em. On the other medical FAs the lead citations in some of these may be justified; others may have gotten through simply because none of the reviewers thought it was important. I happen to think it's important. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The role of diet and cigarette smoking is unclear and neither cleanliness nor sunlight appear to be involved." Prose needs refining here. You appear to be saying that the status of all four items is unclear but expressing this in different ways. The contrast between diet and smoking, and cleanliness is jarring. Is the sentence saying cleanliness may or may not cause or prevent acne?
No, the sentence is saying that cleanliness and sunlight do not appear to be involved (obviously, science is an evolving field so wiggle room is reasonable here but the acne/diet and acne/smoking relationships are relatively controversial. Stating the prose requires further refinement is a broad statement that doesn't really help me. Specific recommendations are more helpful. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my edit. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's not exactly how I would've written it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Treatments applied directly to the affected skin, such as azelaic acid, benzoyl peroxide, and salicylic acid, are commonly used. Antibiotics and retinoids are available in formulations that are applied to the skin and taken by mouth for the treatment of acne." The bit that goes "and taken by mouth" is clumsy; the bit that goes "for the treatment of acne" is redundant given the previous sentence.
I agree but that was not my decision. Other medical editors have felt strongly that the phrasing "by mouth" is needed for simplicity rather than the term oral. Other editors have raised similar concerns about that particular phrasing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK but please be consistent in the rest of the article and replace all the "oral"s with "by mouth's. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discrepancy came about due to extra emphasis on simplified language in the lead. This was per Doc James' preference. As I said, multiple editors have objected to use of the phrasing "by mouth" as awkward. If I consistently use that throughout the article, it's awkward and if I change it to oral in the lead, then it's not simple enough. This is a damned if I do/don't situation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several types of birth control pills help against acne in women." The source appears to say that oral contraceptives can result in drug-induced acne (Table 1).
This is covered in the management section. Oral contraceptives are generally thought to decrease acne severity in women who take them. Which source are you referring to that says OCs may cause drug-induced acne? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cited article. Table 1, row 2, "Drug-induced acne".
Hmm, after taking another look you're right that it says that though I find it interesting that I don't see a specific source cited within the AAFP article for that claim. This may reflect differences between older generations of oral contraceptives and be less common with newer ones (e.g., combination 3rd/4th gen contraceptives). We have plenty of references in the management section verifying that combination OCs are helpful for acne in women. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Googling around I can see quite a few references to OC's causing acne, as a side effect:
Manual of Dermatologic Therapeutics - Page 6
https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0781760585
Kenneth A. Arndt, ‎Jeffrey T. S. Hsu - 2007 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions
Acne may be associated with oral contraceptive pills if recently started or discontinued and if composed of an androgenic progesterone. During the first ...
Classification
  • "…closed (whiteheads) clogged skin follicles (comedones)…". Eh?
I'm still working on rephrasing that sentence. I know it's clumsy but I'm reworking that sentence per Victoria's earlier suggestions. Please be patient (note her comments were left within the last 24 hours and many edits have been made). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokie. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moderate severity acne is defined as a higher number of inflammatory papules and pustules occurring on the face compared to mild cases of acne and also involves the trunk of the body." The words "of acne" aren't needed. Where you say, "and also involves the trunk of the body", what involvement is being referred to? Presumably that same as what's going on with the face?
That's correct, the same types of skin lesions affect the trunk. I can clarify that if it really seems ambiguous to you (no one else has seemed to think so though). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify. I acknowledge that no one else has seemed to think so. Looking through the rest of my feedback, and my associated copyediting, I am puzzled that no one else has picked up on what seem like basic ce things, for an FA calibre article. The press of time, I suppose. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified. It's the same type of inflammatory lesions affecting both the face and trunk. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lastly, severe acne is said to occur when nodules (the painful 'bumps' lying under the skin) are the characteristic facial lesions and involvement of the trunk is extensive." In a short para like this, "lastly" isn't required.
Fine, I don't feel strongly about that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large nodules were previously referred to as cysts, and the term nodulocystic has been used in the medical literature to describe severe cases of inflammatory acne.[21] However, true cysts are rare in those with acne and the term severe nodular acne is now the preferred terminology." I find the first sentence to be confusing as it mixes what used to happen with something that has happened, and I don't understand the reason for the mixing.
The reason is because the nomenclature has evolved over time and misuse of the proper terminology remains (unfortunately) prevalent. I think that's very clear from how it's written when it says that due to the lack of true cysts that nodular acne is the preferred terminology (since "nodulocystic" is something of a misnomer). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to give me the reason; I understand that. I was referring to the grammatical construction of the sentences, which remains clumsy. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you say you don't understand the reason for the mixing, that sounds like a request for further explanation (that's why I provided one). I trimmed the word "however" here but otherwise I don't see what issues you have with these two sentences. Please clarify. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pls see my small ce. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead sentence of the last paragraph makes me think the para is going to talk about acne inversa, but then mentions acne rosacea. This paragraph would start better as something like, "Acner inversa and acne rosacea are not true forms of the condition. Acnea inversa…"
These sentences are simply (and briefly) included due to comments on the FAC and were recently added. A full discussion of these separate conditions is found on their respective Wikipedia pages and is outside of the scope of this article. This is, yet again, another example of misnomers coming in to the nomenclature, which is why these sentences were added. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a full discussion, just better paragraph construction. Topic sentence introduces the topic, rest of the paragraph elaborates. You have all the words already it's just a matter of rearranging them. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think proper discussion is essential to communication. I'm fine with rearranging this now that you've clarified your proposed edit but the terms acne inversa and rosacea have to be defined before explaining that they're not true forms of acne (otherwise the reader lacks context). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Signs and symptoms
  • "Typical features of acne include increased secretion of oily sebum by the skin, microcomedones, comedones, papules, nodules (large papules), pustules, and in many cases scarring." Scarring isn't a feature of acne is it? Isn't it a result of acne?
That seems like splitting hairs to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FA standard: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing." Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain it's splitting hairs. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way it's written now, "Typical features of acne include increased secretion of oily sebum by the skin, microcomedones, comedones, papules, nodules (large papules), pustules, and often results in scarring" hits the mark nicely. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scars
  • "Scarring is most likely to take place with severe nodular acne, but may occur with any form of acne vulgaris." What is "severe nodular acne"?
Severe nodular acne is exactly what was described in the classification immediately above this. "severe acne is said to occur when nodules (the painful 'bumps' lying under the skin) are the characteristic facial lesions and involvement of the trunk is extensive.[17][21]" TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check my ce. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine since we've defined severe acne as synonymous with severe nodular acne so I have no objection. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acne scars are classified based on whether the abnormal healing response following dermal inflammation leads to excess collagen deposition or loss at the site of the acne lesion." Opening "Acne" is redundant.
That's fair. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atrophic acne scars are the most common type of acne scar and have lost collagen from this healing response." What healing response is being referred to here?
I do not understand your question. The healing of the acne lesion (the only thing discussed). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check my ce. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atrophic scars may be further classified as ice-pick scars, boxcar scars, and rolling scars." The opening "Atrophic" is redundant.
I disagree. If the sentence simply started with "scars", this could be ambiguous and lead the reader to misinterpret this as referring broadly to all acne scars (which would be inaccurate). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The topic sentence of the paragraph is, "Atrophic acne scars have lost collagen from the healing response and are the most common type of acne scar (account for approximately 75% of all acne scars)." Why is it necessary to start the next sentence in the same paragraph with, "Atrophic acne scars…" What other kind of scars could possibly be being referred to? Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, chill. It was unclear from your initial comment that you were referring to the second sentence (you said "opening atrophic" which led me to think you were referring to the first mention in that paragraph rather than the second). This has been fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hypertrophic scars are uncommon, and are characterized by increased collagen content after the abnormal healing response." The words "after the abnormal healing response" are redundant.
Sure, I guess. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hypertrophic scars remain within the original margins of the wound, whereas keloid scars can form scar tissue outside of these borders." Since the sentence and paragraph are talking about hypertrophic scars, where have keloid scars come from? What are they and their characteristics?
They are a type of hypertrophic scar and they are different from hypertrophic scars exactly as described (the main differentiating factor being whether the scar remains within the margins of the original wound or not). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why isn't this in the paragraph? Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should revise what I said before. Keloids are on the spectrum of hypertrophic scars but are considered distinct (it seems) by derm authorities. Keloids are one of the two ways in which a scar can form with excessive collagen deposition. If it's really confusing, I can add a brief sentence that keloids can result from acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be good if you could do that. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pigmentation
  • "Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is usually the result of nodular acne lesions." Please start this paragraph with plain English, and then introduce the terminology, rather than the other way around.
Also seems nitpicky but sure. Other readers have not pointed to this sentence as a source of confusion from medical jargon. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, its a mystery to me. I'm just looking for a professional writing standard in your article (mostly it is, apart from what I notice).
Sure. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These nodular lesions often leave behind an inflamed darkened mark after the original acne lesion has resolved." The word "Nodular" is redundant.
Fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inflammation from acne lesions stimulates specialized pigment-producing skin cells (known as melanocytes) to produce more melanin pigment which leads to the skin's darkened appearance with PIH." The "acne" is redunant, as is "with PIH".
Just saying "inflammation from lesions" seems awkward to me and like it might confuse readers. I'm fine with removing a redundant PIH mention. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first two setences of the paragraph each use the word "acne lesion/s." Is it really necessary to do this again? Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading it, I suppose not. I'm trying to keep things as simple as possible so I don't lose lay medical readers in the process but it's difficult to see it through their eyes sometimes. Regardless, this has been fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My lay eyes thank thee. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Even minimal skin exposure to the sun's ultraviolet rays can sustain hyperpigmentation. Daily use of SPF 15 or higher sunscreen can minimize acne-associated hyperpigmentation." Ending both sentences with hyperpigmentation is awkward.
Do you have a specific suggestion to reword this? If so, I'm listening. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me have a closer look at this.
See my ce/trim.
Hope my responses so far are helpful. It's mostly small stuff, making sure the diamond is finely cut. Sandbh (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification since many earlier comments (not yours for the most part) have seemed unnecessarily harsh/not constructive in nature (as noted in my discussion with Victoria and SV earlier). I think the revision you put in place re: risk is fine. I had similar misgivings about ending two consecutive sentences with hyperpigmentation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sandbh (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Causes
Genes
  • "The predisposition to acne for specific individuals is likely explained by a genetic component, a theory which is supported by twin studies and studies examining the rates of acne among first-degree relatives." Two uses of the word "studies" are redundant. How about, "The predisposition to acne for specific individuals is likely explained by a genetic component, a theory which is supported by studies examining the rates of acne among twins and first-degree relatives."
Sounds good. I've adjusted this. This was helpful feedback. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Acne susceptibility is likely due to the influence of multiple genes, as the disease does not follow a classic Mendelian inheritance pattern." I know that Mendelian inheritance pattern is wikilinked however I don't think I should have to click on this to work out what it is.
If we explain everything in full, there's not much point in having the blue links. I think an elaborate discussion of a Mendelian inheritance pattern will detract from the article's focus on acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my ce. I placed "Mendelian" in parentheses, so as to focus the eye more on "inheritance pattern" since that's the key concept, and even I can get what that is.
  • "Multiple gene candidates have been proposed to increase acne susceptibility including certain variations in tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), IL-1 alpha, and CYP1A1 genes, among others." The phrase "to increase acne susceptibility: is redundant.
Sure, that's adjusted. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 308 G/A single nucleotide polymorphism variation in the gene for TNF is associated with increased acne risk." Please turn this around so that the terminology comes last: "Increased risk is associated with the 308 G/A single nucleotide polymorphism variation in the gene for TNF."
This seems very minor and I don't really see the reason for this rearrangement but done. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is TNF the same as TNF-alpha?
TNF refers to tumor necrosis factor (the blue link will help you there). TNF-alpha is one specific member of the tumor necrosis factor family. Why should the risk sentence be rearranged that way? I'm not opposed but do not understand the reason for the proposal. Please clarify. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's part of the paragraph: "Acne susceptibility is likely due to the influence of multiple genes, as the disease does not follow a classic (Mendelian) inheritance pattern. Multiple gene candidates have been proposed including certain variations in tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), IL-1 alpha, and CYP1A1 genes, among others.[16] Increased risk is associated with the 308 G/A single nucleotide polymorphism variation in the gene for TNF.[34]" I more or less get everything up to the last sentence. When I get to TNF at the end of the last sentence I'm confused as to wether that's the same as TNF-alpha (I presume not as I would've expect it to say TNF-alpha if it was) or if it's the same concept---I can't tell as I can't clearly grasp the connection between the two terms. They must be related in some way, but how? Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hormones
  • The opening para is hard to follow as it starts off with mentioning hormonal activity during menstrual cycles and puberty and elaborates this, and then mixes the two concepts with growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor. The first time I read this I thought that it was saying that growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor were being counted as sex hormones. It was only when I went back and reread the section that I could see what was happening. Prose needs some work.
Specific recommendations are always preferable (i.e., "prose needs some work" doesn't really help me). The mention of menstrual cycles is only meant to be illustrative. I can see how you might have linked IGF and GH as sex hormones I guess but that seems like a strained interpretation to me since they're in separate sentences (it seems like a clear demarcation to me) but I'll try to make that clearer. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Medical conditions that commonly cause a high-androgen state, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and androgen-secreting tumors, can cause acne in affected individuals." This is good example of starting off with a general term and concluding with the specifics.
Infections
  • "Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) is the anaerobic bacterial species that is widely suspected to contribute to the development of acne, but its exact role in this process is not entirely clear." Please don't start with jargon: "It is widely suspected that the anaerobic bacterial species that contributes to the development of acne is Propionibacterium acnes (P. acnes) but its exact role in this process is not entirely clear."
Sure. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • "There are specific sub-strains of P. acnes associated with normal skin and others with moderate or severe inflammatory acne." The words, "others with" are redundant. Perhaps add a comma after "skin".
Sure, I guess. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unclear whether these undesirable strains evolve on-site or are acquired, or possibly both depending on the person." The words after "aquired" are redundant.
Why is that redundant? There was no prior mention that both of these processes could be occurring simultaneously. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I understand it, "or" in the way you've used it means one or the other or both. So, there is no need to say "or possibly both" since the first or has already capture this possibility. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These strains have the capability of either changing, perpetuating, or adapting to the abnormal cycle of inflammation, oil production, and inadequate sloughing of dead skin cells from acne pores." The use of "either" means that a single strain can do only one of these things ie changing, prepetuating, or adpating. Is that right? No multi-role strains?
No, that is not what is intended. P. acnes is involved in multiple steps of acne's pathogenesis. I've trimmed the word either. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Infection with the parasitic mite Demodex is associated with the development of acne.[26][45] However, it is unclear whether eradication of these mites improves acne." The "however" is not required. Rather than "these mites", the singular "the mite" will suffice.
Sure, I've adjusted this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diet
  • "The relationship between diet and acne is unclear, as there is no high-quality evidence which establishes any definitive link." The words after "unclear" are redundant.
Why? Because we elaborate on this later in the paragraph? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't so much what I had in mind. Rather, I presume that if there was high quality evidence then the relationship would be clear. Since there isn't, it's not. To me it seem like a statement of the obvious. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "High-glycemic-load diets have been found to have different degrees of effect on acne severity by different studies." The words after "severity" are not required.
Sure, that's fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, there is weak observational evidence suggesting that dairy milk consumption is positively associated with a higher frequency and severity of acne." Since this sentence is about an increase in acne rather than the reduction in acne referred to in the previous sentence, the word "Additionally" is not required, as well as being confusing. The word "observational" is not required.
I think removing the word additionally is fine but I do think it's important to be specific about the type of evidence so I think observational should stay. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sold. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These milk components are hypothesized to promote the effects of insulin and IGF-1 and thereby increase the production of androgen hormones, sebum, and promote the formation of comedones." The word "milk" is redundant as is the word "thereby".
I think removing milk here is fine. The term thereby is meant to illustrate linkage between these events (i.e., increased insulin and IGF-1 --> increased production of androgen hormones, sebum, promotes comedone formation, etc). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chocolate does contain varying amounts of sugar, which can lead to a high glycemic load, and it can be made with or without milk." Whole sentence can be deleted. It's hard to grasp its link with the previous sentence.
The link is glycemic load and milk. That's really not clear from that sentence? I thought it was very straightforward. The whole first half of the paragraph discusses how glycemic load and milk have been investigated as possible dietary risk factors for acne. Chocolate has been under suspicion as well (though available evidence doesn't support this) due to its higher glycemic load and milk content (if it's milk chocolate). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at one point the article say, "Multiple randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies have found a lower-glycemic-load diet to be effective in reducing acne." But then it says, "Effects from other potentially contributing dietary factors, such as consumption of chocolate or salt, are not supported by the evidence" followed by "Chocolate does contain varying amounts of sugar, which can lead to a high glycemic load". One part says chocolate no worries; the other part say chocolate = risk factor. Is that right? Even your reply above contradicts what the article says i.e., "There is weak observational evidence suggesting that dairy milk consumption is positively associated with a higher frequency and severity of acne." So how can you say, "available evidence doesn't support this) due to its higher glycemic load and milk content (if it's milk chocolate)"? I'm confused. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Smoking
  • "The relationship between cigarette smoking and acne severity is unclear and remains controversial.[3] The observational nature of the evidence between smoking and acne severity has raised concerns that bias and confounding may have influenced the results.[3] Some reviews have found that cigarette smoking worsens acne[7] whereas others have found unclear effects." A lot of overlap across these three sentences. Don't need to say much more than, "The relationship between cigarette smoking and acne severity is unclear and remains controversial due to concerns about biased or statistically questionable evidence, or inconsistent results."
This has been adjusted but I still think it's important to give brief mention to the fact that reviews on this topic have reached different conclusions. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cigarette smoking is not recommended as an approach to improving the appearance of acne because of its adverse health effects." What an odd sentence. It has no introductory context. Why even mention it?
It's mentioned because there have been controversies over whether smoking helps, hurts, or has no effect on acne (that's what was previously said instead of "unclear effects" on acne in the preceding sentence but SlimVirgin was extremely concerned that teenagers would take up smoking after reading the article (which I maintain is ridiculous) to improve their acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler has misrepresented my concerns. The smoking sentences need to be rewritten for several reasons. First, the sentence Sandbh highlighted (the third and final sentence in the smoking section) is a non-sequitur, as I pointed out in my oppose. Second, any claim that smoking helps acne needs to be unpacked, not mentioned in passing, and sourced to multiple high-quality sources, so that we know the article gets it right. That it might encourage teenagers to smoke is one reason it needs extra care. Another is simply that it's surprising, so it shouldn't be thrown in as though it isn't. SarahSV (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the above comments speak for themselves. They're quite clear and I have not misrepresented anything. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SarahSV. The third and final sentence is a non-sequitur: "A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement." This will not do for a FA. It's Ok to mention it but it needs an introductory context along the lines of your response e.g. "Despite urban myths to the contrary, there is no evidence that cigarette smoking will improve the appearance of acne; such a practice is not recommended because of its adverse health effects." That's not so good prose but I hope you get my meaning. (I would word it stronger than that, as the Wikipedia equivalent of a complete crock).
Sandbh, an earlier version (e.g. here) suggested that smoking did help, supported by one or two sources.
One of the them (Bhate and Williams 2012) says: "An earlier case series suggested an inverse relationship between acne and smoking, suggesting an anti-inflammatory effect of a component found in cigarettes" and "A large-scale, questionnaire study of 27 083 military men between 1983 and 2003 found the prevalence of acne to be lower in active smokers, with a dose-dependent inverse relationship between severe acne prevalence and cigarette consumption from 21 cigarettes per day and higher."
But the same source also cites a study that shows the opposite.
Because this is so surprising, I requested mutiple high-quality sources and a careful summary of them. In response Tyler removed the implication that smoking might help, but left the "Cigarette smoking is not recommended as an approach to improving" sentence. Hence the non-sequitur. SarahSV (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, thank you, and how very peculiar (the studies)! I do like the earlier version. Let me have a little think about this. Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to have an introductory para at the start of the Causes section, delete the Smoking section, and add to the end of the Causes section intro para: "Studies as to the impact of smoking on the incidence of acne have been inconclusive.[3]" Sandbh (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my ce to this end. Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh, your removal of the smoking section is an improvement, but if smoking is now mentioned only in passing in the body, it should be removed from the lead. My concern is that an earlier version of the smoking section said the opposite. Tyler changed it in February 2016 and swapped the sources. Previously it said: "Cigarette smoking is known to increase the risk of developing acne. Additionally, acne severity worsens as the number of cigarettes per day a person smokes increases." Sourced to Knutsen-Larson et al. 2012 (full text). That source says:

Cigarette smoking and dietary factors increase acne risk and disease severity ... The link between smoking and acne is well established. Even though smoking avoidance and cessation should be encouraged in all patients, this preventive message is especially important for patients suffering from acne. Practitioners should emphasize not only that smoking increases acne risk but also that a dose-dependent relationship exists between daily cigarette use and acne disease severity.

I asked Tyler why he swapped the source for Bhate and Williams 2013, then used it to say the opposite. He replied: "I changed what the section said that day because I found new information from a newer review." But there is only one year difference between the sources. This has made me wonder how the sources were chosen, and whether the article reflects the preponderance of sources.

I've removed smoking from the lead, as you requested, and adjusted the words to do with causes. Sandbh (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, you asked what my concerns were. This is one of them, namely to what extent the article reflects the secondary literature on acne. Would dermatologists find anything surprising, anything important missing? We've had one review from a dermatologist. He initially opposed but withdrew it, possibly because he was fed up with the comments rather than happy with the article. He suggested that Tyler write to some of his sources and ask them to read the article. I think this is an excellent idea. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh, I wrote: "if smoking is now mentioned only in passing in the body, it should be removed from the lead" (if, then). But should it be mentioned only in passing in the body? The 2012 source says: "The link between smoking and acne is well established. ... Practitioners should emphasize not only that smoking increases acne risk but also that a dose-dependent relationship exists ...". If that's the mainstream view, the article should make that clear. But is it the mainstream view? We can't respond to every point of confusion by removing text. SarahSV (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin: Based on my superficial reading it appears that the influence of smoking is contested/unclear. If there's anything more to it, I'll have to leave this to TylerDurden8823 to ferret out and incorporate into the article. A possible hornets' nest. Sandbh (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stress
  • "Overall, few high-quality studies have been performed which demonstrate that stress causes or worsens acne." The word "Overall" is not required.
Sure, that's fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the connection between acne and stress has been debated, some research indicates that increased acne severity is associated with high stress levels in certain contexts (e.g., in association with the hormonal changes seen in premenstrual syndrome). The phrase, "While the connection between acne and stress has been debated" is redundant.
Why? I think it's important to comment that it's still actively debated. Simply stating that some evidence finds this may not be clear enough to a lay reader that this remains a controversial topic. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still actively debated that's fine. But that's not how it reads. It says the connect has been debated (past tense). Suggest changing it to something line, "While the connection between acne and stress continues to be debated..." Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…(e.g., in association with the hormonal changes seen in premenstrual syndrome)." The "the" is redundant.
Adjusted. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sandbh (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology
  • "Dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is the main hormonal driver of oily sebum production in the skin." Pls turn this sentence around.
I have no objection to this but I sense a common theme with this suggestion and a few others but don't see why you're making this suggestion. Please explain why. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Dihydrotestosterone (DHT)" is too much of a jargon-whopper to start a sentence with. "Testosteone", sure. Benzol peroxide (excuse spelling) OK. Dihydrotestosterone (DHT)? Nope. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • "A major mechanism of acne-related skin inflammation is mediated by P. acnes's ability to bind and activate a class of immune system receptors known as toll-like receptors, especially toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) and toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)." This sentence would read better as "…a class of immune system receptors known as toll-like receptors (TLR), especially TLR2 and TLR4."
I have no objection to this change. Fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Squalene oxidation activates NF-κB…". What is NF-κB? A wikilink won't do here.
There's no simple way to explain this. The wikilink will have to do. Some jargon in the pathophysiology section of a medical article is inevitable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my ce. It now read, "Squalene oxidation activates NF-κB (a protein complex)..." That's all I'm looking for, really simple stuff. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LTB4 promotes skin inflammation by acting on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα)." It'd be helpful to mention that PPARα is a protein.
Sure, that's reasonable. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This inflammatory cascade…" Nice!
Thank you :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnosis
  • "Comedones (blackheads and whiteheads) must be present to diagnose acne and the absence of comedones suggests a different skin disorder with an appearance similar to that of acne." Awkward phrasing, and missing enough context. Suggest: "Comedones (blackheads and whiteheads) must be present to diagnose acne. In their absence, an appearance similar to that of acne would would suggest a different skin disorder." I haven't got this right but even looking at the sentence leaves me confused. I though the distinctive appearance of acne was due to blackheads and whiteheads. How could a skin disorder look like acne without these present? I'm confused.
I don't know that I agree. There's plenty of earlier context (immediately above within the pathophysiology section) and description of comedones and microcomedones throughout the article. And yes, the distinctive appearance of acne IS due to whiteheads and blackheads (which are informal/colloquial terms for closed and open comedones, respectively). If whiteheads and blackheads (comedones) are absent, that's inconsistent with acne. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly ce'd it as suggested, since the ce says the same thing, as far as I can see, and it's easier to read. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This scale was the first to use a standardized photographic protocol to assess acne severity; since its creation in 1979, Cook's grading scale has undergone several revisions." The phrase "Cook's grading scale" is redunant---replace with "the".
Sure, that's fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leeds acne grading technique counts acne lesions on the face, back, and chest and categorizes them as inflammatory or non-inflammatory." Suggest, "The Leeds" to make it clear that Leeds is a proper noun.
Sure, that's fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Differential diagnosis
  • "Such skin conditions include angiofibromas, epidermal cysts, flat warts, folliculitis, keratosis pilaris, milia, perioral dermatitis, and rosacea, among others." Aiieee! Kill the "skin". And trim the redundant "among others".
I'm still actively adding diagnoses to that section. And others is currently valid since the list is not yet comprehensive but stay tuned. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed the "skin". The word "include" (a constituent part of a whole) is necessarily incomplete; ergo adding "among others" is not required, and redundant. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Management
  • "Many different treatments exist for acne, including alpha hydroxy acid, anti-androgen medications, antibiotics, antiseborrheic medications, azelaic acid, benzoyl peroxide, hormonal treatments, keratolytic soaps, nicotinamide, retinoids, and salicylic acid." Too long. Suggest: "Many different treatments exist for acne. These include alpha hydroxy acid, anti-androgen medications, antibiotics, antiseborrheic medications, azelaic acid, benzoyl peroxide, hormonal treatments, keratolytic soaps, nicotinamide, retinoids, and salicylic acid."
That's fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are believed to work in at least four different ways, including the following: anti-inflammatory effects, hormonal manipulation, killing P. acnes, and normalizing skin cell shedding and sebum production in the pore to prevent blockage." The words "the following" are redundant. Replace "anti-inflammatory effects" with "reducing inflammation".
Sure, this doesn't seem like something that would really confuse a lay reader (IMO) but no objection since it means the same thing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Commonly used medical treatments include topical therapies such as antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide, and retinoids, and systemic therapies including antibiotics, hormonal agents, and oral retinoids." Replace "Commonly used medical" with "Common treatments".
Sure, that's fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diet
  • "As of 2014, evidence is insufficient to recommend milk restriction for this purpose." Hmmm. "As of 2014, evidence was insufficient?"
That's correct. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benzoyl peroxide
  • At this point I capitulated and engaged in some copy editing and trimming.
That's fine. I've reviewed each diff. No objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sandbh (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retinoids
  • "Retinoids are medications structurally related to vitamin A,[9] which possess anti-inflammatory properties, normalize the follicle cell life cycle, and reduce sebum production." The vitamin A connection is not that important. Suggest: "Retinoids are medications that possess anti-inflammatory properties, normalize the follicle cell life cycle, and reduce sebum production. They are structurally related to vitamin A."
I'm not sure I agree that the vitamin A connection is not as important since it's a defining characteristic of the medication class but I'm fine with this simple rearrangement for emphasis. Fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The retinoids appear to influence the cell life cycle in the follicle lining." The "The" is not needed.
Which instance of "the" do you mean? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first one. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I did some ce and trimming
  • What's the introductory context for this sentence(?): "There is no clear evidence that use of oral retinoids increases the risk of psychiatric side effects such as depression and suicidality."
Sigh, this was a concern from a few others too. It's a very well-known concern that has been raised about oral retinoids. It's on my list of to-dos for this article to add a very brief contextual sentence (i.e., this has been a concern. The evidence doesn't support it blah blah blah, etc. Discussed a few times above.). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Antibiotics
  • ce and trim done
  • "It is recommended that oral antibiotics be stopped after three months and used in combination with benzoyl peroxide if their use is thought to be necessary for adequate treatment. The use of topical or oral antibiotics alone is discouraged due to concerns surrounding antibiotic resistance, but their use is recommended in combination with topical benzoyl peroxide or a retinoid. Dapsone is not a first-line topical antibiotic due to higher cost and lack of clear superiority over other antibiotics. Topical dapsone is not recommended for use with benzoyl peroxide due to yellow-orange skin discoloration with this combination."

A bit of jumble here. I don't understand the first sentence. It seems to overlap the first part of the second sentence. The use of "but" in the second sentence is awkward. The third sentence is odd because it's a "not" sentence and it introduces a new subject (Dapsone) without any introductory context. It makes sense when you get to sentence four, but the reader shouldn't have to wait that long.
Please clarify what you don't understand about the first sentence (it seems straightforward to me). Oral antibiotics are not recommended for prolonged use due to concerns about antibiotic resistance and side effects (this is discussed clearly). Why is the "but" awkward for you? What do you recommend in its place? Dapsone is simply another antibiotic which is stated in the first sentence in which it is mentioned. That's very straightforward. No further introduction is needed. It's a less commonly used antibiotic because of the listed disadvantages and lack of clear superiority to other (more commonly) used antibiotics. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. I gather the first sentence means: If you need to use oral antibiotics after 3 months you will need to also take benzoyl peroxide? The way the sentence is written now does not make this very clear, on first reading. The word "stopped" is such a strong word that it tends to swamp the rest of the sentence. 2. The start of the second sentence has a negative sense, (which is fine) but is then followed by a "but", which I find to be an unusual, hard to navigate combination. I'd be inclined to say something like (this will be rough; ignore the bolding):
If oral antibiotics need to be take for more than three months then it is recommended you take benzoyl peroxide at the same time. Otherwise there is a risk of developing antibiotic resistance.
3. When Dapsone is mentioned, at the start of sentence 3, that is its first mention in the article. Hence my comment about it lacking introductory context, a concern which remains. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hormonal agents
  • ce and trim done
Reviewed performed copyedits/trims without major objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Azelaic acid
  • ce and trim done
Reviewed performed copyedits/trims without major objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Salicylic acid
  • ce and trim done
Reviewed performed copyedits/trims without major objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other medications
Yeah, I've been mulling that over but there's not a particularly simple way to explain that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I gather it's a form of dermatitis? Thus, "exogenous ochronosis (a form of dermatitis)"?
Combination therapy
  • Is good.
Glad to hear it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pregnancy
  • ce and trim done
  • the (category C) (B) etc thing is introduced here without any explanation
This is pretty well-known and ubiquituous (and blue-linked for additional information. A full explanation of medication safety categories is definitely outside the scope of this article and I think its inclusion would cause the article to lose focus). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know it :( A footnote would be helpful for people like me. -- Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • a lot of technical jargon here: oligohydramnios; ductus arteriosus; occlusive dressings---what are these?
These are other medical terms that are not easily explained in lay terms (hence, they are blue linked for further information). Oligohydramnios I can probably simplify but ductus arteriosus is a bit more challenging as is occlusive dressing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this would do: "oligohydramnios (amniotic fluid deficiency); ductus arteriosus (fetal blood vessel); occlusive (sealed) dressings

(sealed)". Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In studies examining the effects of topical retinoids during pregnancy, fetal harm has not been seen in the second and third trimesters." So, safe to use during the first trimester?
I will have to look back at the cited sources. They may not have commented on it. Stay tuned. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sandbh (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedures; Alternative medicine
  • ce and trim done
Reviewed performed copyedits/trims without major objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sandbh (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis; Epidemiology
  • ce and trim done
Reviewed performed copyedits/trims without major objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow -- Sandbh (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History
Reviewed performed copyedits/trims without major objections. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Society and culture
Glad to hear it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Research
  • "The aim of this research is to develop medications targeting hormones known to increase sebum production…" Eh? Increase or decrease?
  • ce otherwise done
This is correct. The target of medications under development will be sebum-promoting hormones (i.e., hormones that increase sebum production and therefore worsen acne) to interfere with this process. Is that really unclear? It seems straightforward on my read (and many others I've asked). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
¡Ay, caramba!, I get it now! Pls see my ce. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a little bit of a break since I'm getting annoyed and burnt out. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you. FAC's are very hard work. Sandbh (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion
  • Lean support, at this time. My concerns (mainly to do with prose) have mostly been addressed. I believe the following are outstanding, as detailed in the main body of my comments:
  1. I've requested a trimming of citations in the lead so that the only ones left are for items that are truly contentious, so current that they're still developing, or horrendously complex. (I can't see anything in the lead that qualifies.)
  2. Concerns about the potential for oral contraceptives causing acne
  3. Concerns about the chocolate discussion
  4. Hoping that my ce to the smoking para was OK
  5. Concerns about the construction of the antibiotic subsection
  6. Another ten or so minor items.
I enjoyed the opportunity to review this interesting article.

-- Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi edit

  • This is a big article with many refs. I'll try to spot check a representative sample, but it's gonna take a few days.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've been informed that another reviewer checked 25% of the refs. Kudos.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John edit

Leaning oppose. I share Sandbh's concerns. This is a good article and the minor problems with prose and image formatting would be easy to fix. There are problems of coverage which are harder to fix. The article at present over-emphasises the medical aspects of the condition over the cultural ones. The smoking thing bothers me. There are a bunch of minor things that added together tilt me in this direction. --John (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments edit

  • I'd appreciate it if everyone could take a deep breath here. If we are not careful, this FAC is going to run aground very quickly.
  • TylerDurden8823, I know and understand that you are a little frustrated with FAC at the moment, but could I ask you to tone down the comments about the reviews? "As I said before, I did not find your tone collaborative" and an "abrasive manner" does not encourage reviewers to revisit this article, and without reviewers it is not going to pass. Victoriaearle is one of the best FAC reviewers out there and I guarantee if you work with her, this will be a better article at the end of it, whatever the outcome of this FAC. I'm not seeing anything abrasive or un-collaborative in her comments; she is simply trying to make this article reach what she considers to be FA standards.
I would have to disagree. I have found her comments extremely abrasive and inappropriate in tone. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly Sarah is an outstanding reviewer and someone who many would be delighted to see at their FACs. You mentioned (some time ago) that you were "really rubbed the wrong way by your conduct", but again I'm not seeing anything in the review at which you should take offence. She is, like you, trying to make the best article possible. Sandbh also seems to be trying to work with you, and giving a very in-depth review; try not to be so defensive. Please work with the reviewers!
I'm working with them but I do not like how Victoria & Sarah talk to me. Sand, WAID, CFCF, Core, Seppi, Opabinia, Bruce1ee, and Hanif have all been just fine. I have found Victoria and Sarah's respective conducts outright inappropriate and have felt they have been very disrespectful toward me. That's not something I will tolerate. I'm really not being defensive except for comments that seem personally oriented or abrasive to me. (e.g., saying things like "that's bad writing" is not nice and just inappropriate. There are nicer/more tactful ways to offer constructive criticism that will not alienate the nominator). When reviewers have been offering feedback in a specific and constructive way (listed above), my responses are quite pleasant. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Victoria and Sarah could summarise their current positions about what they think this article needs to do to meet the criteria?
  • There is a long threat on WT:FAC at the moment at least part of which is about reviewers being driven away, and trying to encourage new reviewers. Any reviewer is within their rights to simply say "oppose on 1a", give a few samples and then walk away if they wish. There is no requirement at FAC to give line-by-line reviews, and in fact these were, once-upon-a-time strongly discouraged. That you are getting so much feedback is unusual, in a good way, and even if you don't agree with the comments (and there is no requirement that you do: this is about working towards a consensus) it is best not to take them too much to heart, or to see them as an attempt to derail this FAC. For better or worse (and I think the former), this is how FAC works. Nominating an article comes with the possibility of disagreement, but the end result is almost always a better article, and with the FA star at the top.
I'm not saying reviewers can't say that, but I will voice my disagreement with them if I think their reasoning is incorrect. I do think some of the earlier opposes or implications of oppose were meant as a derailment due to their earlier disagreeable comments. I understand your dilemma about not wanting to dissuade FAC reviewers but this process is so tedious/burdensome and when faced with some reviewers who offer feedback in a manner that is not constructive, it dissuades editors from wanting to be nominators. That's bad for the process too. It's a two-way street. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've said something similar to this elsewhere, but I wanted to formally note this here on the FAC page.
  • This FAC is getting very bogged down and hard to follow at the moment. I'm very tempted to move some of the commentary to the talk page so that any new reviewers can see where we are and are not discouraged by the wall of text. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's being dragged out because there is a flood of review going on. So far, Sand's has been the most helpful recent review. I don't 100% agree with everything he suggests but agree with most of it and when we disagree we've had little difficulty in resolving disputes through civil discussion. I wish I could say the same of a few other reviewers. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think we need to stop now. This FAC is horribly long, and there is a vanishingly small chance of finding a consensus to promote in amongst all this. Therefore there is little point in continuing. I think that it would benefit everyone to take some deep breaths and step away from this for two weeks. After that it can be renominated, but my suggestion would be to work with ALL the reviewers who have commented here and try to reach some compromises.

But I have to place on record that I consider the attitude of the nominator towards Sarah and Victoria to be unhelpful at best, and no matter your opinion of their reasoning, or your disagreement with them (which as I have said before, is perfectly permissible). These are some of your comments: "It's really just been you. This is absolutely ridiculous. At this juncture, I cannot take your suggestions seriously Sarah and I do not think I can work with you any longer", "I did not find your tone collaborative", "when I find that their comments are delivered in an abrasive manner" and "that would have been my advice to you. Any "baiting" exists only in your mind. Your warning is unwarranted. Therefore, I'm disregarding it. We can cease with any further discussion. The comments I'm seeing are not productive/helpful". To be blunt, it's a surprise that anyone has reviewed after this. I would suggest (and by all means disregard this) that you need to encourage reviewers, not drive them away, and if you really want this article to be a FA, I would advise a more collaborative attitude. Note that I am NOT saying that you have to agree with them, or to implement their recommendations.

If you want my detailed reasoning for archiving: we have one outright oppose from SlimVirgin, two leaning opposes (Victoriaearle and John, and Victoria's views still count even though she has moved them to the talk page) and some concerns from My Core Competency is Competency, who has not been on WP since January. Set against that, we have supports from CFCF, Opabinia regalis (both of which I consider to support the accuracy and content), an image and MoS support from Seppi333, a prose support from Bruce1ee and a leaning support (albeit with issues still to address) from Sandbh. This FAC has been open for over 2 months, and in that time we still do not have a consensus and therefore this needs to be archived. It can be renominated after two weeks, as usual, but I would recommend working on this away from FAC before renominating. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2017&oldid=772624305"