Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2016

< 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) 06:07, 31 May 2016 [1].

Norodom Sihanouk edit

Nominator(s): Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Norodom Sihanouk, the central figure in the history of Modern Cambodia. He is regarded as the founding father of the country, having secured Cambodia's independence from French rule in 1953. Sihanouk was Cambodia's monarch, Head of State, Prime Minister and resistance leader, serving in these different capacities throughout different periods of Cambodia's tumultuous history, plaqued by civil war and political intrigue in the 20th century. All are welcome to appraise or critique as deemed necessary. Thanks! ... Mr Tan (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I should be free on Sundays. I"ll drop by on weekdays as well, but bear with me if I might lag, especially on larger issues that needs more time to address (especially content issues, if any). Mr Tan (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Cambodia does not have freedom of panorama, so 3D works need to account for the original copyright as well as the photograph
  • Balance: two absolutely huge infoboxes, lack of details on early life in the Early life section
  • MOS issues, particularly overlinking - there are several cases where you've linked the same term twice in a single paragraph
  • Prose issues - grammatical errors and generally unclear phrasing in some areas. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments.

1. Which images are the ones that have issues? I believe that Freedom of Panaroma occurs when lets say, for example, you take the image File:Elections 40365 02072008.jpg, which is taken by User X, and he releases it as CC. Then User Y crops it and claims it to be released into File:Sam_rainsy.png, which is then evidently as you said "Freedom of Panaroma. All pictures as I have checked are from direct sources - though if you can point out the picture(s) in question, I"ll be glad to look into them.

That isn't what it means - it refers to the copyright of photographs of 3D things. In countries that have freedom of panorama, you only need to consider the copyright of the photographer; in countries that don't, you also need to account for the copyright of the 3D thing (sculpture, building, etc) that is pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So which is the picture that is problematic? Is it this one - File:Sihanouk statue at night.jpg? Kindly advice... Mr Tan (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2a. I agree with your concern on the infobox. (PS: I wasn't the creator of the infobox.) I thought it was fine leaving them, since it outlines Sihanouk's appointments - they're unfortunately long as he alternately took up and resigned from his political offices many times. What do you suggest that I do with them - remove one of them?

That's one possibility, or you could figure out whether there's some way to embed one within the other, but if you do that you'll still need to cut down on the parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most lengthy parameters are the "Prime Ministers" portion of the [Infobox officeholder]. The only way I can think of is to simply remove them, or alternatively I can condense the "Prime Ministers" part to "1955-1962", but that would appear to be somewhat a misrepresentation as he did not serve in that period continuously, but on an on-off basis. I personally agree that is a problem and agree that it would be ideal to take it away, but I can't say if other editors think so otherwise. While I would go along with removing [Infobox officeholder] in its entirety, I cannot guarantee that other editors with alternative viewpoints could put it back up some point in the future. That's why I had been hesitant to remove it until now. Mr Tan (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have informed User talk:SovanDara on this, should he have any views or inputs on this. Mr Tan (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Infobox Officeholder should be removed as well. SovanDara 12:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: On hindsight, I think it is not a good idea to remove the Infobox Officeholder altogether. Citing Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Bodybuilding_career as an example, his article has more than one infobox - a political officeholder and a bodybuilder infoboxes. To address your concern, I have removed the interim predecessor and successor Prime Ministers, and keeping only the dates of his on-off tenure as PM. I believe that this would be more amendable to any 3rd or 4th parties who have a strong opinion of wanting an officeholder infobox up. (Feel free to check the changes at the article.) I hope this sufficiently address the concern? ..... Mr Tan (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2b. I believe your concern is about his life before Sihanouk was crowned in 1941. There are a couple of sources that describes his childhood years, but I feel that it would be more advisable to keep it short, as according to the sources, were of a very personal and intimate nature. They basically talked about his relations with his parents, elderly members of the household, and his academic performances at school. Which I thought were not really notable, and it would be wiser to keep it to the schools that he had attended. (PS: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion). I had also considered the issue that the article is about 100kB in length, and hence it would be more ideal to focus on the more important areas of his life - which typically starts after he became King in 1941.

I'm aware that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but in this particular case more details would help us to better understand the subject. Further, you do discuss some of those details in later sections - such as when you talk about his early musical education. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I"ll dig out the resources, and I think I can probably expand his pre-king life by another 3-4 sentences. I think his musical interests should be kept to a seperate section, since Sihanouk developed a fairly well-known side career on this, and as such, any mentions on his early development of his artistic talents would ideally be kept separate. But give me about two weeks to write it out, as I need a bit of time to revisit the library to re-consult the necessary resources. I"ll let you know again once I do up on this. Mr Tan (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3/4. Will look into them. Would you mind pointing out areas of the prose that you feel needs improvement? It"ll be good if you list them out here, or go ahead to Copyedit where you feel necessary. (I"ll look through them again on my part as well.) Mr Tan (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particular paragraph or section, but rather problems throughout the article. Here are a few examples:
  • "Later as Sihanouk lived in exile during the 1980s, Sihanouk hosted concerts to entertain diplomats" - awkwardly phrased, no need to repeat the name
  • "Sihanouk maintained tenacious ties with the US" - I think you mean tenuous?
  • "While Sihanouk accused Ngo Dinh Nhu of masterminding the bomb attack, the incident deepened his distrust of the US,[53] which he suspected that they had played a complicit role in it" - grammar
  • "where he tacitly acknowledged the presence of Viet Cong troops in the Cambodia" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed all four points as of now. Please feel free to point out any additional areas that needs to be fixed, or go ahead and make the amends where you feel it's necessary. I"ll definitely try to proofread again, and a second pair of eyes would definitely be very helpful. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status update edit

1. I understand that you mentioned that Cambodia does not have freedom of panorama based on the article's infographic. I accept that, but I would really need you to advice if: a. This is the picture in question - File:Elections 40365 02072008.jpg; or if there are any other pictures in the article that share this problem b. If this (or additional) pictures are indeed problematic, then should I just remove from the article and possibly sent it for deletion

2. On hindsight, I think it would be wiser to leave the content of the infoboxes as it is. I agree with the concern of your length, and had considered removing one of the infoboxes, or trying to shorten it by removing some content. I think neither is a good idea, but I've made some measures to shorten it:

  • Collapsing the ten tenures of Sihanouk's PM-ship. That itself is very long, as he altenately went in and out of office.
  • Collapsing the list of Sihanouk's 14 children.

I believe that both measures shorten the length of the infoboxes significantly - interested users can click "show" to see more details. However, it would be very difficult to shorten any further, as I think it is important to bear in mind that Sihanouk had a long and varied career.

3. I've expanded his early life, as you have pointed out previously. However, it is not possible to expand any further, as his official biography only dedicated about 2 pages out of 70 on his pre-king life. Another source, written by Osborne dedicated only one chapter on this, out of a total of around fifteen, but even then half the content was about Cambodia's history rather than the personal details of his life. I think we need to keep in mind that he became king at 19, and definitely it is an event that took place very early in his life. I'm of the opinion that specialised details of his life, such as Sihanouk learning to play "clarinet, saxophone, piano and accordion" should be kept to the "Music" section of his biography. Otherwise, that section may end up too thin in content.

4. I've spent the past seven days copyediting on prose and grammar, and I hope I have improved the state of the article. (If there are any areas that I might have missed out which you spotted, please feel free to make the fix where you deem necessary).

I hope all issues are sufficiently addressed (including #1). However, if there are any additional areas that needs to be worked out further, I hope you can pinpoint the area that needs redress, and I"ll be glad to look at them again with you. Mr Tan (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.That image does not appear in this article. The images at issue are File:King_Norodom_Sihanouk's_funeral_procession_01.jpg and File:Sihanouk_statue_at_night.jpg.
Frankly, I don't know where did the author of the infographic at the "Freedom of Panaroma" article got the source that this was an issue. I have browsed through the laws at [2], and that there's I can't find any mention of this. Anyway, I"ll tentatively remove both pictures from the article. Mr Tan (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2.What about embedding one box in the other? At the moment they are still overwhelming and one does not know where to look to get what information (since personal details are split between the two).
I have tried using edit preview, but currently I don't know how to overcome the technical obstacles.
The article is using "Infobox officeholder" and "Infobox royalty". The problem is, Infobox royalty allows only up to three tenure parameters, whereas Infobox officeholder allows up to fifteen. If I were to transpose the parameters from the second infobox to the first, only the third tenure would show up, and all those from the fourth onwards would not show up. Sihanouk has up to fourteen or fifteen, and those infobox elements would become invisible.
I can only say that Sihanouk had a varied career, and the Guinness Book of Records listed him as having held the "greatest number of political offices" ever in his lifetime. It is inevitable that, for our case, that the list of political offices that he held is longer than most other people. Concerning confusion, I think placing the putting the most important office that the subject held at the top of any infoboxes for that matter - in this case, Kingship would suffice. I think, Sihanouk is remembered as king, more than he is as Prime Minister or Head of State, and the other subsidiary offices can be placed at the bottom.
Take a similar example, the former VP of the US, Dick Cheney - his infobox was also lined with six other political offices. Wouldn't that look "confusing" as well? Similarly, I think that Cheney would be remembered as a former VP, more than being a Chief of Staff than anything else. Hence I believe the issue of order and precedence is more crucial here, and I personally wouldn't really bother to look at anything else after the 3rd or 4th office that the subject has ever held. Mr Tan (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


3.Good
4.I suggest it might be helpful to seek assistance from the Guild, as there are still considerable problems with article prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent this article for Peer Review, twice, and the second round failed to elicit a review after 3 or 4 months of waiting. I've participated in this Copyediting Guild not too long ago on a seperate project, and nobody bothered to pick it up either. As I currently see it, there are more than 1,600 articles in the backlog. Thus far, those forums have not been very effective, attention-wise, and I have observed so far that the FAC that is reasonably effective in drawing attention.
May I seek your help in editing or pointing out specific parts of the article that need corrections? It would be great if you can pinpoint them out, as I believe that you must have given the article a pretty detailed glance-through to make the judgement. I hope you can consider offering a little helping hand on this..... Mr Tan (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My judgment is that there are more than a few areas in need of correction, and while I can point out or correct examples, this isn't the place for a detailed line-by-line analysis. I understand your frustration with backlogs and lack of response at PR/GOCE, but unfortunately FAC is not designed to substitute for those venues. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that detailed analysis should be reserved for the peer review or guild platforms. You are right on this count, principle-wise. If I had jumped directly to FAC, and a reviewer advises that there are problems with the prose, then it would be obligatory for me to send it to one of the platforms. However, I had sent this for PR–twice and gotten no meaningful response. I frankly doubt that sending it back to PR or the guild for the third time would be helpful, and from my observations so far, the FAC is the only platform that has gotten any significant attention from editors. I do note that some editors do, in fact give very detailed-in-line analyses on FAC, and past FACs like the case in "Palmyra", or ongoing FACs such as God of War (series) (among others) are wonderful testaments to this. And I believe that the relative inactivity (or insufficient activity) at these two platforms may have partly contributed to such stuff being done here .
It would be good if someone can give a second opinion as well, to see how this article can be improved upon. Perhaps I can ask, if you have any buddy editors that you are familiar with, which you can rope-in to co-review? Nevertheless, I hope you can assist in identifying the problematic areas in the prose. I have seen that you have run through one section of the article, and I do appreciate it very much. I think, right now you are saying that "there is a problem", but you are not really telling me "where" is the problem. I definitely need help to pinpoint as to where the problematic areas are, otherwise we"ll be going back-and-forth like this, and any I doubt additional rounds of proofreading and CE attempts would be effective. I will proofread and CE again--and as many times as it is required, and I"ll appreciate if you can provide more inputs from your side. Mr Tan (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • To FAC coordinator: Currently pinging other users for a second opinion. Please do not archive page as yet. Mr Tan (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from cas liber edit

  • Sihanouk received his primary education at the Francois Baudoin school and Nuon Moniram school. - where are these schools?
It is located in Phnom Penh - I've counter-checked the sources that I have with me. Francois Baudoin was actually a French-medium school and Nuon Moniram was actually a temple school where he learnt Cambodian and Buddhism. But I"ll omit these details out for the time being, as I'm scared that the prose can become too convoluted if excess details are "forced" in. Mr Tan (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Hun Sen rejected, Sihanouk followed up in September 2002 by threatening to abdicate --> "rejected" needs an object, so either "Hun Sen rejected (something)" or "Hun sen refused"
I've restored this sentence to the pre-CE version (by myself). ... Mr Tan (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Overall I think this prose is probably fixable but there are grammatical errors - generally involving the use of commas as subordinate clauses. I have fixed what I have found but suspect there are more. Generally I miss some after one or two passes. Some odd grammar as well. I think this needs someone else to check as well. I will look later after a rest from it as I tend to lose sensitivity after a while.

I wonder if there is more criticism or critical assessment of his ruling style overall that can be placed in the article. I am not familiar with Cambodian politics enough to speak authoritatively on this though.

Anyway, will be back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! He was pretty authoritarian (between 1955-1970) - as you can see that elections are in practice, rigged to his favour and that opponents are imprisoned. However, I feel that inputting any specialised commentary on his governance would be tricky, since the prose on this is currently split into three sections - lodging the discussion into the first section could give the impression that he being authoritarian maybe confined to only one of the three periods. That's why I thought it would be better if it is reflected subtly through the events mentioned. When he was king between 1993-2004, he was very much a ceremonial monarch. I will re-consult the resources and see how I can incorporate any explicit discussion of his ruling style into the article. Perhaps by elaborating on the intimidation and torture that he used in 1955 to cow the voters into voting for him, or events reflecting his direct involvement on imprisoning political opponents maybe useful - I"ll consider.... Mr Tan (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Update Hi Casliber, I like your suggestion very much and added in text describing his administration style where appropriate. Any additional comments on this? (PS: I also have feedback that the prose is still "problematic", would appreciate if you can make any fixes or point them out where appropriate. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Checkingfax edit

Hi, Mr Tan. It was my pleasure to dig into this very fascinating article. In the article, I made 15 edit sessions starting here; mostly MoS and aesthetic stuff. I also fixed a couple of reference errors.

I made two edits to refine the infoboxes starting here. I am not sure why some of the parameters are not displaying properly, even though they are filled out properly.

At 9500 words, this is among Wikipedia's longer articles. I would suggest a mild trim. I did no significant prose edits at this stage. I will be happy to !vote on this article when it is closer to being tightened up. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've trimmed it very slightly when I did the first round of CE personally. It was originally at 100kb - now at 94kb. Unless major points are removed from the article, it would be very difficult for any significant reductions to take place - even if it is to 85kb or something like that. I think, what we need to keep in mind is that Sihanouk was a very important person, and he was involved in many significant events which needs to be mentioned in order to give sufficient and balanced coverage. A fair number of FAs that have exceeded 100kB - such as Marilyn Monroe and Ronald Reagan - which I think is fine, so long as micro-details of an events are not excessively harped upon...
I like the edit you made to the infoboxes and find them very interesting - this was a concern previously voiced out by Nikkimaria. I agree that more work needs to be done - including a suggestion to include one point made by Casliber. Thank you so much, and I hope you can continue to assist and advise where necessary. (Y) Mr Tan (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mr Tan. I moved the first body image down the page by one paragraph so it does not create a text corridor between it and the infobox(es). I also added three {{US$}} templates. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I would personally prefer to have the images positioned at the very top of the section - I think the issue of narrowed text corridor would be an issue if you have a very low screen resolution (800 X 600 or 1024 X 768), which is already a rarity nowadays. I don't agree with your image shifts, and I may or may not discuss with you on this later. (It"ll be good if you can show any Wikipedia policies or guidelines specifying how images should be positioned to justify your image preferences).
Right now I'm much more concerned about the prose grammar, as well as sourcing more information pertaining to Cas Liber's suggestion (above). I will come back in no later than a week as I'm a little busy with real life issues over the next few days, though I have a lingering fear that the FAC coordinators may suddenly close the discussion.... Mr Tan (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008 edit

Oppose – I wish that I didn't find myself in this position. We could always use more FAs on statesmen, and the article certainly appears comprehensive. Unfortunately, the quality of the writing is a bit of a letdown. There were copy-editing templates at the top of the article the last couple of days, but whoever worked on it didn't catch everything, as the following examples demonstrate:

  • FUNCINPEC and CGDK years: "After several rounds of negotiations meditated by Deng and Singapore's prime minister Lee Kuan Yew". You can't meditate negotiations. I think the word you are looking for is "mediated".
  • UNTAC administration era: "Sihanouk left for Beijing to seek medical treatment in November 1992, where stayed for the next six months until his to Cambodia in May 1993". Multiple missing words here, and the order of some of the phrasing isn't optimal. Try "Sihanouk left in November 1992 to seek medical treatment in Beijing, where he stayed for the next six months until his return to Cambodia in May 1993" instead.
  • "On 14 June 1993 Sihanouk was reinstated as the head of state in a constituent assembly session presided over by his son, Ranariddh". We're told in the last paragraph that Ranariddh is his son, so that doesn't need to be repeated here.
  • Second reign: "Sihanouk made Ranariddh and Hun Sen as First and Second Prime Minsters". Remove "as".
  • "where he spent several months there for cancer treatment." "there" isn't needed and only serves as an excessive word that can be removed.
  • "so that the Khmer Rouge can be co-opted into the government." In this sentence, "can" should be "could" since the current wording implies that this hasn't happened yet.
  • "and expressed frustration that Hun Sen and Ranariddh have been ignoring him." This also isn't in past tense. Make "have" into "had" and it will be better.
  • "if the latter follow through on his suggestion." "follow" should be "followed".
  • Death and funeral: "and his ashes are to be interred in a goldern urn." This reads like it was added before he died and never updated. It should be "were to be interred" instead.
  • "In late November 2012, Hun Sen that Sihanouk's funeral and cremation was to be carried out in February 2013." This is missing "said" after Hun Sen's name.
  • Film-making: "for each of his film production from the Cambodian government." "production" should be plural.
  • Several references have the authors' names in all capital letters. This is the first time I can recall seeing this in an FAC candidate, and it goes against the Manual of Style. I suggest removing the all caps from the names.

While I think you've done a lot of great work to bring the article to this point, I'm picking out errors in most places that I'm looking at. I only read pieces of the latter half of the page, so I'm sure there are more issues lurking in the parts I didn't read. You're not going to like hearing this, but I feel like the best course of action would be to withdraw the FAC and start another peer review. The secret of PR is that you should go out and ask for input, rather than hoping that somebody stumbles into the article and takes an interest in it, which doesn't happen often enough these days. Try inviting the editors who have commented here, and seek out views from an editor of featured political biographies such as Wehwalt or Coemgenus, who would give you more useful feedback on the content than I can provide. As for this FAC, even with the copy-editing that has taken place the prose still has issues, and I doubt that you will be able to receive enough support for promotion at this time as problems are still being found. Sorry I can't give you better news, but I have to call FACs as I see them or I wouldn't be doing my job as a reviewer. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inputs. I think you have pointed out some very useful comments here, and I'll be looking through them over the next 24 hours. As I see it, the moment this FAC closes, there's a good chance that all the editors will simply forget about it, and at this rate I don't think the article will ever improve. I feel that it would be good if we can focus on the actual work on attempting to improve the article, on any deficiencies that you can spot rather than thinking about supporting or withdrawing for now.
I"ll ping you again once I have gone through and addressed your comments, and if you are able to spot any additional areas that needs to be fixed - do feel free to fix them or let me know. I"ll get busy on it now, thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For your suggestions, I've accepted all the above, thanks. Grammar wise, I sometimes face the dilemma of as to whether if I were to add more words, or remove excess words, as that sometimes can make the context more ambiguous (example would be your second and third points). If you feel that there are additional areas that seem ambiguous or not right, I'd like to hear from you. Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry, I know the nominator has worked to address comments above but, as Giants has said, there may be further issues to be identified and addressed, and when a review has been open almost four weeks we expect things to have progressed much further towards consensus to promote. I'm therefore going to archive the nom and echo the suggestion to put the article through PR before considering a return here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2016 [3].

Courtney Love edit

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about singer/songwriter Courtney Love, and covers her life comprehensively. I have researched and edited this article over several years, and got it to GA status prior. I am seeking FA status because I feel it has developed significantly over the past year and qualifies. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support: My concerns from the last FAC have been addressed, so thank you for that. There is a "Citation needed" tag in the "2012−present" section, but otherwise it looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Praemonitus: I addressed the citation needed; anything else needed? Drown Soda (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. You have my support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you much Praemonitus—it's been a long time coming with this article. I'm not entirely familiar with how the FA process works from here, as I've never really gotten a nomination to this point—does the article require multiple approvals, and if so, how does that happen from here? Is it arbitrary? I'd like to do all I can to get this promoted/featured. –Drown Soda (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- We do need to see more commentary and clear declarations of support for promotion, as well as image licensing and source reviews. I have to admit I'm a little surprised there's been so little take-up here, as my own quick scan of the article didn't indicate obvious structural or referencing issues, for instance. Normally we'd have archived a nomination that'd been open this long without much commentary but I'm always reluctant to do that when an article's already had a few tries. You might try leaving neutrally worded messages seeking reviews at relevant wikiproject talk pages. Also, getting out and reviewing others' articles can over the long term get you better known in the community and perhaps more likely to attract interest for your nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for starters I'd suggest notifying the WP:WOMENART, WP:WPMU, WP:ALM, and WP:PRM projects. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit surprised that it's been in limbo this long as well, especially given how high-traffic an article it is. I am still new to the whole FA nomination process; how can I go about notifying these projects (such as WP:WOMENART and whatnot? I've visited the pages, but how can I go about notifying potential reviewers? I don't believe I have the credentials to participate in FA reviews. Like I said though, I'm not totally familiar with this--there are still many facets of the process that I am completely unacquainted with. I've gone to painstaking lengths to get the article to where it is today (especially with doing a complete overhaul on citations and bibliography, integrating SFN references, etc.) and have worked on it over a course of years now. Getting it to GA status was a victory, but I feel like it has been developed enough to warrant FA status at this point. Drown Soda (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Ian suggested above, just post a neutrally-worded message to the talk page of the wikiprojects. Active members will likely have it on their watch list, so they will see it. You may or may not get a reply. As for reviewing other articles, any editor can do it. I don't have any established credentials here, for example; just the weight of whatever small insight I can credibly provide. Reviewing other articles, as well as reading other reviews, is a useful means for learning what you need to do to get your own article through the FAC process. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel unsure of using the word "moniker" in the article - comes across as a little colloquial to my ears.
...was an employee at the UC San Francisco Hospital - this could be anything from ambulance driver to orderly to neurosurgeon - I'd say "was employed as an 'x' at the UC San Francisco Hospital" or was a "was a 'x' at the UC San Francisco Hospital"
"convinced" the members to let her join as a singer. - why is convinced in quote marks?
t was remarked in an October 1991 Spin review of Hole's first album that Love's layering of harsh and abrasive riffs... - clumsy, why not just state who said it and convert to active?
There are several duplicate links in the article that should be delinked.

Other than that, looks ok from prose and comprehensiveness perspective. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed these for the most part, though I cannot come up with a way to fix your second point about her mother's occupation–there is no elaboration in her autobiography other than that she 'worked in a children's hospital,' so I'm not sure how to go about clarifying that. She was not a doctor or nurse, as she worked there directly after graduating high school. It was presumably clerical work, but there is no documentation of that specific work she did. Thank you for the pointers. Drown Soda (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine - we can only go with what sources say, so it's a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "the adolescent." (search throughout for ." and ,"): See WP:LQ. The period/full stop goes on the outside regardless of how the source wrote it when you're quoting a short phrase. For longer quoted text, the punctuation goes inside the quote marks only when the punctuation occurs there in the original.
  • "subsequently" (search throughout): Doesn't work for me, because it seems to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean, at least on Wikipedia: soon, later, consequently, etc. Usually, it can be deleted without harm to the meaning.
  • In 1981–1987: Early projects and elsewhere: Use "she" instead of "Love" if "she" wouldn't be ambiguous, except after paragraph breaks, or similar breaks in the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been reading through this and find it very comprehensively researched and well-written, though there are a couple of things I might tweak a bit (stylistic differences and all ;) ). Overall, an excellent article. Kafka Liz (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sparklism:

  • The script at User:Ucucha/duplinks shows quite a few bluelinks that should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK
  • When mentioning Pitchfork Media, we have it as both 'Pitchfork' and 'Pitchfork' - this should be one or the other style, for consistency (Personally, I prefer italics, since that's what the Pitchfork article itself uses)
  • "..and later took stint jobs doing erotic dancing in Taiwan and Japan." This feels a little too informal, how about "..and later found work as an erotic dancer in Taiwan and Japan."? (We could also link erotic dancing if we wanted)
  • "..according to Roddy Bottum" - should we describe who he is? (also Joe Strummer, Grace Jones, Andy Warhol, Robbie Nevil are not 'introduced' to the casual reader, although some of these are pretty well-known)
  • Stylistically, I think "Q magazine" scans better as "Q magazine", and the same for Spin
  • We could link UK Indie Chart
  • Whisky A Go Go redirects to Whisky a Go Go, so we should probably use that
  • Should we link flyers?
  • We go from "Love began dating Kurt Cobain" to "Love and husband Kurt Cobain" in the space of four sentences without mentioning the marriage. I'd argue that their marriage is a pretty important thing to include in an article about Love (edit: I see there's a lot about it later on in the article, but I still think the marriage itself is worthy of a mention here)
  • "Love also performed electric versions of two of Hole's new songs" → "Love also performed electric versions of two new Hole songs"?

I'll add more when I get the chance - hopefully these help! Thanks:) — sparklism hey! 10:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Drown Soda, will you be getting to/acknowledging these comments? Sparklism, do you have other comments? --Laser brain (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparklism & Laser_brain: I just looked over them and made changes—let me know what you think. Thanks again! —Drown Soda (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I only got halfway through the article so far. I'll add the rest of my comments as soon as I have the chance. I still think my very first comment about WP:REPEATLINKs has not yet been addressed, though. Thanks :) — sparklism hey! 11:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Sparklism (starting from the subheading '1996–2000: Acting and mainstream success' onward..):

  • Can Basquiat and Feeling Minnesota be expanded upon? (like The People vs. Larry Flynt is)
  • Best Actress has a page, so could be linked (here)
  • Roger Ebert could be described to the reader (simply as a 'critic' would suffice)
  • Did she actually "become involved" in fashion (which implies she was active in the fashion industry), or was she simply cited as a fashion icon? I realise she did some modelling
    • Clarified this as well by suggesting her modelling campaigns, which is clearer than "involved in fashion"
  • "Hole released a compilation album, My Body, the Hand Grenade, as well as an EP titled The First Session which consisted of the band's earliest recordings." I think "as well as" can be simply "and", and I think My Body, the Hand Grenade should be briefly described, if we are going to describe The First Session. Currently, this sounds as though they both 'consisted of the band's earliest recordings', which isn't the case
  • Link The Village Voice
  • I'd prefer to see "No. 1" as "number one" or "number 1"
  • We could link MTV here
  • What is 'Mercury' referring to here?
  • "solidbodies and had a single-coil and a humbucker pickup" - there are three terms there that need linking or clarifying
  • "landed a role opposite" - was this an acting role?
  • We've got both "The Smashing Pumpkins" and "the Smashing Pumpkins" in the article
  • We should introduce Linda Perry to the reader
  • Link the first instance of Billy Corgan, and de-link the second. We should also say who he is
  • "collaborating again with Perry and Billy Corgan" - had she collaborated with Corgan before?
  • "Former Hole guitarist Erlandson" - my view is that we should use his full name here
  • Link the first instance of Billboard
  • The paragraph that begins "On June 17, 2009..." could with a bit of work for the following reasons:
  • Nobody's Daughter is thrust upon the reader without a proper description that this is the album under discussion
  • "..featured a great deal of material..." - what constitutes 'a great deal' exactly?
  • "Love's aborted solo album, How Dirty Girls Get Clean" - it's implied, though not explained, that this was aborted, so this needs some clarification. Or, it could be argued that 'aborted solo album' is redundant, since the album was only just mentioned in the previous paragraph. So maybe just "material from How Dirty Girls Get Clean" would suffice
  • "re-produced" or re-recorded?
    • I clarified this a bit, but they were re-produced by Beinhorn and Larkin, not completely re-recorded
  • The subject matter of the album might be better in the previous paragraph, which talks about writing & recording etc, and I think it certainly belongs before talking about the album's reception
  • What does "acoustic work" mean to the casual reader?
  • The Son of Rogues Gallery link should actually point here
  • "had initially been conceived to promote Love's new album; however, due to the impending release of new material.." doesn't make sense to me
  • "In an interview with BBC" → the BBC
  • Throughout the article, it is mentioned that Love "landed" a role, including twice in two sentences here. Is there a different way of saying this? "Landed" feels too informal for FA
  • It was Alexis Petridis who praised the track, not The Guardian (and I notice that the Guardian link is a simple redirect)
  • "eight show performances" doesn't sound right to me. Eight shows?

I'm stopping here as I'm out of time. I'll probably have more comments from the 'musical style' section onwards - I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Hopefully, these help. Thanks! — sparklism hey! 09:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drown Soda, status here? This nomination has been open for a very long time. While there are no strict deadlines at FAC, we like to see forward progress and I'd prefer not to have to keep pinging you to have you respond to comments. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laser_brain, Sparklism: Sorry for the late response—I didn't get a notification so I assumed Sparklism hadn't given further suggestion. I've addressed Sparklism's above notes, and made alterations to concede. Any other comments or suggestions, I'm happy to work on. Let me know. —Drown Soda (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • More often than not, you won't get notifications for your own FAC. It's best to watchlist it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm concerned that we're still waiting for TonyTheTiger's comments to be addressed, and it looks like we still have image and source reviews outstanding as well -- this probably has the record for longest-running FAC nom and I'd hate to archive it when we have some reasonably solid support for promotion, but nor do I want to see it stretch into another month... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2016 [4].

Karl G. Maeser edit

Nominator(s): Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about is about Karl G. Maeser. He was a German immigrant who became the second principal of Brigham Young Academy and is considered its founder. The academy later became Brigham Young University. He was also a convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I expanded the article and it was peer reviewed by Nikkimaria. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready. I appreciate that a good amount of work has gone into this article, but in my opinion it is possibly at a Good article standard but a long way from FA standard. It consists of a lot of choppy "he did this, then he did that" statements and is lacking a smooth, well-written narrative. I'm concerned that the heavy reliance on institutional sources have produced writing like "Maeser turned the devastating fire into a lesson on pride. He had a dream that inspired the construction of new buildings for the Academy" which comes across as non-encyclopedic in tone. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The article is a valuable contribution but it is not of FA standard. It reads like a promotional piece in parts, (e.g. "It is the hope of both cities that the relationship will grow to include the exchange of delegations, including manufacturers, youth, academicians, scientists, artists, associations, clubs, tourists, technicians and others, which will result in enriching the cultures of the respective cities".) Elsewhere the prose lacks flow. I think there is too much work needed, which is best completed away from FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2016 [5].

Ellie (The Last of Us) edit

Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie is the deuteragonist and secondary playable character in the 2013 video game The Last of Us, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The character of Ellie is significant for the medium, as video games seldom feature such strong female characters. The design of the character was well-documented throughout development, and was very well-received after the game's launch, receiving high praise from critics. I wrote this article during my crazy The Last of Us project last year, and after feedback and changes from other editors, I feel satisfied that it is well-written and meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain ☔ 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I agree with Rhain that strong, female characters which are also well-written like Ellie are not often seen in video games. What is also of importance, is of course "the kiss" that Ellie shares with another girl. I think it is games like The Last of Us that show how the medium has grown, what can also be narratively achieved. Concerning the article, I can't imagine there is anything else left to add to it. For a video game character, it's most important to have good and well-sourced information on its design and reception, which is exactly what's there. Full disclosure: while I have edited The Last of Us 122 times and also worked together with nominator Rhain on adding the gameplay image on that article, I have edited the article Ellie (The Last of Us) exactly once. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Czar edit

  • I won't be able to give a full review in the foreseeable future but I wanted to add a note on quality. Often FAC is used as an extended peer review or a means for nitpicking to one's personal tastes, but there is also a degree to which FAC vetting is a statement to the encyclopedia's best traits. Ellie (The Last of Us) is the video game WikiProject's single best character article. I've been through the rest (mostly lists) and this article (1) cites reliable, secondary sources that are about the character in specific, (2) has reliable, secondary sources that explain all major facets of the character (design, use, reception), and (3) perhaps most importantly, has no reliance on primary sources for its major points. It was well-written when I reviewed it a year ago at DYK and it has only improved since. This article is the gold standard for the project's character articles, and exemplifies what they should should aspire to be. czar 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede can do a better job of setting up the article. If I have no idea who Ellie is, the first paragraph goes into details about her appearances rather than telling me what she's about. I suggest (1) removing Naughty Dog from the first sentence and adding a line about why she's important. The strength of her appearance? Her media impact? (2) Explain her character first—the grit, her role in the game, before saying that she is mostly computer-controlled. (3) I agree with Nick that there is a tad too much passive voice, especially in the lede ("She is controlled by the artificial intelligence" → "The computer['s artificial intelligence?] controls her actions" and so on). (4) Explain her role in the game, and then give due weight to her appearances in other media (appearances—they don't need more than a quick mention, based on my read). Then you can have separate paragraphs for the development and reception histories. I can give it a coat of paint but wanted to suggest this reorganization first. czar 02:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D edit

Oppose A lot of work has clearly gone into this article, but I'm afraid the structure and prose aren't of FA standard at present. I'm not familiar with these games or the character, and found that the structure didn't help me understand them. The prose is consistently overly-wordy, and the topics of paragraphs jump around a lot. The article would be much improved by a copy edit that focuses on condensing the wording (just say what happened, use active not passive tense where possible, strip out unnecessary quotes and details and check for duplication), improves the flow of the paragraphs' wording and restructures the article so it explains the character before getting into the details of how she was developed and portrayed. I have the following specific comments on the lead and first section which I hope illustrate these concerns:

  • The second para of the lead is a bit jumpy, and repeditive.
  • In particular, the sentence "Johnson also inspired Ellie's personality, prompting Druckmann to give her a more defensive role" - is unclear (what's Johnson's personality? what does "defensive" mean in this context?)
    • Please re-check what "defensive" means. It really isn't clear in this context (does she take action against enemies or similar?). Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but "to make her stronger when defending against hostile enemies" also isn't clear here (is she physically strong, emotionally robust, etc?). Do you mean something like the character was more active in fighting off enemies? Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who particularly praised her relationship with Joel" - what aspect of the relationship?
  • "Her role in Left Behind received great social commentary" - awkward wording
  • The "Character design" section would be considerably strengthened by starting it was an explanation of how the character was conceived. At the moment, the first sentence is confusing as it's not clear how Johnson fit the role given the role hasn't been explained.
  • "in a stronger and more defensive manner" - as above
  • "When portraying Ellie, Johnson faced challenges in performing scenes that made her feel uncomfortable" - what types of scenes were these?
  • "she needed to appear young enough for to make her relationship with Joel believable" - how old is Joel?
  • "A redesign of Ellie's physical appearance was revealed in May 2012" - revealed to whom? and why?
  • "Druckmann stated that the change was to make her look more similar to Johnson" - already explained in the previous para.
  • "Prior to the redesign, comparisons were made between Ellie and actress Ellen Page" - what kind of comparisons?
  • "Page's decision to come out on the same day as the release for Left Behind also sparked further discussion" - why?
  • "The team felt that Ellie was a very important aspect of the game" - what team? And given she's one of the main characters, isn't that obvious?
  • "When questioned about the inspiration for Ellie as a gameplay feature, Druckmann recalled when he and game director Bruce Straley were brainstorming ideas for Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (2009) and created a mute character who would summon the player to follow them, creating a "beautiful" relationship through gameplay alone" - unclear, over-long and inconsistent tense Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I appreciate your comments; I tried to address most of them, although I'm unable to address some. For example, I'm unsure how to define which aspect of Ellie and Joel's relationship was praised (critics seemed to generally praise it as a whole, as demonstrated later in the article), and changing Ellie's appearance to look more similar to Johnson was not "explained in the previous para" (I constructed the paragraphs in that section by story, physical appearance, and her role in gameplay). It's unfortunate that you disagree with this candidacy, but I respect your opinion. If you have time, I'd greatly appreciate any more comments or advice you have for the rest of the article. The more improvements, the better. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ 12:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a significant improvement, but I think that more is needed. I've just copy edited the lead to hopefully give a feel for what I'm thinking (please adjust/blanket revert as you see fit though!): in short, I think that the text should be more concise, and be written in the active voice. As some more specific comments:
  • Do video game reviews and similar really deserve to be labeled "social commentary"? When I saw this in the lead I was expecting the relevant material to be discussions by academic experts, social commentators and the like.
Comment: It's a societal issue; "social commentary" is a perfectly acceptable term to use here. Side note: Your comment seems to belittle video game reviewers, who could in fact also be experts in the fields you mentioned. --JDC808 ♫ 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are they? I've been a keen reader of video game reviews since the early 1990s BTW. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't know as I haven't researched the reviewers of this game/character, but one shouldn't assume that just because someone reviews video games, than they are not an expert in something else. --JDC808 ♫ 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Druckmann has stated that it was written with the intention of Ellie being gay, though preferred to leave it subjective" - this wording isn't clear
  • "it is revealed" - is the word "revealed" appropriate here? (was this hidden?)
Comment: It was unknown beforehand, so "revealed" is an acceptable term. --JDC808 ♫ 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't: "revealed" is appropriate for things which were hidden, not things players had not yet been told because the plot hadn't gotten up to them. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, yes, "revealed" is acceptable in its usage here. Revealed is to make something unknown, known. --JDC808 ♫ 15:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who are the various characters name-checked in the "Appearances" section?
Comment: What do you mean by "name-checked"? Is it that you are you asking, for example, who Marlene is?--JDC808 ♫ 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conversely, Game Informer's Kimberley Wallace felt that the game's marketing was unbalanced, focusing too much on Joel and "hardly capitalizing on Ellie's importance".[37] Chris Suellentrop of The New York Times similarly felt that the game casts Ellie "in a secondary, more subordinate role".[38]" - this doesn't follow on from the first half of the para
  • "GN's Luke Karmali questioned Naughty Dog's motivation behind the kiss" - what did he feel this motivation was? Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Thanks again for your comments; I tried to address them. I also appreciate your edits. I'm currently unsure how to approach making the text more concise, but I'll try and take a look soon. And, of course, any comments or feedback is always appreciated. Thanks again! – Rhain ☔ 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I just made some minor adjustments to the article—does this at all imitate the changes you were looking for? Anymore specific comments would be greatly appreciated; I'd really like to remove the oppose from this candidacy, and would be willing to do whatever is necessary in order to achieve that. Your cooperation, feedback and expertise is highly valued. Thank you for everything thus far, and for your continued advice. – Rhain ☔ 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's improved, but the prose is still a bit imprecise and wordy, and uses incorrect tenses at times. I've made some example copy edits which might help. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I made some minor edits, but I'm finding it difficult identifying many more issues. Some more specific examples or feedback would be great, when you have time. Thanks! – Rhain ☔ 01:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response. I've just made some more example edits. Please run through the article - and especially its early sections - looking for text written in the passive voice, and statements which don't really go anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808 edit

As per all my reviews. I always go through and do some copy/editing.

Lead

  • "Ellie is a fictional character in The Last of Us, a video game by Naughty Dog."
    • There's nothing technically wrong with this sentence, but I feel it would flow better if it was rearranged to say "Ellie is a fictional character in Naughty Dog's 2013 video game, The Last of Us." I'll leave this one up to if you want to change it or not.
  • Extra comment (does not affect this review): To my surprise, I found that Joel doesn't have his own article, but instead, a nice entry on the characters page. If there's enough information and coverage, I would suggest to create a standalone article for Joel as well.

Character design

  • Overall, a great section, but I do take concern with the meaning of something — "a mute character whose role was to summon and briefly accompany the player". What is it meant by "whose role was to summon"?

Appearances

  • This section could do a better job at saying when the appearances happen. There's one instance of it saying "Several weeks prior to the beginning of The Last of Us," but it doesn't tell us if this was the events of Left Behind or American Dreams.
  • There's a few ways to address this:
1. In the prose itself, state which story is happening. The only instance currently is the one I mentioned, but that can be reworked.
  • Example (first sentence). "In American Dreams, it is revealed that Ellie lost her mother at birth and grew up in an orphanage."
  • In reworking the one instance: "During the events of Left Behind, taking place several weeks before the beginning of The Last of Us, Riley...."
  • Either the end of the first paragraph or beginning of the second paragraph, rework so that it's understood that we're now in The Last of Us.
2. Similar to the first point, but switching the prose around so that it's in order of appearances (e.g., she appeared in The Last of Us before Left Behind, and some may argue that it should be this way).
3. In addition to doing the prose of the first point, break this section into two sub-sections: the first paragraph go under the sub-section titled "American Dreams and Left Behind" and the second paragraph under "The Last of Us".
4. Same as point 3 but switching the order like mentioned in point 2.
  • With this section only being two paragraphs, I'm in favor of point 1, but like I mentioned, some may argue that it should be in order of appearances. I'll let you decide how you want to do this.

Reception

  • The only comment I have here is to actually say what awards Ellie and Ashley won, or at least a couple of them. --JDC808 ♫ 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: Thanks for your comments and edits. I briefly looked into creating an article about Joel, but felt that Ellie was more notable; I'm not quite sure that Joel received the same coverage as Ellie, so I'm quite happy with his section on the characters page, but I might look into it again soon. Anyway, I went through and addressed your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ 20:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was still a bit confused on the summoned character bit (the edit you made did read better though). After checking the source, I understand it now. I've edited that part so it's clear, and with that, I give my Support. --JDC808 ♫ 22:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after almost two months. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2016 [6].

Can't Hold Us Down edit

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Can't Hold Us Down", a song by American recording artists Christina Aguilera and Lil' Kim which discusses feminism. It passed its good article review (nominated by WikiRedactor (talk · contribs)) in June 2013 and was nominated for featured article in March 2014 by me and WikiRedactor. Though thouroughly written and researched and backed up reliable sources, it was not passed at the time as there was a delay in the progress. I am renominating this article as I believe it is ready for FA status. Any comments on the development of the article would be very much appreciated, Simon (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808 edit

I read through the article, made a couple of copy-edits, and honestly, I only have a couple of comments.

  • I noticed that in the infobox, Lil' Kim is credited as a writer, however, nowhere else in the article is she given this credit.
    • Example 1&2: In the lead, The track was written and produced by Scott Storch, with additional songwriting credits by Aguilera and Matt Morris. This same information is provided in "Background and release". No mention of Lil' Kim's contributions to the writing.
    • Example 3: In the "Credits" section under Personnel, Lil' Kim is not listed for Writing.
  • So the question is, did Lil' Kim actually write her parts, or did one of the other three write it for her?
    @JDC808: Yes, Lil' Kim did not write her part per the album's notes. Thanks for notifying it! — Simon (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only other comments is, is the hatnote necessary? In Macklemore & Ryan Lewis's "Can't Hold Us", they never say "can't hold us down", so I don't see why there would be any confusion between the two. I would also suggest removing the hatnote from the "Can't Hold Us" article.
    Removed. Simon (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also have an article up for FAC, the God of War video game series. --JDC808 ♫ 16:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read back through the article and did a couple more copy-edits. This was something I noticed the first time but didn't question it because it was a direct quote, but maybe the quote needs checked. In the Music video section, in this quote—"a range of issues concerning the represent of gender and race"—does the book say represent or representation? --JDC808 ♫ 13:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JDC808: Gosh, thanks for notifying that typo. Here's the source from which the text is quoted. Much appreciated, — Simon (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, all of my issues have been addressed. I am happy to Support this article's promotion. Great job. --JDC808 ♫ 13:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Pedro edit

Hey, Simon, long time no see! I think you left me a message on my talk page a couple of weeks ago and I apologize for the tardy response. I've read the article twice and I believe you have delivered a strong GA, but... here comes the difficult part: I don't find the prose excellent. However well-researched it is, and it seems to fully cover the song, I can't give my support considering that aspect. Compare it to 4 (Beyoncé album) – both are thoroughly researched and complete, but only 4's prose is truly brilliant, and I don't want to offend you by saying this. I applaud your work but I believe you should ask for a GOCE copyedit. Later I'll give my full review of the article but, unfortunately, I'll have to oppose. Pedro u | t 18:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prism: I don't think comparing this to 4 is appropriate as 4 is an album and released in 2012, while Can't Hold Us Down is a song and released in 2003, therefore numerous sources regarding the song may have been deleted or archived somewhere. Still, thanks for your comment. Looking forward to a full review soon. Simon (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Here are two sources I found. The Portland Mercury one seems especially great.
Wow thanks! The Portland Mercury one is great, while The Daily Beast One may not satisfy WP:RS. Simon (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Prism: Looking again, I see that most parts of the Portland Mercury article are also the other opinions that have already been listed in the article. Wonder if it could actually help expand the article, but I'm still trying. Simon (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chasewc91 edit

Without having looked too closely at the article (as of yet – may later), I would recommend moving the first paragraph of "Legacy" to "Reception" and the second paragraph to "Music video." "Legacy" sections tend to be undue puffery of the subject. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Simon (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination seems to have stalled and there is no consensus for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2016 [7].

Imelda Marcos edit

Nominator(s): Imeldific (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines and current congresswoman. She is famous for her shoe collection and her marriage to former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. During her time as First Lady, she traveled the world met with world leaders and buy artwork. She still serves the Philippines through her work in Congress. Imeldific (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Caeciliusinhorto edit

Oppose. I'm not sure this article is ready for FA status yet.

A few problems:

  • The prose is uneven, and some of it needs quite a lot of work. For example:
    1. "As First Lady, Imelda built architecture in and around the metropolis of Manila"
    2. "Her role in the presidency was controversial because she was involved in altercations, including one with The Beatles when the band allegedly snubbed her invitation for a state dinner at the presidential palace, and another with Dovie Beams for the actress' alleged relations with Ferdinand."
    3. "After they left Malacañang Palace, she was found to have left behind 15 mink coats, 508 gowns, 1,000 handbags, and pairs of shoes, the exact number of which varies with estimates of up to 7,500 pairs."
    4. "The location where her shoes and jewelry were kept was later destroyed and the contents stolen and a painting of her was destroyed outside the Palace."
  • Sourcing is... interesting:
    1. Here Lies Love is used as a source about her life. Why is a concept album about Imelda Marcos a reliable source for wikipedia?
    2. this is a blog. The article in question is sourced to Reuters, so there must be a better copy of it somewhere, surely?
    3. The reliability of Rappler has been questioned
    4. Her tour of Libya is sourced to this, which doesn't mention it at all (and even if it did, there must surely be a better source!?)
    5. Many of the sources given are simply reviews of the documentary Imelda. Imelda Marcos is a sufficiently notable and controversial figure that I'm sure there must be better out there. Especially given that they are reviews in such esteemed publications as Deseret News, The Phoenix (newspaper), and Christian Science Monitor
    6. The Daily Mail is used as a source. WP:BLPSOURCES says that material only supported by tabloid journalism should not be added to an article. If better sources can be found for the claims, then the DM shouldn't be cited; if they cannot, the claims should not appear in the article.
  • I'm concerned about the lead. The first paragraph, third sentence, talks about her collection of 1000 pairs of shoes. While this is famously true, it comes ahead of any discussion of her controversial role in a dictatorship, which barely appears in the lead at all. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV both spring to mind.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Substantial issues have been raised here, and the article does not appear to have been properly prepared for FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2016 [8].

Anthony Anderson (basketball) edit

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional basketball player who has spent most of his career with the Saint John Mill Rats or their previous incarnation. He finished his time in college with UMass as its second-best three-point shooter of all-time. As a pro, he has been an illustrious figure in minor league basketball in North America, winning MVP in both the American Basketball Association (ABA) and the National Basketball League of Canada (NBL). He is the NBL Canada's all-time leading scorer as well. I've put in plenty of work into this article over the past couple months, and it was recently promoted to GA. I believe that this article could definitely qualify for being a featured article, perhaps with a couple fixes here and there. Feel free to leave your comments and post whether you feel like this article can pass as an FA. TempleM (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment from Iridescent edit

You talk about "London Capital Paws" and "The Paws" throughout, but the defunct basketball team was called London Capital; "P.A.W.S." was the name of their sponsor. I tried to check the cited reference to see if this error was derived from an error in the reference, but it's a dead link. ‑ Iridescent 00:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: I believe that you are correct about the team name. Will I have to remove all of the information derived from the deleted article, because I can't find the same info anywhere else? TempleM (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to remove the information if the article cannot verify anything. I tried looking for an Internet Archive version of the article you could add to the cite, but had no luck. One option you could consider is the Resource Exchange. The editors there have access to a wide range of paywalled newspaper articles and the like; perhaps one of them has access to the Daily Item. If so, they could provide you with a copy of the article, or at least confirm that it exists with a page number and date, which the source reviewer(s) will likely want to see. My old college's library only had the Pennsylvania Daily Item, unfortunately. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: @Giants2008: I have made some changes to the section, replacing the deleted source with another one and adding some content. Let me know if you have any other concerns. TempleM (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: File:Saint John Mill Rats Poster.jpg is a fair use image but lacks critical commentary or a rationale as to how it helps readers understand the article subject. This does not appear to meet WP:NFCC#8.
    • Oppose pending resolution of the above. Anyone is authorized to change this to a support without further reference to me if the image is removed; please ping me if you are planning to keep it with an improved rationale and I will re-review. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle: I have removed the image, because I believe that it is not important enough to be listed under fair use. Let me know if you can re-review now that the image is removed. TempleM (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, oppose struck. I have not reviewed the rest of the article so now neutral. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I hate to be the bad guy when reviewing at FAC, but I'm finding a lot of glitches in the writing and issues with sourcing. Some of them really should have been caught before the FAC, and they lead me to think that a good copy-edit would be helpful, as well as some reworking in the references.

  • As a general note, publication dates should be included in references when available. For example, the New York Times story used in ref 4 will likely have a date of publication mentioned in the article. Not all of the references will (many statistics sites won't have a date listed, for instance), but it's good practice to include the dates when you can.
  • High school career: Boston Globe should be italicized as a print publication.
  • Freshman: "Anderson quickly became an key part of the Minutemen". "an" → "a".
  • "He eclipsed the scoring total in his following game against Boston College, after which he recorded a team-high 19 points." Since he clearly didn't score the points after the game, as implied by the sentence, this should be "in which" instead.
  • "In this game, Anderson hit three three-pointers in the closing 15.2 seconds, but his team failed to win the game." We now have "In this game", followed by "failed to win the game", which is repetitive in nature. I think you can just remove everything before Anderson's name; it seems clear enough that this is referring to the Boston College game.
  • More repetition here: "He became the first Minuteman to score over 5 threes that season and scored double figures for the 10th time as a freshman." There's "score" and "scored" in close proximity. Try to vary the writing a bit more.
  • Sophomore: A link to Steve Lappas isn't necessary, because there was already one in the prior section. Also, you can cut "head coach Steve" from this sentence, since we already know Lappas was the coach.
  • This sentence needs urgent attention: "Anderson recorded more than 100 assists for the second straight season, becoming the 1999 to do so."
  • Next sentence: "He also made the eight-most single-season threes in school history." "eight-most" → "eighth-most".
  • Junior: The "vs." here has a full stop (period) at the end, in contrast to the ones in previous sections. The MoS recommends that full stops be used, but this should be made consistent one way or the other.
  • Senior: Again, "Coach Steve Lappas" can be trimmed to just "Lappas".
  • The article contradicts itself in describing Anderson's game against Yale. It says he scored eight points, but Lappas' quote then says that he scored six points. Which is it?
  • What is meant to be citing the table of UMass' all-time three-point leaders? There should be a reference here, as there is for Anderson's stats.
  • In trying to answer the above question, I checked the source, which says it was six. That brought up another problem: the link went to UMassHoops.com, not the official UMassAthletics.com listed in the citation. UMassHoops.com is a fan site, and isn't a reliable source. It had copies of press articles about the game, which are more likely than not copyright violations. We shouldn't be linking to this site at all if that is the case. Upon checking, references 8, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 30 also come from this site. That is a major issue, and I can't see this FAC passing if they are not replaced.
  • Also in the references, refs 1, 60, 68, 71, 76, 77, 80, 86, and 90 have all caps in the titles, which should be removed.
  • Ref 38 looks like another unreliable source with reprints from elsewhere.
  • Ref 40 is to somebody's blog. I have a hard time seeing that as reliable for much of anything, let alone an FA.

Sorry, but I think there is going to be a lot of work to resolve these issues during the course of an FAC, and I didn't even get to read the portion of the article that is about his pro career. I hope the issues can all be resolved, but have doubts as to whether this will pass on the first attempt. In particular, I'm really concerned about those UMassHoops.com links. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: I will address the issues you have stated. TempleM (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Ok, so I have fixed all of the issues you have pointed out except the dates and the unreliable sources, which I will save for later (since it will be a big job). Thank you for the review, and feel free to let me know what you think about the article right now. I will get back to you if/when I replace the UMassHoops sources and the blog source. TempleM (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note: Substantial issues have been raised here, and the article does not appear to have been properly prepared for FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2016 [9].

Requiem (Reger) edit

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Requiem by Max Reger, which I want to see in good shape on 11 May 2016, a century after his early death. Looking closer, the article which began to be about the Hebbel Requiem which he composed in 1915 on a German poem by Friedrich Hebbel, with the soldiers fallen in World War I in mind, is also about his earlier setting of the same poem (1912), and his unfinished attempt to compose a Latin Requiem (1914). The article received a GA review by RHM22 a while ago. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brianboulton edit

Uncited statements: There are numerous sentences that do not carry citations.

There are two sources which I would like to get advice on how to use them as references, one the Max-Reger-Institut website with detailed information on each piece, and the score. One: should I have the refs for Op. 1, 2, 3 and 4 all in THIS article, to cite that 1-3 are all chamber music, and 4 is songs, #1 by Hebbel? One look (or two to find Hebbel) at Max Reger works#Table of compositions (linked) shows that at a glance. - The other: the score tells us about his tempo markings and division of parts, even if no secondary source does. In a different review, we talked about the music section being comparable to a plot section in a book. --GA
I introduced now the "vocal score" as a reference. ---GA
  • In the "Background" section: "He established himself as a pianist and composer, also teaching piano and organ. The first compositions to which he assigned opus numbers were chamber music. He composed in 1891 as his Op. 4 a collection of songs, the first, "Gebet" (Prayer), on a text by Friedrich Hebbel who wrote the poem on which two of Reger's Requiem settings are based."
First sentence bio, second see above. --GA
  • "Hebbel's poem": "The Latin title of the poem alludes to Requiem aeternam, rest eternal, the beginning of the Mass for the Dead."
There may be people who simply don't know that much about the meaning of Requiem, both as a word as a liturgy. Do you think a link to Requiem is enough? --GA
  • "Hebbel Requiem - Music":
  • "The four parts SATB of the chorus are often divided. The key is D minor, as is Mozart's Requiem. The tempo in common time is marked Molto sostenuto, kept with only slight modifications by stringendo and ritardando until the most dramatic section, marked Più mosso (moving more) and later Allegro, returning to the first tempo for the conclusion."
Most is now cited to the score. Do we need references for the Mozart Requiem being in D minor, the Brahms beginning with a pedal point on F, and Das Rheingold on E-flat, next question? ---GA
  • "In a pattern strikingly similar to the beginning of A German Requiem, the bass notes are repeated, here on an extremely low D, lower even than the opening of Wagner's Das Rheingold on E flat."
  • "In section B, the chorus is divided in 4 to 6 parts, set in more independent motion. The soloist sings similar to the first time, but repeats the second line once more while the chorus sings about the hovering as before."
Score, now cited ---GA
  • "In section C, the chorus literally stiffens on a dissonant 5-part chord fortissimo on the word erstarren. In great contrast, a storm is depicted in dense motion of four parts imitating a theme in triplets."
Score, now cited ---GA
  • "Reger completes the chorale setting in his way for the chorus, while the solo voice repeats "Seele, vergiß nicht die Toten"."
Score, now cited ---GA

The above stand out because they are at the ends of paragraphs – or in a few cases represent the entire paragraph. There may be other, less obvious uncited sentences. In some cases the problem might be resolved by the resiting of an existing citation, otherwise new citations are required.

A couple of unrelated points:

  • In the infobox the statement "Soldiers who fell in the War" is a little vague. At least say "First World War", and link.
  • The statement "Reger died in Leipzig after a full day of teaching on 11 May 2016" reads as though it was the teaching that killed him. You may want to rephrase/expand a little.
It's a translation of Reger's writing, which is pictured and therefore not repeated in German. He knew of no numbers for wars". It's specific, with a link, in the first paragraph of the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to reword the death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking, and raising good points. Looking forward to a solution to the general Op. and score questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Gerda, but I don't understand many of your responses; perhaps I am dim, but I don't have time for a long discussion. I'll just say two things: first, statements such as "The Latin title of the poem alludes to Requiem aeternam, rest eternal, the beginning of the Mass for the Dead" would be better included as a footnote, where as explanatory comments they need not be cited. Secondly, some of your citations to the score look dubious. For matters of fact, e.g. key, tempo, instrumentation or similar detail, then the score may be cited, but not for interpretative statements such as "In section C, the chorus literally stiffens on a dissonant 5-part chord fortissimo on the word erstarren. In great contrast, a storm is depicted in dense motion of four parts imitating a theme in triplets." For you to use such a statement, a published source needs to have said it, or something like it. Likewise the Rheingold comparison. I hope that helps. Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Without a note here, I added cites other than the score to the stiffening (although it's not interpretative, it's just that all voices hold their note without dynamic change for a long time) and the storm. Both "stiffen" (erstarren) and "storm" (Sturm) are in the text, now more visibly because I repeat the translation in the paragraph (which was ony in the table when you read). I found a cite for Mozart and Brahms. Will do without Rheingold if it's a problem, but it should be easy to find a ref. Thank you for the footnote idea, will do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our article on Das Rheingold is not very specific, and has only an offline source. Of the many online, this one describes it most precisely. Acceptable?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about the footnote once more, but think Reger's Requiem is so different from what readers expect that a footnote is not enough for clarification: a German poem with a Latin title, about rest for the dead, alluding to the Catholic mass, but not even Christian. What can we do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Missing parenthesis in the lead caption?
No, just trying to make readable what Reger wrote: "2.)" - grateful for making that clearer --GA
  • The caption of the History image is displaying with the filename shown - see VPT discussion
I don't see that. --GA
I'd have no problem with showing the complete card, - would match the poet who is also sitting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Reger_Max_Postcard-1910.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but remember that in the GA review by RHM22, the image I had suggested was replaced by this one, so I thought it was "safe". RHM22 also did the cropping. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The original image was possibly not PD, and as an expressionistic painting, I don't think it was necessarily the most illustrative choice for this particularly article (although it was nice aesthetically). As for the current postcard image, the source website says that it was published in 1910 in Germany, it should be public domain because it was published more than seventy years ago. The current tag on the image seems wrong, unless somebody knows who actually took the photograph. I think the correct template is this: Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG. I don't know much about German copyright, so I'm not sure. The image isn't actually cropped, but I used the CSS cropping template so only a portion shows due to the unnecessary large size.-RHM22 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likely I'm missing something by using Google Translate, but I'm not seeing that the source website says either that the image is a postcard (it seems to say only "photograph") or that it was published in 1910 (it says "original date 1910"). In fact, it seems to say that the publication date was 2014. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have my difficulties with image rights in all languages ;) - this would tell me that the website included it in 2014. Here's German, with a link to "Gemeinfrei" which I would translate as "free to share". - How would this be, alternatively? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For that you would need to know when/where it was first published, you'd need to verify author was never given, and (depending on first publication) you'd need a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds as if the original choice may have advantages, after all, with a creator who is known to have died in 1918. RexxS, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what choices you're asking about, because the above exchanges don't seem to be about the same image, but this is what I've managed so far:
For the File:Reger Max Postcard-1910.jpg, the source (the Catalan website) indicates "Memòria Digital de Catalunya" as the repository of the original, and grants "copying for study and research, quoting Centre de Documentació de l'Orfeó Català as source. All other uses require permission." So we don't have the photographer's permission for Wikipedia use. However, if the original postcard(?) were PD, then Bridgeman vs Coral would indicate that we don't need to recognise claims of copyright by the photographer, because it's a 2-D work and the photographer can't generate a new copyright. However, I can't be sure that the original actually is a postcard (which would make it a 1910 publication), even though I would find it unusual for a mere unpublished photograph to have the subject's name imprinted on it. Anyway, we don't seem to be able to conclusively demonstrate that the original image has now passed into the public domain, so I've proposed that it should be deleted from Commons - c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reger Max Postcard-1910.jpg. Of course, if it survives that nomination, we can then use it on En-wp with confidence.
For File:Max Reger 1913.jpg, the source is Gewandhausmagazin Nr. 89, 2015/16, S. 13, so there's a clear publication in 2015, but no obvious evidence of when or if the original image was published, so it suffers from the same defect. Does anybody have easy access to the magazine? The preview at https://issuu.com/gewandhausorchester/docs/gwhm_nr.89_webseite doesn't show me page 13, so I can't see if there's any more information about the original.
For File:Nölken, Reger.jpg, the original is attributed to Franz Nölken, who died in 1918. In 1913 (the date of the painting), Nölken seems to have been based in Hamburg and Reger in Leipzig, which makes it very almost certain that the country of origin was Germany. Annoyingly, the source page given http://www.aski.org/portal2/89.95.0.0.1.0.html doesn't show anything about the image, and the Wayback Machine hasn't got a snapshot from 2009. Nevertheless, I've updated the {PD-Art} tag on Commons to reflect that, as it's incontrovertibly PD in the US and Germany. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
May I confess that I understand only half of all this but would think the Nölken portrait is the best choice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost certainly the safest choice. I much prefer the postcard personally, but IMHO we would need to see it survive the deletion debate on Commons before we could be happy using it in a Featured Article. --RexxS (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

This isn't my subject area, and I don't read German, so I can't check most of the sources. An interesting and generally well written piece, but there are places where the text is perhaps a bit clunky or wordy. Some nit-picks

  • he conceived in 1914 already the project to compose a choral work—by 1914 he had decided to compose a a choral work?
I have no source for "decided", and - looking at the ups and downs of the project - it seems too clear a term. I am open to a better wording of "idea", "project", "intention". --GA
Well, it's still clunky, and both "already" and "project" seem superfluous -Jim
How is "... he thought in 1914 already to compose a choral work to commemorate the soldiers who died and would die." ---GA
  • he moved to Jena in 1915, still teaching in Leipzig. He composed there— where is "there? If it's Jena, better In Jena he composed...
How do others feel? I tried to avoid that close repetition. --GA
but as it stands it's ambiguous -Jim
taken, changed, lets not people think for a moment, he composed while teaching ;) ---GA
  • after the outbreak of World War I, Reger intended to compose a work commemorating the soldiers who fell in the war —I don't like the repeat of "war", perhaps intended to compose a work commemorating its fallen soldiers or something similar
Please look for "something similar", if English can do that. He wrote also for those who were not (yet) fallen, but would die in it. --GA
"for those who would die"? -Jim
taken---GA
  • "Dies irae" should have both words capped
No, Latin rules. - Then I looked at the article. We need to discuss this, but until we find that this is an exception (compare Victimae paschali laudes, I would like to keep it as in other articles on Requiem compositions, and many occurrences in Requiem itself. --GA
Dies Irae is how it is in its own article, and that conforms to English capitalisation rules (all cap or all lc), I don't understand this hybrid version -Jim
There was a long discussion, about Latin incipits, but I can't find it. We have La traviata Italian, Petite messe solennelle French. To make the Latin follow English rules seems hybrid. - I started the discussion on the Dies irea talk. ---GA
  • The work remained unfinished and was later assigned the name and work number Lateinisches Requiem, Op. 145a, by the publisher.— the unfinished work was later assigned the name and work number Lateinisches Requiem, Op. 145a, by the publisher.
Perhaps make two sentences? There are many years in between. The failure was hard for Reger, - perhaps even an extra sentence about that? --GA
Yes, needs tightening -Jim
Was done already, please look again, ---GA
  • "memoria" looks like a typo for "memorial"
yes, good catch! --GA
  • The chorus, divided in eight parts&mdash' the eight-part chorus?
I would do that, but later in the work it's five and four. Should we add here before "divided ..."? --GA
Yes, that's clearer -Jim
fine ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jim, for diligent reading and good comments, hope you are with me for answers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the responses so far, but I'm not supporting yet since there seem to be some unresolved issues with other reviewers, and since I have little expertise in this area, I'd like to see how they pan out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • I would cut "with the autograph"
I don't see that anywhere. If you mean "in the autograph", I added that because the dedication in the printed edition was slighty different. Open to a better way of doing this, ---GA
  • " as the final part of his 83" unclear what this means on casual reading
Added a bit, ---GA
  • "He began a setting of the Latin Requiem" I would make clearer in text that this is the service for the dead.
Added, ---GA
  • "on words of Joseph von Eichendorff" with words by ...
I changed it, always insecure about prepositions in English ;) ---GA
  • What church was Reger excommunicated from?
I added now Catholic to the above service for the dead, - hope that does it. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church is the only one to excommunicate, and stopped doing it for simply marrying someone from a different or no church. - Something about Reger's tension between Catholic upbringing, then marrying a Protestant wife, should be in his - so far poor - biography. The lead of a composition article is not the place for such details, imo. ---GA
  • "as a motet for men's chorus a cappella," if it is just for men's chorus isn't it by definition a cappella?
Tricky good question (because of the ambiguity of a cappella). (First longish answer: To my knowledge, it could also be for men's chorus and (unmentioned) orchestra or piano or other accompaniment. Bach's motet's were with (unmentioned) instruments.) I guess I switch to "unaccompanied", although that's a monster of a word. ---GA
  • "In response to World War I, he conceived in 1914 already the project to compose a choral work to commemorate the fallen of the war." I would delete "already" and change the next word, "the", to "a"
That sentence was changed already, following Jim, ---GA
  • " In 1915 he moved to Jena in 1915" duplication
good catch! ---GA
  • "Reger died there on 11 May 2016." ahem
even better catch ;) ---GA
  • "Hebbel writes indeed about the rest of the dead," I'm not sure the "indeed" works. Also, "rest" in this context is ambiguous and I took it to mean remainder.
Dropping "indeed", I try quotation marks for "rest eternal" (mentioned the line before) to avoid that trap. I added "not religious" which is a summary of what follows. ---GA
  • In the first two paragraphs of Hebbel's Requiem (the section), you twice set forth the first line (once in italics and once not) and the translation twice. Cannot this be consolidated? I'm not sure that your use of italics when non-English words and phrases are used is consistent.
I removed the second one, hoping for the readers' memory from one paragraph to the next. Generally I try to follow: when in quotation marks in the text, not also italics, but italics when a name for a movement or section (in the table), - I make mistakes ;)
  • "The addressing of the soul reminds of some psalms" possibly change "reminds of" to "is reminiscent of"or "echoes"
very good idea! ---GA
  • "and imagines them, nurtured by love, to enjoy one last time their final glow of life." I might say "sustained" for nurtured. Is this fully accurate? "Final glow", if I must search for a meaning, would mean "final moments" to me, and the final moments of life are, I expect, not always the most pleasant.
It tries to summarize "Und in den heiligen Gluten, die den Armen die Liebe schürt, atmen sie auf und erwarmen und genießen zum letzten Mal ihr verglimmendes Leben." A lot of talk about "Gluten" (glow), stoked by love, they (the poor dead) breathe (revived), get warmer and enjoy for a last time their dimming life. - The translation of the latest recording has "And in the holy ardour Which love rouses in the poor, They breathe once more and take on warmth And enjoy for one last time Their fading life." - (missing the stoking part, and missing "verglimmen" - what a flame does when it ceases being a flame) - Improvement welcome. ---GA
  • "full of battle for renewed being" does this mean the dead are fighting each other with the prize new life? It's a bit unclear.
It IS unclear, we have to blame the poet. Actually, the dead are not depicted struggling, but caught by a storm to a restless existence (again translation of the recording): "And it pursues them tempestuously Through the endless desert wastes, Where life no longer exists, only the struggle Of unleashed forces Struggling for renewed being!" Reger composed: "nur - Kampf - nur - Kampf - nur - Kampf - nur - Kampf um erneuertes Sein. (I blame the translator of repeating struggle, and think it's too soft for "Kampf".) - Again, - improvements welcome.
  • "as a response to the author's death" in response to the author's death.
taken ---GA
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for excellent comments, trying to follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar edit

  • Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are usually discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information. I've been shot down on this a couple of times, so I don't know if I'm right in this case... feel free to ignore
It's - in this case - a good summary which would be hard to top ;) --GA
  • "Reger had approached the topic before; In 1912, he composed Requiem" - unnecessary capital after semi-colon
no semi-colon when I looked last --GA
  • "It has been regarded as a work of "a lyrical beauty, a dramatic compactness, and an economy of musical means" in which the composer's "mastery of impulse, technique, and material is apparent"" - where is this quote coming from? Who said it? Just critics in general?
  • The source says that it was the summary of a dissertation, which is stated in the body. In the lead, I feel it might be too much, - compared to all the other things not said. --GA
  • "Income from publishers, for concerts and from teaching private students enabled him to marry in 1902" - unnecessary prepositions, how about Income from publishers, concerts and teaching private students enabled him to marry in 1902?
taken --GA
  • "he dramatist Friedrich Hebbel wrote in 1840 a poem in German titled "Requiem"" - should this be italicised?
no, poems and songs just quotation marks
  • "In the fall of 1914, he was in discussions with a theologian in Giessen about a project for a composition" - autumn?
taken --GA
  • "In was then performed with a German text adapted to suit Nazi ideas" - how about to suit Nazi ideology (just a suggestion, feel free to ignore)
good! --GA
  • "The Dies irae was first performed in Hamburg on 3 November 1979" - link Hamburg
To what? The Latin Requiem of which Dies irae is part, was a ready linked, and the article Dies irae hardly matters because Reger composed very little of it, and no details of his handling of the text follow. --GA
  • "Reger completed the composition on 25 August 2015. He wrote to the publisher N. Simrock on 8 September:" - is this meant to be 8 September 2015? I got confused as I looked at the article Fritz Simrock and he died in 1901
good catch! was fixed, --GA

I've come late to the FAC, and those were all of the minor nit-pickings I managed to find on my first read-through. Sorry for the delay in getting to this. JAGUAR  16:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Late is no problem, matches me nominating late ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • "(alto or baritone), chorus and orchestra" I don't see a need for three citations here. Unless this statement is somehow controversial, I suggest that you choose the citation that you think is "strongest" or "best known" and delete the other two. Ditto for " the memory of the German heroes who fell in the War 1914/15"
good point, - I left only the first (found last) for the general line, but left two (one for the text, one for the translation) for the dedication. --GA
  • "without further reference to the chorae tune for the chorus, without further reference to the chorale melody" If a chorae tune is the same thing as a chorale melody then one of these is redundant; if not, change to "without further reference to the chorale melody or the chorae tune for the chorus" (note that I switched their positions to avoid brammatical ambiguity).   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
another good point, simplified (a rest of my own ce, showing that the "l"-key malfunctioned) --GA
Thank you for looking closely, and thank you for copyediting, I liked most of it! This change: can we improve? It now sounds as if the Latin Requiem didn't deal with rest for the dead, but it does, just differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the same line: "renewal" seems a bit too harmless for "erneuertes Sein". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aye aye cap'n. :-)   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Existence", fine, English can't do better, German has Mensch and Sein ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note: Unfortunately this nomination has failed to gain any consensus for promotion after more than a month. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2016 [10].

True Detective (season 1) edit

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period. Having achieved GA status last August, further improvements have been made since, and I believe this article meets the FA criteria. This article has previously gone through FAC three times; unfortunately all nominations received minimal attention. Fourth time's the charm? DAP388 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unfortunately this nomination has failed to attract any attention after more than a month. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. Perhaps you could try building some good will and rapport in the FA community by reviewing other nominations and thus attracting attention to your own. --Laser brain (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2016 [11].

Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 edit

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 which is an important but largely unknown part of European history. I believe that by promoting this and other similar articles to Wikipedia's featured content with help understanding the complex history of the Balkans and hopefully, raising the awareness about the region. Before the nomination, the article was kindly copyedited by Corinne of the Guild of Copy Editors. Regards, Gligan (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article. I only have a quick comment/observation at the moment (sorry, not feeling up to a full read through at the moment due to illness). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • there appear to be a lot of reference anchor errors. These refer to when the link for the short citation does not point correctly to a long citation/reference in your Sources or Reference list. I have a script installed which helps highlight these issues, which you might find beneficial. It can be found here. More information can also be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input. I would like to apologise for my lack of basic technical competence but I cannot use scripts, nor can figure out how to fix the problem on my own. May I ask you to fix just one link, so that I can see precisely the way it is done? Then, I will be able to fix all the rest. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've fixed what I can. The only ones left are those that you don't have specific citations for. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map - done
  • File:Byzantine_emperor_Leo_VI_receives_a_Bulgarian_delegation.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Car_bed_pusk.jpg: please fix the machine-generated source - done
  • File:Byzantine_army_taking_oath_before_the_battle_of_Anchialus.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • File:Wars_of_tsar_Simeon_I.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? - I have ask the author of the map to provide the source.
  • File:RadzivillChronicleFol21r.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Skylitzes_Simeon_sending_envoys_to_the_Fatimids.jpg is tagged as lacking author info - done
  • File:Seal_of_Peter_I_of_Bulgaria_with_Irene_Lekapene.jpg should include an explicit statement on the licensing of the coin itself, for completeness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to put a US PD tag following the instructions on the template given in the file "Byzantine_emperor_Leo_VI_receives_a_Bulgarian_delegation.jpg" but there seems to be a problem in the way I am doing it. The template asks for the year of the author's death, which is unknown, and the country of origin, which does not exist. When I try to put 12th century on the slot regarding the author's death, and the Byzantine Empire as a country of origin, the template does not work. May I ask you for assistance to put the tag on one of the images, so that I can follow the example?
Regarding the coin, I don't understand what I need to do. I looked through some uploaded files of Byzantine emperors and I saw no difference in the licensing. I hope you can assist me on that issue as well. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to once again apologize to AustralianRupert, Nikkimaria and all other editors who raise technical issues that I am not able to address these issues without some help regarding the manner how to fix them. --Gligan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the list of tags at Template:PD-US - I think these should cover most of the circumstances here. As for the coin: you currently have a tag that tells us the licensing of the photo of the coin - one of those PD tags should cover the copyright status of the coin itself. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article looks great overall. I have only a few comments:

  • Political background:
    • "...imposed an annual tribute on the Byzantine Empire as a result of the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896." It might be useful to mention the outcome of the war, if it can be succinctly done. I.e., "...imposed an annual tribute on the Byzantine Empire after Bulgarian victory in the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896."
    • I added some commas where necessary, here and in other sections. Please feel free to revert if I've inadvertently changed the meaning of a sentence.
  • Crisis of 904:
    • "Simeon I decided to exploit that opportunity..." Maybe it's my own pet peeve, but this kind of construction stands out to me. The important thing is not that Simeon decided to exploit the situation, but taht he did so (or tried to do so). Maybe "Simeon I sought to exploit that opportunity..." would concentrate the sentence on the relevant action better?
  • Beginning of the war and Simeon I's coronation[edit]
    • Do we know Constantine's date of birth? Mentioning his exact age would help the reader understand the trouble the Empire was in.
  • Battle of Achelous
    • "However, the court in Preslav was warned about the negotiations by prince Michael of Zahumlje, a loyal ally of Bulgaria, and Simeon I was able to prevent an immediate Serb attack." The passive voice makes the sentence confusing. I'd try "However, prince Michael of Zahumlje, a loyal ally of Bulgaria, warned the court in Preslav about the negotiations, and Simeon I was able to prevent an immediate Serb attack."
  • Campaigns against the Serbs:
    • "This time, however, the Bulgarians had decided to change their approach to the Serbs." Again, "This time, however, the Bulgarians changed their approach to the Serbs." focuses on the important part of the action.

The article is a nice piece of work and, once these minor issues are resolved, I look forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Nitpicking:
  • If you've already established a monarch's regnal number, there is no need to keep on repeating it throughout. Please remove these.
  • "Battle" should always be capitalized, whether it's at the beginning of a sentence or not.
  • WP:MOSNUM numbers over ten should almost always be written as numbers.
  • Hyphenated words should not use an endash (i.e. 14th–century)
  • The section peace treaty links Byzantine–Bulgarian Treaty of 927 as its main article. As you can see, it's a red link. Therefore, either create it or remove it as the "main article".
  • Numbers such as 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 etc. should be spelled out as thirty, forty, fifty when indicating the length of something (e.g. forty-year, fifty-year, etc.)
  • Please adhere to WP:MOSDASH. 913–927 should be written 913–27, and this rule for indicating dates (whether it be for days of months or years) should apply throughout the article (except in the infobox, where 913–927 should suffice). Having said this, I suggest you move the article to Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–27
  • Shortened words like "reigned" (r) should be rendered as (r.)
  • I would also suggest leaving any translations out of the intro so as not to go down the slippery slope of having to include Greek, Latin, Serbian, Arabic, etc. or otherwise being accused of bias. 23 editor (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, this looks like a fine article, but I'll withhold my support until the above points are addressed since such issues appear throughout. 23 editor (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note for coords: the nominator has made two edits since March 25; this one said they would be back on April 24. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 30 April 2016 (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) 03:29, 3 May 2016 [12].

Lan Xang edit

Nominator(s): StampyElephant (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a kingdom in Southeast Asia which is important to the histories of Thailand and Laos StampyElephant (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  • In notes but not in references (either forgotten, or typo): Askew (2007), Evans (2002), Stuart-Fox (2008).
  • In references, but not in notes: Evans, Grant; Osborne, Milton (2003).  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done corrected two typos and the omission of Stuart-Fox 2008 Historical Dictionary of LaosStampyElephant (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Laser brain edit

At a casual glance, there appear to be several issues indicating this was not properly prepared for FAC. I see unsourced passages, citations that are not correctly formatted (for example, there should not be any spaces between terminal punctuation and the citation), and the lead is inadequate. --Laser brain (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies-thought this was the means to get specific advice for improvement on the article. How should the nomination be undone?StampyElephant (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stampy, the usual way to get formal advice on improving an article without going through an assessment as such is Peer Review. As far as "undoing" the nomination, if you can confirm that you're happy to withdraw it, I will archive it in my capacity as one of the FAC coordinators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to withdraw at this point- and will be back later...Thanks StampyElephant (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay tks -- you can renominate after a minimum of two weeks has passed (but I'd suggest waiting until you collect some comments and make improvements at Peer Review if that takes longer). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2016 (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/May_2016&oldid=722987867"