Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2018

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Featured log
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2018 [1].

Avenue Range Station massacre edit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this is not the first article about an atrocity I've brought to FAC, it is the first one from the Australian Frontier Wars that I've nominated. At Avenue Range Station in 1848, two white settlers massacred at least nine Aboriginal people, mainly women and children, including a baby. The main perpetrator, James Brown, was charged with the murders, but it didn't go to trial due to settler solidarity and legal restrictions on evidence being given by Aboriginal people. Years later, a "pioneer legend" arose about Brown which downplayed the murders. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

The sources are in good order, and are of appropriate quality and reliability. My one issue of concern is that a number of books listed as "References" are not directly cited at all. An example is Cook 1965. The "Later account" sections gives various details from this book, including a direct quotation, but they are all apparently covered by a single citation to another book. Likewise, later, Newland 1893, Cockburn 1927, Hastings 1944, Banks 1970 and Durman 1978. Is it not possible to cite any of the material in these books directly – are they all impossible to obtain? Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Brian, I cited them to provide the full information in case anyone wants to refer to them. I thought that was a useful addition, given they and their role in the development of the legend are discussed. The conclusions in the article that are drawn from those sources are made by others. Do you think they should be listed as "Further reading" and not cited? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that to you. It would have made more sense to me, but I dare say the general reader won't be fazed either way. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might leave it for now, and adjust if other reviewers raise it as an issue. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk edit

  • I'll take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the infobox have dates?
  • The caption to the old image could be clearer. I wasn't even sure who it depicted from reading the caption, so would be good to say something like "James Brown (pictured here in 1927)". The date also gives context.
  • Brown was dead by the time the pic was published in 1927, so I added (pictured) to the caption to make it clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "undeclared and covert war" WP:Easter egg links are discouraged, so maybe spell out the name of the wars after this.
  • "Eighty paces from the graves" A unit conversion could be handy.
  • it's a bit vague for a conversion. I could perhaps equate paces with yards then convert to metres, but I don't think it lends itself to it very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in which he listed the victims as one "old man blind and infirm", three female adults, two teenage girls (aged 15 and 12 years), and three female children (aged two years, 18 months, and a baby)" What was this precise list based on?
  • It is from Butler's (the magistrate) letter. But ultimately it is likely to be from Moorhouse's investigation, Moorhouse was a qualified doctor, and would have been familiar with using forensic dental examination and looking at wrist and pelvic bones to determine age and sex. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foster et al." Present and give a date for context at first mention in the article body, this seems very detached from the surrounding text. The intro probably isn't the best place to spell out the names of writers.
  • I've introduced them as historians at first mention in the body, then used Foster et al. after that. I'm not sure what you mean here. Given Foster et al. are the principal examiners of this subject, I think it is fair to name them in the lead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I missed that you named them outside the intro too, but you could also give the date. But apart from this, I'm ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, FunkMonk. Thanks again for your review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Wattatonga tribe" Link?
  • This is unclear, I have been unable to find a definitive connection to one of the major language groups in the southeast. I recently spoke to a Jardwadjali elder about it, and they said that the Wattatonga were part of their people, but given the location, they also might have been Ngarrindjeri people, and another source of possibly questionable reliability suggests Wattatonga was a name given to Tanganekald people by the neighbouring Boandik. Without a definite connection, I didn't want to link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've subsequently found a pretty good reference to them being Tanganekald people (Tindale), so added a note to that effect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five years later" Probably better to just give a date. The reader has to jump back to the beginning of the previous paragraph to then calculate when that date is, which is unnecessary.
  • "a wonderful feat of horsemanship" Is this a quote? If so, needs quotation marks. If it is not a quote, it seems a bit flowery.
  • Is Eastwood's full name not known?
  • Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "The Avenue Range Station massacre involved the shooting murders of at least nine Aboriginal Tanganekald people by white settlers" "involved the shooting murders" does not sound right to me. How about "The Avenue Range Station massacre was the murder of at least nine Aboriginal Tanganekald people, who were shot by white settlers"
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • "The pastoralist James Brown" Why not "the sheep farmer"?
  • Sure, that's just what Australians would call him, changed to sheep farmer.
  • "after a settler was hanged in March 1847 for murdering an Aboriginal man in the south east of the colony, the only such sentence in the history of South Australia's early white settlement" The only time a settler was sentenced to death or the only time the sentence was carried out?
  • Both I believe.
  • I should have made clear that I was also querying the grammar. Hanging is not a sentence but the carrying out of a sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moorhouse's original report in March 1849 stated that it had occurred some months before, but in his published report of October 1849, he placed it "about September" of 1848." Why "but"? The accounts seem consistent.
  • Changed to "and"
  • "Possibly in response to Brown's case, the Aboriginal Witnesses Act of 1848 was amended in July 1849 to allow a person to be convicted on the sole testimony of an Aboriginal person." Is it known whether anyone was so convicted/
  • Not in the sources, but it is possible for crimes other than murdering an Aboriginal person.

Support by JennyOz edit

I made comments on this article late last year (talk page), have watched this review and am happy to support. JennyOz (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this looks good to go, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2018 [2].

Keechaka Vadham edit

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC); Kailash29792 (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Keechaka Vadham, a 1910s Indian Tamil film directed by R. Nataraja Mudaliar, regarded as the father of Tamil Cinema. The film is known to be the first silent film in all of South India. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld for reviewing the GAN and to my fellow editors who peer reviewed it. This is my fifth FAC attempt and my second collaboration with Kailash29792. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher edit

  • Archive this green link.
  • You can rephrase the second sentence as, "Based on an episode from the Hindu epic Mahabharata focusing on Keechaka and Draupadi, the film stars Raju Mudaliar and Jeevarathnam as the central characters.
  • Remove oxford comma from the last sentence of "Origin, scripting.." first para.

That's it from me, great work on the article. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Yashthepunisher. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All sources are archived and can be read online in google books, making them accessible to every reader, so I'll give it a pass'

Other than that, I would suggest expanding or merging paragraphs because their sizes. By the way, I need help with this FAC. One editor opposed due to the prose which to the nominator to copyedit as much as his could. If you have time to voice your opinion there, I would appreciate it. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Tintor2. I'll look at the FAC sometime soon. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47 edit

  • In the lead’ first paragraph, I would link the first use of the word “epic” to the article Indian epic poetry.
  • I would revise this part (Since the cast members were from Tamil Nadu,) to (Since the cast was from Tamil Nadu,) to make it somewhat more concise.
  • In the lead, you alternative between referencing the director as either “Nataraja Mudaliar” or “Mudaliar”. Please consistent with one format. The same comment applies for the body of the article.
  • I would revise this part (watching the films of Dadasaheb Phalke.) to (watching films by Dadasaheb Phalke.) for more concise language.
  • I would revise this sentence (During the administration of Lord Curzon as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905, cinematographers from Britain filmed a documentary about him.) to (British cinematographers filmed a documentary about  Lord Curzon during his administration as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905.) as I find the current wording to be a little awkward.
  • You mention and link the name of the episode/segment in the body of the article (i.e. Virata Parva) and it would be helpful to have this mentioned and linked in the lead too.
  • For this sentence (Some of Mudaliar's relatives objected, feeling that it was an inappropriate story for his debut venture.), could you expand on why they felt the story was “inappropriate”? If this information is not known, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands, but it left me wondering about this point.
  • I think it would be helpful to move this sentence (The episode follows the attempts made by Keechaka, one of the generals of King Virata, to woo and marry Draupadi. Keechaka's misbehaviour with Draupadi prompts her to tell Bhima about it, and Bhima kills him.) directly after this one (Mudaliar sought advice from his friend, theatrical artist Pammal Sambandha Mudaliar, who suggested that he depict the story of Draupadi and Keechaka from the Virata Parva segment of Hindu epic Mahabharata.) to put the summary of the episode right next to the first mention of it to help readers who may not know about it.
  • I would move this sentence (Since the cast members were predominantly Tamil, it was considered the first Tamil film.) to after this one (Keechaka Vadham was the first film made in South India.). The current placement of the sentence does not make sense as the paragraph focuses on the filming process, and it would make more sense and be more coherent to group these two similar ideas together.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Money Is Legal/archive1). Either way, good luck with this and your current and future projects, and have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba47 and I'll look at the FAC sometime soon. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant edit

  • "The film, based on an episode from the Hindu epic Mahabharata focusing on Keechaka and Draupadi, stars Raju Mudaliar and Jeevarathnam as the central characters." - Why have such a colloquial sentence when it can be easily split into two. This one tries to tell the story, the origin, the cast all in one. The latter part should be a separate sentence.
  • Is there any reason why the article refers to R. Nataraja Mudaliar as differently as "Mudaliar" and "Nataraja Mudaliar"?
  • The writer warrants a mention in the lead too.
  • R. Nataraja Mudaliar should be wiki-linked in the first paragraph of the Development section.
  • "Mudaliar developed a passion for cinema after watching the films of Dadasaheb Phalke." - This gives an impression that he developed a passion after buying the camera.
  • "Nataraja Mudaliar made contact with Stewart Smith" - made contact? contacted maybe?
  • Interestingly now, "Some of Mudaliar's relatives objected", this is where you need to mention which "Mudailar" is it, not elsewhere before this.
  • "based on the episode.[17] The episode follows the attempts" - Use can use the word "segment" at either occasion.
  • "The film's budget was ₹35,000,high at the time." - This could be phrased better.
  • Mahatama Gandhi's mention is not really required unless it's affects the film in any way.
  • "Guy wrote in his 1997 book Starlight Starbright: The Early Tamil Cinema that a thin white piece of cloth was used" - I do not think k that the article mentions him before.
  • "Mudaliar's work inspired Raghupathi Surya Prakasa, whose father, Raghupathi Venkaiah Naidu, has been acknowledged as the father of Telugu cinema, and J. C. Daniel, later recognised as the father of Malayalam cinema." -That's a very long and unwarranted connection. I do not any value in this. Had the works directly inspired Raghupathi Venkaiah Naidu, it would have made sense.

That's it for now. Let me know if you have any concerns about my comments. VedantTalk 10:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Numerounovedant. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like 1 and 3 have not been addressed Ssven2. VedantTalk 15:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about now, Numerounovedant?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the new version of the Development section looks a lot better too. Give me a day or two before I can support. VedantTalk 15:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "He then established a production house, India Film Company, which was South India's first film studio in 1915 on Miller's Road in Purasawalkam, Madras" - The sentence is a little off; Is India Film Company a production company or a film studio? The sentence implies that it is both.
  • I still believe that the article might confuse a reader with the use of Mudaliar. The artcile lists atleast two other people with the same last name and it would be best of you use use "Nataraja Mudaliar" and "Sambandha Mudaliar" from "Mudaliar sought advice from his friend, theatrical artist Pammal Sambandha Mudaliar" onward for the sake of clarity.
  • I think "female" and "feminine" are distinct terms and you should the former in "Rangavadivelu was also experienced in playing feminine roles on stage".
  • "paintings of Raja Ravi Varma provided Mudaliar a with source of inspiration for recreating the story on celluloid." - with a.
  • "Since the cast members were Tamils, it is considered the first Tamil film" - as Aoba47 said.

That should do it. VedantTalk 12:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have hopefully resolved your remaining comments, Numerounovedant. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this for promotion. Good luck, you guys. VedantTalk 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Numerounovedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eric Corbett edit

  • My overwhelming impression of this article is that the writing is somewhat stilted, and needs to be made to flow more easily. For instance, the first paragraph of the Development section is a series of disconnected short sentences, as is much of the rest of the article.
  • "Keechaka's misbehaviour with Draupadi prompts her to tell Bhima about it, and Bhima kills him." What misbehaviour, and tell him about what?
Expanded.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mudaliar was not a writer by profession and hence received assistance from his close friend, attorney C. Rangavadivelu." I'm unclear what the "hence" is trying to tell us here. Also, it appears that Rangavadivelu wasn't a writer either, so I'm doubly unclear on what this is trying to tell the reader.
Rectified hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paintings of Raja Ravi Varma provided Mudaliar a source of inspiration for recreating the story on celluloid." There's either a word missing there or it's written incorrectly. "... provided Mudaliar with a source of inspiration"?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mudaliar wrote the English intertitles himself while being assisted by Dr. Guruswami Mudaliar and Thiruvengada Mudaliar ..." That's rather unidiomatic. Better would be something like "with the assistance of".
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the cast members were predominantly Tamil, it was considered the first Tamil film." Why the past tense? Is it no longer considered to be the first Tamil film? I'm not fond of the phrase "predominantly Tamil" either, as it's ambiguous. Was each cast member predominantly Tamil, or were most of the cast members Tamil?
Rectified hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the place where Mudaliar founded India Film Company was previously known as Tower House" Missing "the".
Uh no, actually, the name is just Tower House, not The Tower House.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in front of "India Film Company", not "Tower House". Eric Corbett 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised to see no Cast section.
The answer for that is in the peer review of the article, under the section "Comments from Aoba47".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree with that. Eric Corbett 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, done as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall I think this has the makings of a credible FA, but it sorely needs some pep added to its prose to reach that elusive "professional quality". Eric Corbett 11:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments, Eric Corbett. Please do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most important point is pending, which is the disjointed writing style. Don't worry though, my opinion will carry no weight. Eric Corbett 12:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some modifications to the first paragraph of the development section. Better now?  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a distinct improvement. Eric Corbett 13:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Eric Corbett. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this article's promotion. I'm sorry to have to do this, but my point about the disjointed, staccato style of writing throughout the article hasn't been addressed. It doesn't just apply to the one paragraph I specifically drew attention to, it's endemic. To give another example, look at the final paragraph of the lead. It's just a sequence of three sentences without any literary glue to hold them together. And to compound the problem the final sentence Since no print of it is known to have survived, it is considered a lost film just comes out of the blue, à propos of nothing. So while I will concede that the prose is workmanlike, it falls quite a way short of professional and engaging, in my opinion anyway. Eric Corbett 02:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add this for the sake of fairness. I'm very sympathetic to the difficulties faced even by native English speakers to achieve the elusive goal of "professional" and "engaging", and doubly so in the case of non-native speakers, so I'm prepared to do whatever I can to help. As an example, I've rejigged the lead, so see what you think. If you like what you see then I'll try and go through the rest of the article similarly as well. Then hopefully I'll feel able to strike my oppose. Eric Corbett 11:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to say, but this has always been the format I prefer to chose for writing film leads, which follows the same order as film production: 1st para introduces the film, it's director and producer (occasionally, the writer), star cast and premise. 2nd para is behind the scenes. 3rd para deals with the release, reception and cultural impact. I intended for this to be the same way. Ssven2, what do you think about Eric's version of the lead section? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett, the lead looks better now than before IMO. You may proceed with the rest of the article likewise, Eric. Its always nice to have an extra mind on grammatical style. :-)  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've got absolutely no intention or desire to upset you in any way Kailash, so please feel free to revert my changes to the lead back to your preferred format and I'll leave the rest of the article alone. Eric Corbett 15:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll go with the way it currently is. And thank you for your constructive comments Eric. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Corbett; Ssven2; Kailash29792, guys I have edited the article's production section and tried to move around things to help with the flow. It's in my sandbox, take a look and let me know if it is any better? Also, let me know if I messed any part up. If it is an improvement by any standards, we can always work on the rest, it's a relatively shorter artcile and can be restructured in no time. Cheers. VedantTalk 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better with the added "Plot" section, Numerounovedant. Your version can be used if it helps. Cheers.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the prose has been significantly improved I have struck my opposition to this article's promotion. Just one question though. Why are only two cast members listed? Did Bhimi not make an appearance in the film? Eric Corbett 11:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I had known who played Bhima, I'd list him here. Or this might be like no-one knowing the first ever actor to play Sherlock Holmes in a film. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding your belligerence to be rather tiresome Kailash. If you believe that nobody knows then simply say so. Eric Corbett 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Eric Corbett. As I said before, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images are appropriately licensed and formatted. FrB.TG (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FrB.TG.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Comprehensive and readable, some suggestions follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link rupee symbol at first use.
  • focusing on Keechaka and Draupadi.—perhaps focusing on Keechaka's attempts to woo Draupadi to give us a mini-summary of the plot and establish the sex of each character without clicking through.
  • The film features Raju Mudaliar and Jeevarathnam as the central characters. — perhaps "casts" instead of "featured" to make it more obvious they are the actors, not characters, it's slightly ambiguous as its stands.
  • automobile dealer—unless my memory is at fault, it's usually BE "car dealer" in India
  • the episode follows the attempts made by Keechaka, the commander of King Virata's forces, to woo and marry Draupadi by any means necessary. Keechaka attempts...—avoid repeat "attempts"
  • shot with a speed of 16 frames per second—perhaps indicate if this was standard at the time?
  • Elphinstone Theatre—in Madras?
  • a fire accident—don't need "accident"
  • although I understand why you have done it, the conversion to US$ seems a bit odd considering the US wasn't even the colonial power. Looks a bit US-centric to me. I'd prefer to see a conversion to give the modern rupee equivalents, keeping it more Indian, but your call.
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Jimfbleak. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, sorry I didn't ask this earlier: can the infobox be free of monetary conversions? I remember Cyphoidbomb once saying infoboxes shouldn't have INR to USD conversions since they may clutter it. And is just "silent" (no link) the term we should put in the language field in infoboxes for such films? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash29792, I'm no expert on infoboxes, but personally I can't see the necessity for conversion, nor for anything beyond unlinked "silent" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you there, Jimfbleak. BTW, thank you very much. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

I was one of the peer reviewers, and have a few additional suggestions.

  • I might suggest putting the approximate date of release in the first paragraph rather than the third.
I had pondered doing that but I feel that stating the release would be better as other reviewers might question it. Nevertheless, done as per your suggestion.
It is merely a suggestion. If you prefer it in the third, that is fine too.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British cinematographers filmed" I might make it "had filmed"
  • I might link to Indian rupee on the first use of the symbol in text. The one in the infobox links to the article on the symbol, but it might be better going to the article on the rupee.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Wehwalt. Do let me know if there's anything else pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support enjoyed reading it both times. Well done again.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators edit

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hello there fellas. The article has been reviewed by 6 users here of which 5 have provided their support and one is neutral. It has also had a source review and an image review. I was wondering if you would care to take a look. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks to me that the source review concentrated on the availability of the refs on Google, rather than reliability and formatting -- Brian or Nikki, would you have time to take a look? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

Some formatting issues:

  • Guy 1997 lacks ISBN. WorldCat doesn't provide one, but you can use oclc= 52794531
  • Baskaran 2011 gives some useful extra detasils you should use: Vol XXI No. 10
  • Guy 2007 ("A Miller's Road..."): A page number would be useful as the source article is not on the first page
  • "K. R., Manigandan"; surely, "Manigandan" is the surname, and this should be "Manigandan, K.R." ? It needs to be repositioned alphabetically.
  • The unlinked Madras Mail requires a page number
  • The link on the "Film News Amandan" goes to a blank page. The archive link works.
  • Balakrishnan 2015 is out of place alphabetically,

The sources all seem to be of reliable quality, but I wonder why one of them used at all – Gilmour 2016. This is an article in the British newspaper The Independent listing some of the villains of Britain's imperial past, among whom it rightly included the viceroy Lord Curzon, but in a context that has nothing to do with the subject of our article. The citation serves no useful purpose that I can see, and you may as well delete it.

Subject to these points, the sources are well ordered and meet FAC standards. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some people in India do not have surnames. Others have a name that they list as surnames but is not really a surname. That name might be the father's first name. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, thank you very much for the source review. I have resolved almost all of your comments. For the "Baskaran 2011" reference, I don't know how to add the No. 10 in the reference. Same for Guy 2007 ("A Miller's Road...") (The same newspaper number, not the page number). "Manigandan" is his first name as per The New Indian Express article. The Madras Mail reference was obtained by the co-nominator, Kailash29792, here and here. The page numbers are not listed and the original source is nowhere be found. I've changed the "Film News Anandan" reference to a "deadurl=yes" one as the original link is dead now. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the last comment.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot on at the moment. I will get back to this as soon as I can, but please be patient. Brianboulton (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments:

  • I've added the page number to Guy 2007
  • I don't believe for a moment that Mr Manigandan is actually called "Mr K. R.", but if that's the way you want it, so be it.
  • You should add this link to the Madras Mail source and then you won't need a page number.
  • Balakrishnan, V. would appear to be the first alphabetically in the list of websites.

The rest you've either fixed or have been fixed. I trust you to do the final bits as I've indicated. Coordinators: the sources can be taken as approved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the final comments as per your suggestions, Brianboulton. Thank you once again. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanguard10 edit

An interesting article. I am not familiar with Tamil cinema and am a FAC newbie but offer the following comments.

Prose is reasonably good but could be improved, in my opinion. Most of the suggestions are absolutely critical and, therefore, do not have to be used.

  • (optional) The first paragraph of the lede might highlight the unique properties of the film as well as eliminate a dictionary definition. It might read "Keechaka Vadham (English: The Extermination of Keechaka)[5] is an Indian silent film produced, directed, filmed and edited by film pioneer R. Nataraja Mudaliar. Keechka Vadham was the first film made in South India and the first film using Tamil actors. <<too bad we can't write "first Tamil language film" because it was a silent film>> Shot in five weeks at Nataraja Mudaliar's production house, India Film Company; no print of it is known to have survived. <<removing the phrase "lost film">>
Some readers might still get confused if the term "lost film" is removed.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (clarification) There were no Tamil subtitles?
Um, no.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) Plot. Can this be expanded? Maybe not because the film is a lost film.
That's the plot.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) Not critical at all or required, but slight expansion of who R. Nataraja Mudaliar was may make the article very interesting to the reader. Rather than just a car dealer, he was a merchant with a bicycle business and later expanded into selling American cars before opening a film studio.
I actually wrote whatever that can be used but thank you for the tip though.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • >>>Filming Section. Consider chronological order. Mention 2016 first then 2017, not vice versa.
Vanguard10, not quite sure what you mean here.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, error on my part. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) Filming Section. Consider noting that various film historians ascribe the date of release as early as 1916 and as late as 1918. This information would then be both in the text of the article and in more detail as note A.
Done hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madras. Recommend mentioning the current name in the text of the article. For example. "...in Madras (now Chennai)..." or "in Madras (now Chennai, Tamil Nadu..."
I've wikilinked it to Chennai actually, so it will go to that article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (optional) This sentence is near the end, under "legacy". "Nataraja Mudaliar is widely regarded as the father of Tamil cinema, and his films helped lay the foundation for the South Indian cinema industry; " It might be noteworthy enough to be in the lede.
Done.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FA? lists four criteria. I believe this article meets all 4 criteria and is, therefore, a support. If some of the comments listed are considered or adopted, the article could be improved even more. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Vanguard10. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 01:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
typo which I am correcting. Also, I see that it is mentioned that it is a Tamil film because the actors were Tamil. It is not possible to say that it was a Tamil language film because it was a silent film. However, I have just noticed that intertitles were in Tamil so it may be possible to mention that it was a Tamil film based on the actors and written titles. Another thing, any information known about the film's length in minutes? Vanguard10 (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there were, Vanguard10, it would be on the article now wouldn't it? :-)  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2018 [3].

Droxford railway station edit

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In 1897 the London and South Western Railway built a new railway line to block the Great Western Railway from expanding to Portsmouth, and as a consequence we now have Brexit; I may have left out some intervening steps, but that's basically the gist.

Droxford was an obscure country station that was built just in time for the combination of the First World War and the internal combustion engine to render it uneconomic. For three days in 1944 it was one of the most important places in the world; it was here that Commonwealth leaders monitored the troops massing for the Normandy landings, it was here that Ernest Bevin and Anthony Eden held their secret discussions about the Conservative and Labour parties cooperating in peacetime; above all, it was here that Winston Churchill annoyed Charles de Gaulle to such an extent that Anglo-French relations broke down, leaving Britain (and Ireland) outside the nascent European Economic Community.

As a general note, although "Noodle Books, Corhampton" sounds like a dubious self-publishing outfit in someone's basement, it's actually a very well-established publisher within this ultra-specialist niche area. To those questioning why I've included this image, which wasn't taken at Droxford, it's because the picture is so widely mis-labelled as showing Droxford, that not including it will lead to an endless stream of good-faith editors trying to add it. Every person shown in the photo is mentioned in the article, so it's not wildly irrelevant. ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remark from SN54129 edit

  • Verging on the trivia, your Gilbert source is missing its location (Heinemann=London, is it?) and "Visit Hampshire", "Measuring worth", "Disused stations", and "erenow" refs are likewise missing archival links (don't know if that's particularly important to FA, just an FYI because the red ink jumps out at me)
  • But about the photo "The former platforms at Droxford, 2016" (which I asked you of last week but totally forgot about, sorry), it's just an idea, but the green lawn in the immediate foreground bugs me slightly—does it slightly detract from the railway aspect slightly? Compare with say, with the foreground cropped, or even the foreground and background cropped? They feel tighter ore focussed at all? Although the later is perhaps off balanced slightly (although that in itself is perhaps counterd by the fact that the eye is not allowed to wander-->to the right, and is forced doewn the perspective of the old tracks towards the signal box and station house).
  • Also on images, at the bottom you have two sitting in the middle (the 1990 remains and the 216 openhouse), while above it there are two (Ashby's Pacerailer and the disused goods wagon); how about utting them all at the bottom? That way, There'd be four-image gallery filling the whole of the bottom rank, and it would tidy the two sections above (which already are quite close to the signal box. This is what it would look like—less cramped?
  • Fixed Gilbert. Measuring Worth should never be archived; it's a dynamic link generated by the {{inflation}} template to whichever dataset it's using for the conversion in question. Regarding the others, I generally feel that archiveurls are more trouble than they're worth, unless there's a particular reason to think the link will go stale. Visit Hampshire is just the first thing that came to hand for the length of the Meon, and even if it does go dead could be replaced without difficulty; Disused Stations is only there because they think they've identified the Commonwealth Leaders photos as taken at Ascot, rather than as a reliable source for anything other than their own opinions; Erenow is a hosted copy of a copyrighted Max Hastings book, and I have absolutely no desire to be the test case for whether archiving copyrighted material constitutes copyright violation (the official policy on the matter is a decidedly weasel-worded "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear"). By odd coincidence, archiving has literally just come up at WP:AN, and consensus seems to be headed in the direction of "only include archive links if the existing links are dead". ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the issue. It's illustrating "As of 2018 it remains a private residence"; I can't see that it's causing any issue to readers to show them that the former trackbed has been filled in and is now a lawn.
  • No; just no. We shouldn't be doing galleries anywhere; we certainly don't do galleries at FAC. Aside from anything else, abusing {{multiple image}} to line up four images side-by-side each with a forced image width is going to break the pagination for over half the readers; remember, more people are reading Wikipedia on phones and tablets than on all computers combined. (Even on my computer—which isn't exactly small—the images here are running off the side of the monitor.) Aside from anything else, you can't use a fair-use image in an image gallery. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! But I do think it's rather busy with images, and was looking at a way of approaching that. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the possible exception of the rebuilt signal box, I can't really see any image that could easily be got rid of; nothing is there for general aesthetics, everything genuinely does illustrate a specific point. (That includes the goods wagon; most readers will probably never have actually seen an old boxcar-style goods van.) ‑ Iridescent 23:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

I see there is some commentary already, but for the sake of completeness:

(There are so many of these, I'll annoy the delegates and reply inline for the sake of practicality) It's an abbreviation for "near"; it will be whatever name the original uploader chose to use. Commons generally won't rename images unless there's a specific reason to do so (e.g., the name is either meaningless or is actively misleading). ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, that is not an overly strong case for a file rename. Apropos of nothing, I've seen plenty of people reply to my image reviews inline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They look correct to me; they're coming back to Sheffield Park in Sussex, which is the storage yard for the Bluebell Railway, which would make sense given that this locomotive is currently owned by the Bluebell Railway. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No particular significance to this section. There needs to be at least one image showing the front (e.g. street-facing) side of the building, and this is the earliest spot for it that doesn't cause potential sandwiching owing to the large route diagram template further up. (Every image prior to this illustrates the paragraph to which it's attached and thus can't easily be moved.) ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It actually illustrates the next section down, but the image of the Commonwealth leaders and the royal train mean there would be clutter issues if it were any further down. Droxford was (probably) chosen because this steep and narrow cutting at the entrance to the station meant that if the Germans got wind of the Allied leaders' presence and shelled the station, the train could be shunted into this cutting in a matter of minutes. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Churchill, Eisenhower and Commonwealth leaders, 1944.jpg: Use seems OK to me (I suspect we don't have a source for "It is commonly believed that the meeting photographed here took place at Droxford" so we can't write about that misconception in the text of the article) but I wonder about the source - the link is broken and such photos usually are PD due to copyright expiry, not licensed under CC licenses which were invented much later.
The misattribution is both mentioned and cited, but in an extended image caption rather than body text. I'd be reluctant to duplicate it in the text, given that the WWII section is already very long; I'm mindful of the fact that this article is Droxford railway station, not Droxford railway station in June 1944. Whatever it's tagged as on Commons, the image is undoubtedly expired Crown Copyright since there's no possibility it was taken by anyone other than a government employee in the course of their duties—short of Stalin joining them for tea, there is literally no way this group could have been a more sensitive target, and they weren't about to allow anyone who wasn't thoroughly vetted either to join them or to do anything that would disclose their whereabouts. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another license tag to the Commons file for that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What more are you looking for? To me the context seems clear—I've just spent the last five paragraphs talking about the relative position of the goods siding and the platforms, and the paragraph to which this is attached specifically discusses the demolition of the illustrated building—but if you think something needs clarification I can do so. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how nitpicky we are about "significantly" in Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic the rationale might need a bit of expansion about what role the image has. I am personally not overly fond of a broad reading of "significantly" so I won't explicitly ask for more (hence the "maybe"). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto; it's an experimental one-off prototype that was destroyed in 1970, there aren't going to be any free-use images. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're off by about 30m—the spot from which this was taken is actually on the other side of the road—but certainly close enough that I wouldn't worry about it. (If you zoom in you can see the station building clearly a little to the north; follow the overgrown platform south to its end to reach the spot illustrated here. ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text seems good to me. Outta curiosity about how other people develop their articles, I wonder by which process the sources for this article were found. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources for this one were fairly straightforward, since I knew Buttrey was going to be the prime source for the building and Stone the prime source for the line—this isn't exactly a topic where there's a myriad of conflicting views that need to be taken into account, nor one where there's an abundance of sources to choose from. The other sources are primarily just filling in gaps where these two fall short, such as the impact of de Gaulle and Churchill falling out, or the royal family choosing to sell Osborne House and consequently frustrating the LSWR's plan to boost publicity by running royal trains. (If you're after more general advice about how to source articles, by far the best tip I can give is to throw a bunch of keywords into Amazon Marketplace, note down the titles of the books it suggests, and then finding libraries that have them in stock. Because Amazon's bottom line depends on matching you up with things they can try to sell you, their algorithm is superb at suggesting relevant material of which you weren't aware.) ‑ Iridescent 22:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Didn't know about this. Otherwise, image wise this seems ready. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • All seems in good order, consistently formatted and of the appropriate quality and reliability. I have one small nitpick. The online publisher for ref 52 is correctly given as "Erenow". But I think the citation should acknowledge that the text comes from Max Hastings's book Winston's War: Churchill, 1940-1945. Or, better still, why not cite the book itself? Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On a small non-sources matter, I have a slight objection to "General Pug Ismay". Not very encyclopaedic, and I don't think we should be using silly public-school nicknames in this context. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the book, it's because I don't have a hard copy of the book so can't give a page number. If I'm using something online as a source, I'll always cite it as such, just in case there were any changes made between the print and online versions. (The only thing it's used as a cite for is that Eden was annoyed that Churchill and Ismay hogged the bath and telephone, and for a footnote about Alanbrooke vetoing Churchill sailing on the D-Day flotilla, neither of which are controversial.)
I flip-flopped myself about Ismay. We can't call him "Lord Ismay", the title by which most works refer to him, as he didn't yet have the title, but during the war he was pretty universally known as "Pug", and popping the name into Google Books shows that quite a few serious works omit the "Hastings" altogether. (Even his official portrait called him "Hastings Lionel ('Pug') Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay".) Our Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay article sidesteps the issue but giving both "Hastings" and "Pug" in the first sentence and never using either again, but that's not workable here since I can't really say "General Ismay" without clarification. (Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay is itself a current FA, but its author has subsequently been hardblocked so isn't available for comment on the matter.) Wikipedia certainly has numerous precedents for referring to someone by their nickname when it's the name by which they were genuinely commonly known, from Johnny Vegas to Ringo Starr to Jim Van Horne to Charlamagne tha God. It's not something over which I'd lose sleep either way if someone wants to change it to "Hastings". ‑ Iridescent 16:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've put quotes around "Pug" which at least indicates that he wasn't actually named that. Don't lose sleep. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim edit

Maybe it's the euphoria from Spurs winning yet again, but I've read through this twice now without finding anything significant to nitpick, so I'm happy to support as is, Good work. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the shortest FAC comment ever? Thanks… ‑ Iridescent 11:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John edit

Lovely article, on a subject which I was not familiar with despite being interested in both railways and WW2.

  • We have two "automobile"s and two "car"s. Could we standardise on car, linked on first use?
  • "Consequently, by the end of the 19th century the area was one of the few populated places in the country without easy access to a railway line." Which country is meant here? Many rural parts of Scotland never had access to rail, even at its peak. Maybe if England is intended this would hold water.
  • No problem with including File:Churchill, Eisenhower and Commonwealth leaders, 1944.jpg but does it need to be so big? Does the caption need to be so long? I would favour moving the discussion about the true location of the photo to a footnote. It won't be of interest to most readers.
  • No link to the Beeching cuts?
  • Is footnote N really necessary?

Thanks for writing such an interesting and enjoyable article. --John (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks– to reply to each in turn:
  • "Automobile" and "car" aren't synonyms in BrEng; "automobile" covers all road vehicles powered by internal combustion engines (and consequently is correct for automobiles were beginning to come into widespread use, providing direct competition with the railway for both goods and passenger traffic etc), whereas a car is A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal combustion engine), designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers, and usually having two front and two rear wheels (OED) and consequently correct for those passengers who did not have access to cars etc. ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "one of the few populated places", not "the only place". There are a few other populated places like the High Weald and Ullapool which were never served by the railway, but by 1900 they were few and far between, and almost invariably cut off by mountains or marshes.
  • I disagree with It won't be of interest to most readers. The overwhelming majority of people reading this page will be doing so because they've heard mention of Droxford in a WW2-related book or website (most likely this Times feature), and I'd say there's a better than 50% chance that said book or website will include that photograph mislabelled as showing Droxford. I feel the extended caption makes more sense than having a detailed description in the body text or a footnote; the caption has to explain that it doesn't show Droxford (most people don't read footnotes, and we can't perpetuate an inaccuracy), and it also has to explain who the people are otherwise it's just a bunch of men in suits.
  • No link to the Beeching cuts because they have nothing to do with Droxford. Although Beeching took the decision to end freight services, "Beeching cuts" refers specifically to those closures made in response to The Reshaping of British Railways, which wasn't even published until a year after Droxford's closure. The Meon Valley Railway's card was marked long before Beeching was appointed, with the abandonment of passenger services in 1955.
  • Assuming you mean By this, the BTC meant that 7 February 1955 would be the first day of no service—that is, the first day on which previously timetabled trains would not run., definitely. When it comes to British railway closures, there was no consistency between whether the formal closure notice used "first day of no service" or "last day of service"—which were often days, and sometimes weeks or even months apart—so it always needs to be explained which is being used. ‑ Iridescent 09:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitions vary. If it's important to make the distinction, maybe "Cars and buses were beginning ..."
  • Fair enough. What does the source say about "the country"? I'd rather make it explicit whether we are talking about England or the UK.
  • I appreciate this but I disagree. If this is an important part of the story (and you've convinced me that it is), why not have it in the main text? A picture caption isn't the best place for it. And I'd rather see the thumbnail at normal size.
  • You're right, I hadn't appreciated the chronology.
  • As 6 February 1955, officially the last day of service, was a Sunday on which no passenger trains were due to run, the last scheduled passenger services to Droxford were those of 5 February 1955. already clarifies this unambiguously in the next paragraph. I agree it's important but I don't think we need to say it effectively three times. --John (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded to lose "automobiles" altogether.
  • The source doesn't actually specify. (I could engage in some fairly simply albeit WP:SYNTH-violating OR to demonstrate that over 95% of the UK population lived closer to a railway station than Droxford, but it doesn't seem worth the effort.) I've reworded to an intentionally vague but undoubtedly accurate unlike most other communities in the country, which is undisputable regardless of whether one includes Scotland and Ireland or not, and doesn't detract from the point being made; that at a time when the national economy depended on rail transport, a big swathe of east Hampshire was still dependent on horses.
  • See my comments above. This article is Droxford railway station, not Winston Churchill's visit to Droxford railway station; while the WW2 stuff obviously needs to be there as it's the main thing the place is known for nowadays, I don't want to give undue weight to WW2 in the text, and a discussion about the provenance of a photo which wasn't even taken there would certainly constitute undue weight. I don't think reducing the size of the photo would be appropriate even if the caption could be trimmed, as it needs to be large enough for the faces to be visible.
(adding) How does that look? I don't feel the image can be reduced any further, as on standard thumbnail settings (which is what 99.9% of readers will see) the faces become indistinguishable. ‑ Iridescent 21:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, if you think it doesn't make it too confusing—removed. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thank you, I now regard all these issues as resolved. One more though; I find the text of the first paragraph of the Station site subsection very confusing, perhaps because I don't know that part of England. Perhaps a map would help? Would a screenshot of an old OS map be better, and a streamlined description of the location? --John (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(If you look at the site of the station even on a modern map with a century of subsequent development it should be apparent.) Basically, Droxford is on the west bank of the river, but on the other side of the river was the point at which five roads converged. The planners decided to build the station near this junction, even though it meant putting the station in an unpopulated area that wasn't particularly convenient for anyone, on the basis that it was more accessible to the surrounding villages even though it was inconvenient for Droxford itself. I've lost the route diagram—anyone who needs to know the exact route can go to Meon Valley Railway—and replaced it with an extract from the 1902 Bartholomew map, published while the railway was under construction; hopefully seeing the way all the roads converged on this point makes it clearer why the site was chosen. ‑ Iridescent 08:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly the solution I had in mind, nicely done. You even picked the same map I was looking at (well, one of them). I may still have a shot at clarifying the language slightly but the map really helps. I now support. --John (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

A most intriguing article on a sidelight to history. A few minor comments, most of which are fairly repetitive.

  • "On 4 June 1944, less than two days before the landings were due to take place," Less than one day, actually, since the postponement of D-Day from the 5th June to the 6th did not take place until the evening of the 4th.
    Reworded to "shortly before". I don't really want to make it "less than a day", as that will lead to endless good-faith editors 'correcting' the date. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Droxford station and a section of its railway track was used for demonstrating an experimental railbus " should "was" be "were"?
  • I'm honestly not sure; I suppose it depends on whether one considers "the station" and "the track at the station" as two discrete items, or whether "the station and its track" is a single entity. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over the following weeks compensation was paid to those people whose homes or land would be affected by the building of the station or the rerouting of roads and to Thomas Christian, tenant farmer of the field in which the station was to be built,[G] and the LSWR was ready to proceed with construction.[15]" I'm not convinced that the sentence is well-structured. The last clause seems to hang off the back rather due to the lengthy piece of text regarding the arrangements for Mr Christian.
  • It's the result of my trying to condense five long and dull pages about exactly what compensation was paid to whom and when, and the fact that construction couldn't go ahead until both the landowner (e.g. the Church) and their tenants had been paid off to their satisfaction, into a single sentence. I think the compensation to the farmers needs to be mentioned to make it clear that the station was built on the site by consent and agreement and not (as is usually the case with these infrastructure megaprojects) by eminent domain, compulsory purchase and eviction orders. I've moved Christian down into the footnotes to make the sentence less unwieldy; I wanted to include his payoff to give readers an idea of the sort of sums involved, but realistically it doesn't matter. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two sentence parenthetical in "Construction" might do better as a note.
  • In my original draft I had it as a note, but I thought it worked better in the body text, otherwise readers are left with no idea of whether this was a major archaeological site or just a handful of old bones. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical regarding the potential of the line to be made two-track throughout might just as well have the parentheses removed. Ditto the parenthetical in the first paragraph of "Opening". You will note several comments relating to parentheticals. I won't object if you choose to disregard these, since it's likely a writing-style issue, but I thought I would at least point them out.
  • The one in "Opening" about the free fares only being valid in a single direction I think ought to remain in parentheses; it's very much a side point, but I found it an interesting illustration of the Edwardian business mentality that they were giving a free gift that obliged people to buy from them for it to be of any use. The one about double-track I've removed the parentheses and reworded slightly. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the stationmaster's accommodation in the main building, four cottages for railway staff were built to the immediate west of the station,[27] and a coal yard was built near the station.[28]" I might change "near the station" to "nearby".
  • It's worded that way as otherwise it's unclear whether the coal yard was next to the station or next to the cottages. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the station building was complete, work was proceeding more slowly than anticipated on the construction of the railway line, and the proposed opening date of 25 March 1903 was missed.[29] " I might tighten by omitting "the construction of".
  • I thought it made sense to make it clear that it's the actual building of the line that was causing problems, not that there were issues with it once it was built that caused delays, but I've no strong opinions either way. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical regarding strawberry farming might do better as a note.
  • It originally was, but I think it's interesting enough to the reader to warrant keeping in the body text. By this point, they've waded through lots of rather dull material about the processes by which railways were designed, built and operated; the notion of dedicated strawberry trains is so unlikely that it hopefully hooks the reader to some extent. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consecutive sentences begin "As major military facilities within easy reach of German aircraft, ... As a potential strategic route" I'd mix it up a bit. Is there a reason you used a comma for the first and none for the second?
  • Normal BrEng usage would be to omit the comma, but As major military facilities within easy reach of German aircraft Portsmouth and Gosport to me reads as if the Luftwaffe owned bombers called "Portsmouth" and "Gosport". I've reworded the first sentence to sidestep the issue altogether. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because railway managers had proven skills in administration and of managing logistics they were in demand from the government for strategic management, and many of the managers of Britain's four railway companies were seconded to government.[45]" some form of the word "manage" appears four times in this sentence.
  • I know, but I really can't think of a better way to word it. There isn't really a suitable synonym either for "railway manager", "managing logistics" or "strategic management" in this context; the government, with the best of intentions, figured out that there were a lot of similarities between freight logistics and wartime logistics, and inadvertently wrecked the British haulage industry by poaching everyone who showed any aptitude. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parenthetical in the third paragraph of "Winston Churchill" in my view could be part of the main text without parentheses.
  • "A string of visits from other members of Churchill's closest confidantes followed, " it's the "other members of Churchill's closest confidantes" that gets me, it is like saying "other members of my closest friends". Possibly "other members of Churchill's inner circle followed".
  • Reworded to A string of visits from other close confidantes of Churchill followed. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dejuner" Unless I am missing something, the typical spelling of the midday meal by the French is "dejeuner". If Churchill wrote what you said, consider adding a sic.
  • Checked the original telegram; it's "dejeuner", fixed. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Churchill informed de Gaulle the invasion was scheduled to take place in two days time." but at this time Eisenhower had not yet postponed the invasion, so it would have been the following day?
  • I'm not exactly sure if the decision had been made yet; it was made some time on the evening of the 4th. I've replaced it with the intentionally ambiguous Churchill informed de Gaulle of the imminent invasion. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although railways were still invaluable for the transport of bulk goods, following the war the use of railways in the area fell sharply." To avoid a repetition, I might cut "railways were".
  • Perhaps a bit more detail on The Hampshireman. What sort of people were aboard this final train? Dignitaries? Railfans? Could the public book a ticket?
  • It was an excursion train chartered by the Railway Correspondence & Travel Society rather than British Rail, but the public could book tickets—there were 530 sold. A press report on the day said that "the majority of travellers were those whose practice it is to attend the last rites of dying railways". While it obviously warrants a mention I'm wary of going into much detail on The Hampshireman; it didn't even stop at Droxford, and detailed coverage ought to be at Meon Valley Railway, not here. (There was enough published about it to turn The Hampshireman blue, but I very much doubt anyone would thank me for it.) ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final parenthetical in closure need not be in parentheses, in my opinion.
  • Removed as I have no strong opinion ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two parentheticals in the final paragraph of the article, again seem to me to be unnecessarily in parentheses.
  • The first one, I've combined two sentences to avoid the need altogether. The mention of the Pacer I think needs to be either in parentheses or as a footnote—it needs to be mentioned, if only to stop well-intentioned people re-adding it, but it's very tangential (this was a decade later).
  • While I understand that WP:DIGITS allows the use of four-digit numbers without a comma after the thousands place, it requires consistency, and there are several figures in sterling that are four digits where you don't follow this practice.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inconsistency with comma-separation is because people keep "improving" the {{inflation}} template, which is what's generating the offending "£7,900" and "£3,900" here; it's supposed to only insert the thousand separators if you include |fmt=c in its parameters, but someone has obviously fiddled where they should have faddled somewhere along the line and made it insert them regardless. I'm not going to even pretend I have the slighest idea of how I'd even go about repairing this gibberish. I'm very reluctant to strip out the autogenerated inflation figures and just manually type "as of 2017" figures—there's a not insignificant chance that the value of the pound is going to go absolutely haywire in 13 months so it makes far more sense to automate the conversion. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going over in such detail; I've (hopefully) addressed everything. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All looks good with the explanations. Nice job.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


SupportComments by Tim riley edit

A very interesting article. I have a few very minor points you may like to consider:

  • "Signalbox" or "signal box"? We have both at present.
  • Standardised on the former. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tarmaced" is logical but looks odd: the OED allows it, but gives "tarmacked" in most of its citations. Wiktionary doesn't include "tarmaced" at all, and nor does Collins. I haven't got Chambers to hand.
  • Changed to "tarmacked", although I have to say I think "tarmaced" is neater. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clunky false title for Irish architect T. P. Figgis. And for Proprietor Charles Sadler Ashby later.
  • "for free" – commercialese or American? Unsuitable for an encyclopedia article on a British topic either way.
  • I wouldn't call it either—whatever its American origins I'd consider "for free" standard English usage in all varieties now—but reworded to "free of charge" to avoid the issue. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While express services between London and Gosport were hauled" – it unclear whether the "while" means during the period that or although. If the latter, a plain "although" is clearer.
  • Reworded to avoid ambiguity. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reductions to services" – unexpected preposition; reductions of services?
  • I'm not sure about this, and will leave it to see if anyone else has any thoughts. I'd consider the railway services as something that were provided to the line (and by extension its users) by the railway company. I've changed it to "reduction in services" for the moment. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few goods available in the shops while labour shortages meant" – another ambiguous "while". A simple and would be clearer.
  • "Fares were increased by 50%" – if memory serves, the manual of style points us toward "per cent" rather than the symbol in prose text.
Later: having checked I see the MoS does indeed point us to words rather the symbol, but doesn't insist. So if you prefer the symbol nobody can throw the MoS at you. Tim riley talk 09:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only 7%" – ditto.
  • God help us; when future historians come to write learned papers on why Wikipedia collapsed under the weight of its own petty rules, they'll point to the fact that WP:PERCENT is a blue link. Both changed. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 3 September 1939 Britain declared war on Germany, and the Second World War began". – The Wikipedia article on the war gives the starting date for the war (not the UK's declaration, of course) as 1 September. We ought to be consistent, I think.
  • Every country has their own date for this. As far as I'm concerned, when Germany and Poland were the only countries involved it couldn't by any definition be considered a "world war", and it became such when Britain and France, along with their colonial empires, declared war on 3 September 1939. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...statement to which de Gaulle took great offence" – I don't think one takes offence to something, but at it, though one takes exception to something – strange.
  • Do you know I have absolutely no idea what is grammatically correct here? To me "…statement at which de Gaulle took great offence" looks wrong. Being unable to think of an alternative wording to avoid the issue, I've changed it, but it still looks wrong to me. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 26 July 1945 the Labour Party won a landslide victory on a promise to bring strategic industries into public control" – that was of course part of the party's manifesto, but the present wording makes it appear the sole reason for the landslide. It would be best to make it clear that the nationalisation was part of the Labour programme.
  • Changed to "won a landslide victory on a manifesto including bringing strategic industries into public control". ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spacing of initials: T. P. Figgis has a space between his first and second initial; J.E. Smith does not.
  • "four passenger trains per day ... one freight train per day" – I echo Fowler on "per": "It is affected to use Latin when English will serve as well; so much a year is better than per annum and much better than per year".
  • In the context of public transport, "per day" has a subtly different meaning to "a day". Replacing four passenger trains per day with six buses means that each day, four trains ran, and all four services were cancelled and replaced by buses; replacing four passenger trains a day with six buses means that the number of trains that ran each day was reduced by four with those particular services replaced by buses. As "trains per hour", "trains per day" etc is the language that's used on English railway companies' timetables, announcements and posters, it's also the terminology that readers in England—who will presumably make up the majority of readers on an article about Hampshire—will expect to see. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my few small comments. Hope they're of use. Tim riley talk 09:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks as always. ‑ Iridescent 09:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. A truly fascinating article, and clearly meets FA criteria. Tim riley talk 11:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil edit

  • Support, I have no interest in railways, so imagine my surprise when this fully engaged my interest during a read through this afternoon. The article weaves in matters of local, national and international importance, and gives a nuanced reading of the personality and motivations of those involved. A very clear, and importantly, non dry sense of geography is established, and the writing is especially clear and concise, though if I have one criticism, it that that the prose fell off a bit towards then end (have edited a bit). The usual excellent stuff from this editor. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

  • Can we cite the last sentence in the third para of Background?
  • Be nice to see the images in the closing gallery the same dimensions; I think the bottom of the second photo could be removed without seriously damaging its integrity, but will leave to you.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cited; while doing so I've also noted a (very) minor error in that sentence which I've corrected.
  • I can't see the issue, but as you're the second person to raise it I've cropped the grass from the bottom of the image and set them to standard-height-variable-width instead of standard-width-variable height. ‑ Iridescent 18:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2018 [4].

Ice drilling edit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how to get through two miles of ice and bring back useful scientific information while doing it. I had to cut a great deal of historical information from the article for size reasons (it may show up here one day in history of ice drilling), but the article is still quite long; I believe it brings together all the key information. I hope you find the topic as interesting as I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up most of the diagrams
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You might consider centre-aligning the hot water drill schematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • Suggest reviewing captions for grammar
    I assume I'm missing something obvious, but I couldn't see any problems; can you point me at whatever you're seeing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The thermal drill caption is unclear to me, 1967 image needs hyphenating, core dog caption is not a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For the first point I deleted most of the caption and changed the text to specifically refer to the diagrams; there's really not enough room in the caption to explain what the diagram shows. The other two points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Prairie-dog-drill_lake-vida_cropped.jpg: not sure the FUR presented is strong enough
    Agreed; removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Utah_snow_sampler_(cropped).png: the publisher and the author's article suggest that it is a state rather than federal work - can you elaborate on why it would be federal? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's known as the Federal Sampler, which was done under the aegis of the US Soil Conservation Service. Looking into it further, the image comes from this document, which precedes federal involvement, so it is not the work of a federal employee. Do you happen to know what license Digital Commons uses? If it's compatible with Wikipedia licensing perhaps we can still use it. In the meantime I've removed the image from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Digital Commons is an IR platform - different institutions use it in different ways, I don't think it has a universal default license. Compare for example Purdue and Georgetown's licensing statements. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I've made changes above; can you let me know if you know about the Digital Commons license? And I have another question about image licenses; this image is a very close copy of the original, which is on page 324 of this paper. It's not identical; I eliminated one diagram and redrew everything rather than simply tracing, but the dimensions are close to identical, because they really have to be. For the other diagrams I had more leeway in varying the reproduction so that the design is slightly different; here, partly because these are complex diagrams, I wasn't able to make the diagram as distinct. Is this acceptable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor edit

  • I'll post some comments. Since this is such a long article, it'll take me a few days to get through this reading closely. ceranthor 15:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments through "Flexible drillstem rigs"
  • In the lead, why does ice cores link to The Ice Forest?
    Must have been a slip of the keyboard. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1966, a US team successfully drilled through the Greenland ice sheet at Camp Century, at a depth of 1387 m" - why no conversion into ft? (this will likely continue throughout the article; so the question applies to the whole article)
    I have mostly written humanities articles before this so am not too familiar with the rules on units; I might well have this wrong. This is a scientific article so per WP:UNIT I was thinking I should use SI units. The original sources sometimes use imperial units, but because it's the absolute values that matter here, not the numeric value in a particular unit, I couldn't see any reason to give them (with a conversion of course) in the article. Not sure I've been consistent on this throughout the article, but that's the goal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as piezometers,[10] or cameras," - surely if they were just cameras they wouldn't have their own name. I think a slightly more elaborate explanation is warranted here
    The piezometers are to measure pressure. I've made the structure a little more parallel; I hope it's clearer now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " IceCube, a large astrophysical project, required numerous optical sensors to be placed in boreholes 2.5 km deep at the South Pole.[12]" - unclear why this relates to the rest of the paragraph
    IceCube is mentioned as an example of a huge drilling project -- there were nearly a hundred deep holes drilled. The paragraph is supposed to be an overview of different reasons to drill, and neutrino sensors that require deep holes in ice seems worth mentioning as an unusual example. I've reworded it a bit to make the connection clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The discovery of layers of aqueous water, and of over a hundred subglacial lakes" - why over and not more than? (also assume this will come up multiple times; so more of a question for the whole article)
    Just poor word choice; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The fluid must have a low kinematic viscosity to reduce tripping time" - this seems like it would be tough to understand to a general reader; what's kinematic viscosity as opposed to normal viscosity, and what's tripping time?
    I changed it to just "viscosity". Tripping time is defined in the sentence just above -- it's the time it takes to take the drill all the way out of the hole (tripping out) or put it all the way in (tripping in); or generally it's just time spent tripping (doing either one). Tripping time is unproductive time, since you're not drilling, so you want the drill string to move quickly; if the drilling fluid has high viscosity it will slow down the trips. Does this need more clarification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many glaciers are temperate, meaning that they contain "warm ice": ice that is at melting temperature throughout." - confused by this... so are they already melting, then? is it still considered ice at that point?
    This is a point that surprised me when I learned about it, but it's true as written: many glaciers are at 0 degrees Centigrade throughout their mass. I assume it's possible because ice has such a high latent heat of melting; it takes a great deal of heat to change ice at zero degrees into water at zero degrees, so the temperature stabilizes across the glacier. This means that water in a hole in a temperate glacier will not quickly refreeze. I didn't want to digress into this in the article, because the article isn't really about glaciers, but perhaps a note would be useful? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At greater depths, the air disappears into clathrates and the ice becomes stable again" - Definitely think you should provide a brief explanation of clathrate compounds
    Done; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Louis Agassiz used iron rods to drill holes in the Unteraargletscher," - no need to link agassiz twice
    Unlinked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For holes deeper than about 2 m" - is the about really necessary to describe hypothetical holes? (same with "Drilling deeper than about 6 m")
    I don't see it as a problem, but I don't think it hurts to cut it, so I've removed "about" -- there were four places I'd used it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sidewinders have proved popular with investigators." - bit unclear to me what you intend by investigators here; like principal investigators?
    Yes, that's what I meant; probably too technical a word to use here. Changed to "researchers". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inhomogeneous mixture of ice and rock" - while inhomogenous is fine, I think it's an odd word to use, as opposed to something like heterogeneous... could you clarify why you used that particular adjective here?
    Just poor word choice again; changed to "heterogeneous". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flexible drillstem rigs use a drillstring that is continuous, so that it doesn't have to be assembled or disassembled, " - contraction
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems extremely comprehensive, and it's very clear and well-written. I expect that I'll support once I read the rest of the article. But here are some starting thoughts. ceranthor 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More Comments
  • "Known as Philberth probes,[155] these devices were designed by Karl and Bernhard Philberth in the 1960s as way to store nuclear waste in the Antarctic, but were never used for that purpose;[154] instead, they were adapted to use for glaciological research, reaching a depth of 1005 m and sending temperature information back to the surface when tested in 1968 as part of the Expédition Glaciologique Internationale au Groenland (EGIG).[156][157]" - just a nitpick, but I think this could just be two separate sentences instead of using the semicolon
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The drill is expected to make use of solar power in operation, meaning it must survive on less than 100 W when in sunlight." - do drills really have to "survive"?
    Changed to "be able to function"; less poetic, but you're right that survive is probably not the right word. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drills may be designed with more than one anti-torque system in order to take advantage of the different performance of the different designs in different kinds of snow and ice. For example, a drill may have skates to be used in hard firn or ice, but also have a leaf-spring system, which will be more effective in soft firn." - is there meant to be a citation here?
    Oops. Yes; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think this is solid, so I'll happily support. ceranthor 01:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For both the review and the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review edit

  • Ref 2 require pp
  • Ref 24 requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 25 likewise
  • Refs 33, 34, 39, 85, 86: The publisher should be given, as well as (or instead of) the website address. The publisher is Schlumberger, for which there is a useful wikilink
  • Ref 44: Same issue – the publisher is National Ice Core Laboratory
  • Ref 60: Zagorodnov (1998) - no source listed
  • Ref 64: Publisher is AMS Inc (no wikilink)
  • Ref 114: Publisher is Design World
  • Refs 115 and 170: publisher is British Antarctic Survey
  • Ref 134: Publisher is US Ice Drilling program
  • Ref 160: Zagorodnov et al. (1998) – no source listed
  • Ref 162: Publisher is United States Department of Agriculture
  • Sources list: Something is amiss with the source listed immediately under "Koci" – it appears to have been truncated. The link goes to an error message.
  • I can't find citations to Gillet, Donnou et al
  • Nor to Reynaud and Courdouan
  • Nor to Talalay et al (2015)
  • Nor to Theodórsson

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton: The pp, ndash, and publisher issues have all been corrected. The Zagorodnov paper was missing from the list of sources; I've added it and fixed ref 60 to say "et al." Three of the uncited sources have been removed; Reynaud and Courdouan was mis-spelled in the note and has been fixed.
That leaves the cite below Koci. It was mangled by Citation bot; I'll report it as a bug. I'm uncertain as to whether the format I used (which I've now restored) is the best one for a patent; I think I found it in another FA that cited a patent, but I no longer recall for certain. Do you think it's OK as is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The format for the patent looks OK, though I seem to remember a piece of ancient wisdom (I think via Ealdgyth} that one should not mix "Citation" and "Cite" templates in the same article – I forget why. If you use "Cite patent" you will get exactly the same output, thus: "ch 240634, Koechlin, René, "Procédé pour sonder les glaciers et installation pour sa mise en oeuvre", published 1 May 1946 " If you're unhappy with this format you could always do it manually to get:

Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead with the manual format (cite patent gives me a harv error since I don't use anchors). Thanks for the thorough review; much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

  • Ice drilling allows scientists studying glaciers and ice sheets to gain access to what is beneath the ice, to take measurements in the interior of the ice, or to retrieve samples. - am not a fan of this sentence - it seems to jump to why we do it without saying what it is. Not necessarily a deal-breaker as I recognize it's sorta obvious so repeating it is "drilling in ice" sounds dumb...need to think on this..
    I had some trouble with this sentence for the same reason you give, but it seems to me to be one of those cases where it makes no sense to give a straight definition. What MOS:FIRST asks that the page title be the subject of the first sentence and that's true here. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    stricken as I can't think of an alternative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ice must be cut through, broken up, or melted.- sounds a bit how to-ey, could be just , "The ice can be cut through, broken up, or melted." (actually there are a few other "must"s that would be good to replace if possible...
    That whole section uses "must" a lot because it's about constraints; these are the things you must do, or must be able to cope with, if you want to drill in ice. I don't think "can" or "should" would carry the same meaning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, point taken. Can see the validity of this view. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Temperature section, do we have more of an idea of what degrees wam and cold ice are?
    Warm ice means the ice is at 0° C; I've added that in parentheses. Cold ice is not really strictly defined; it's anything colder than that in theory. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rest looks okay on read-through but it's a hard topic to casually read. It is also a really long article (72 kb prose) - do you think there is anything that can be relegated to a daughter article?
    I took out History of ice drilling, but I'm having a hard time seeing another natural cut, because it's still something of a survey, with one or two paragraphs on lots of different aspects of the topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite it being so big, do you think a mention of possible ice drilling on Europa is worthwhile at the end?
    Good idea. I added a mention at the end of the autonomous probes section; I didn't go into detail because it appears to be very similar technology to what's already described in that section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, any thoughts on my responses above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, tentative support - some segments appeared at first glance to be quite wordy, so I looked to see about trimming segments or making them more concise, but no solutions were evident. It's certainly comprehensive (bit I'm no expert) and the prose is ok too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - good info, but needs organization edit

Generally my only concern is that there are two many sub-sections, ones that could be merged with items above that would aid both clarity and readability.

  • I like the lede, 3 pars that really cover the content.
  • I edited the lede caption for clarity. I read the numbers as dates the first time and my brain refused to led go of that. I made a few other minor edits like comma placement and such, and added some converts.
    Your edits look fine to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Proof of glacier motion was quickly forthcoming" - how did coring do that? The article on the topic reveals nothing. I'd suggest at least an extension to this sentence to clarify. If added, consider putting a para break after this statement. I suspect the "Borehole inclination" statement is addressing this, and if so, it should be moved up into this section rather than leading the next para, which is mostly about a different topic anyway.
    I'd like to bring history of ice drilling to FAC eventually; it's currently a mess after it reaches 1950, but it does cover this story if you're curious. Glacier motion was demonstrated by drilling holes in a straight line across the glacier, and setting stakes in the holes and recording their positions from locations on the surrounding mountain. The result should have been Louis Agassiz's, but J.D. Forbes published his data first leading to a major scientific feud. To your point, I've explained this briefly in the article; let me know if that's enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A weight repeatedly dropped on to the drill string" - generally one cannot push a rope, so I'm unclear what this is saying. I suspect it means that a weight on the same rope is raised and dropped using a secondary rope?
    "Drillstring" means anything between the surface and the drillhead; in some methods of drilling this is a rigid set of linked pipes. For cable tool drilling it was usually a connected set of metal rods, though other methods are possible. I've tweaked the text and added a note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then the entire drillstring" - this is missing a space, no? There's an article of that name, which should be linked in either event. The term is mostly "drillstring", but there are instances of "drill string" in the article too. Pick one!
    I went with "drill string", since that's how Schlumberger spells it in their oilfield glossary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is also possible to place a motor just above the bottom of the drillstring" - how does the motor stop its own rotation?
    This is a major design issue, covered later in the article. I think the problem here, and for the next few points, is that I was trying to split the major design constraints out, each into their own paragraph. Do you think the "Drilling design constraints" section would be better handled as a single long text section, so that the text can be more integrated and readable? If I do that, the reader doesn't have a clear list of what the constraints are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a drilling fluid that is about the same density as the surrounding ice" - like what? A couple of examples here will greatly aid readability.
  • "Tools can be designed to be rotated by hand" - this has been mentioned, almost verbatim, above. I feel everything in this section could be easily merged above.
  • "If torque is supplied at the bottom of the hole" - ahhh. I shouldn't have to read this far to get this answer. This should be merged with the section at the top.
  • "so any drilling method that requires liquid" - this seems like something that should be borehole stability.
  • "Alternatively the hole can be cased down" - and this definitely should be in borehole stability.
    Both the above addressed by combining the permeability and stability sections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many ice drilling locations are very difficult to access" - all of this seems like it should be in "Ice removal method", if at all. These criterion seem self-evident.
    I can cut it, but it is a major constraint; getting equipment to central Greenland is a huge logistical issue, even with USAF support which is usually forthcoming. A drill design innovation that might be revolutionary in the oilfield is useless in ice drilling unless you can get the equipment to the site, and the projects are expensive but don't have infinite funds. Would emphasizing these difficulties make it worth keeping this, or is it really too obvious to state as a design constraint? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking about it some more I've moved it to the "Ice removeal method" section as you suggested; this helps eliminate another short section per your other comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A percussion drill penetrates" - almost everything in the start of this paragraph is mentioned above.
    The goal was to separate the constraints from the designs, since otherwise the article has to point out the constraints as the designs deal with them, which is not very systematic for the reader. I've tried to address the repetition by cutting some of the percussion drilling details from the constraints section and moving them to the "Percussion drills" section; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That gets me to "Cable-suspended", let's work on the ones above first. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Hand-carried mechanical drills" - are these hand-carried, or hand-operated? It seems the later.
    Yes, "hand-operated" is much better; changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, thanks for reviewing; I've made a pass through based on your comments and have left notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, do you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I've been busy IRL. I'll try to get some time tonight. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm back. The upper part looks much better IMHO. Starting with the cable-suspended section:

  • "further up the drill. The cuttings can be transported" - para break?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bedrock.[113][115] Many" - and here, or maybe at end of the Many sentences?
    Done; this one makes a fairly short paragraph to my eyes, but I use a wide monitor so I think it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "borehole straight.[122] Since the pressure" - this comes after the mention of steam. A para break would work here, but perhaps the mention of steam should be separate. This part of the para is more about hose control, perhaps it could be rearranged by putting the mention of steam in the last para with an introduction like "Steam can be used in place of hot water..."
    I went with the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " firn to the impermeable ice layer. The pump" - suggest something like "because above this level the meltwater escapes."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the drillhead.[132] A different problem" - para break, different problem, different para
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each coring run. Another approach" - para break.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "makes this unnecessary.[22][169] The sampler must" - para break.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushed in. A sampler may" - here too?
    I didn't add this one; I think there's continuity of thought here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with four cutters have produced unsatisfactory performance" - any details here?
    Details are on page 17 of this paper. Given how much detail there is in the article already I decided to just say "unsatisfactory performance", but I could bring in some of Talalay's discussion of Schwander and Rufli's paper. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And now dinner. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Johnbod edit

  • Given the daunting amount of detail on technical matters, which I know is the main subject, the section on "goals" seems very broad brush and underlinked. There are links to isotope and neutrino which are unlikely to help a reader that much, but am I right to think that there are no links to Marine isotope stage, Paleothermometer, and Timeline of glaciation, to name but three relevant articles? Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that ice core was the right place to give more details about those -- the goal of ice drilling is to get ice cores; the goal of ice cores is the data. But I guess that does the reader a disservice. There's already a link to paleoclimatology, which I think covers paleothermometer; I added a sentence about past solar variation and marine isotope stages, and linked the latter. This is really the article about the technology, rather than the science, so I'm uncertain if more is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, but for example "glacier flow and accumulation rates" could be linked to Timeline of glaciation. Johnbod (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though now I've done it I'm not sure it's right. Much drilling on glaciers is to study that particular glacier's flow and accumulation rates; it's the cores that give us the palaeoclimatic data that allow us to build the timeline of glaciation, so it's quite indirect. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I would add the date (c. 16,250 years ago) to the GISP ice core caption.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to take measurements in the interior of the ice, or to retrieve samples." "and to retrieve" sounds right to me. Ditto with "or for other scientific research".
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " IceCube, a large astrophysical project, required numerous optical sensors to be placed in holes 2.5 km deep,"" This does not seem quite right. According to the article on IceCube, the sensors are placed between 1450 and 1450 metres deep over a cubic km of ice.
    It's correct; per the source the holes were 2.5 km deep, although the instrumented depth is only 1.5km. That source doesn't explain the reason for drilling so much deeper than the instrumented depth, but I can probably dig it out if you're curious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clarified it now. Instruments are placed in each hole between 1450 and 2450 metres, so as to monitor a 1 km3 of ice. Your source says 1 m3, which would be no use detecting neutrinos, and the official source at [5] confirms it is a km. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last interglacial period" Does this refer to the Eemian? If so, it would be more helpful to link to it rather than to the generic interglacial.
    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rotary mineral drilling" I assume mineral drilling is through rock, but this should be clarified.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meltwater in boreholes in warm ice will not refreeze, but for colder ice, meltwater is likely to cause a problem, and may freeze the drill in place, so thermal drills that operate submerged in the meltwater they produce, and any drilling method that results in water in the borehole, are difficult to use in such conditions." I am missing something here. Why does not a thermal drill prevent freezing the drill in place?
    Because whatever heat is in the meltwater is absorbed by the ice around it if the ice is colder than freezing; the ice is an enormous heatsink. Eventually the meltwater cools to 0° C, and freezes. For warm ice (at 0° C), there's no heat transfer once the water cools to 0° C, so the water doesn't freeze. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To retrieve a core, an annulus of ice must be removed" I have not come across "annulus" before. Link to Annulus (mathematics)?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no longer than 6 m" I would spell out metres.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A tripod erected over the hole allows a pulley to be set up, and a cable can then be used to repeatedly raise and drop the tool. This method, which has been used for millennia in drilling in rock, is known as cable tool drilling." cable tool drilling could be linked as [[Drilling rig#Cable tool drilling|cable tool drilling]]. Also is there reliable evidence that the method has been used for millennia? I doubt whether Talalay's book is an RS for this.
    You're right he's not the best source; I removed it as an unnecessary aside, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it were true, given how old mining is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "currently 10.3 t." Presumably tons, but I would spell out.
    Given as "10.3 t" in the source, but he uses SI units throughout, so I think it's safe to say this is tonnes. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • "One design suggested using a hot water to drill via a hose" a hot water?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as way to store nuclear waste" as a way?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for use in experiments that do not depend on stratigraphy, such as searches for living organisms" This appears to say that if living organisms are found on Mars, it is not important to know the depth at which they are found. Is this correct? I could not check the source as the details of the Cardell article are incomplete. Also this article mentions that the ability of any probe to survive high temperature sterilisation would be crucial.
    The source says "Vertical sampling resolution is of interest only for some experiments: For others, notably astrobiological investigations, a large quantity of meltwater is desired without regard to stratigraphy." I would expect that stratigraphy, like any other data, would be of interest if it could be captured, but it's not necessary for the main question here. Thanks for the link; I've added a note about surviving sterilization, cited to that page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have made clear. I was also querying that full details are not given for the Cardell source. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, should have realized. I went looking for the details, and soon remembered why the citation looks the way it does. The paper was a poster presentation at the 35th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference; it was never independently published, but is available on the website as a PDF. On this page, if you search for "Cardell", you'll find a link to the paper and a link to this list of what was on show at that session. I suppose "Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV" could be the publisher, but we don't normally put publishers in for papers, since typically a journal is cited. I've added a link to the paper, and I've put the conference name in where the journal would normally go. Brian, is there a better way to do this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As the paper hasn't been published in a journal, you could name the Lunar and Planetary Institute, on whose website it appears, as the publisher. I'm not aware of a "conference=" field, but ""Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV" could be given as "work=". Would that resolve the issue? Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to work -- it's similar to what I had but the publisher is not italicized, which is reasonable since it's not a publication title. Thanks, Brian. Dudley, how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not look right to me. It is not a journal and I am doubtful about saying the conference is the publisher. I suggest {{cite report|last=Cardell|first=G.|last2=Hecht|first2=M.H.|last3=Carsey|first3=F.D.|last4=Engelhardt|first4=H.|last5=Fisher|first5=D.|last6=Terrell |first6=C.|last7=Thompson|first7=J.|year=2004|title=The subsurface ice probe (SIPR): a low-power thermal probe for the Martian polar layered deposits|url=https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/2041.pdf|work=Lunar and Planetary Science XXXV|publisher=Lunar and Planetary Institute |accessdate=16 March 2018}} Does that look right to you Brian? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS If cite report does not look right to you I suggest the generic cite web. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to cite report. I agree the Institute is better as the publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sensitive to 0.01–0.05 N" I would spell out newton.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the great length of this article, I would suggest moving details of unsuccessful design to the history article.
    I'll go through and see what I can find to move on this basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first rate article, although some of it is too technical for a layman like myself to understand. (See also my further comment on IceCube above.) Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review; I read your comment on IceCube above, and I don't think any further change is needed to the article, is it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: We have three supports on this article, which has been at FAC for a very long time now. Maury Markowitz began a review although I'm not sure if it was completed, although there were a couple of pings. I see nothing in the review to delay this any further. Johnbod left a comment but I do not believe a full review was ever intended. Given that the three supporters left detailed reviews, I will promote shortly. If there are any further issues, these can be tackled after promotion. Sarastro (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - not "ever got round to" anyway. Happy to see promotion. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to get back to this this weekend. I still have the bottom sections to go. Should we close anyway? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2018 [6].

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid edit

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) & Boghog (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WT:WikiProject Medicine, WT:WikiProject Pharmacology, and WT:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology.

This article is about a natural product in humans which is used as a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement; it has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition respectively. My previous nomination of this article was archived approximately one year ago. Since then, this article has received minor updates and gone through a thorough GA review (Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/GA1).

This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead that are grouped in a citation note at the end of each paragraph. I will not remove the lead references since they cite medical claims.

The section names and the organization of the sections in the article follow MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Per WP:MEDRS, all medical claims in this article must be cited by recent reviews, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. Most of the paywalled medical reviews that are cited in the article are temporarily available in this link for viewing/downloading. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) used in the source code of the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Soupvector, Barbara (WVS), Jo-Jo Eumerus, Lingzhi, Tom (LT), Galobtter, and Evolution and evolvability: This article's nomination is now near the end of the FAC nomination list at WP:FAC, so there isn't much time left to review this article. Do any of you have any further comments/concerns about this article which still need to be addressed before you're willing to support promotion of this nomination? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new. Have updated my comments. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Lingzhi, Galobtter, and Evolution and evolvability: I'm guessing there's only a day or two left before this nomination is closed. If any of you have further comments/concerns or are willing to support this nomination as is, please follow up soon. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Do you feel there's a consensus for promoting this article? I only ask because I don't want to badger reviewers who have only left comments w/o a clear statement of support or opposition if doing so is completely unnecessary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I think this nomination has pretty much run its course. I've addressed all the comments/concerns that I can from the four reviewers that have remained neutral (Galobtter, Lingzhi, Jo-Jo Eumerus and DePiep); the other six reviewers (Evolution and evolvability, Tom (LT), Soupvector, Barbara (WVS), Dudley Miles and Dank) have indicated their support for promotion to FA status. Barring a very-last-minute review, there's nothing left for me to action.except the very last comment/bullet in #Comments by Dudley; I'm not sure how long it will take me to find those patent expiry dates, but I intend to continue searching when time permits. In any event, please close this nomination at your convenience. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Galobtter edit

Some points (adding as I review the article):

  1. Very minor point but in Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid#Available_forms "blood" links to blood plasma - either should be blood plasma or just not linked per WP:EGG
  2. The metabolism of HMB is initially catalyzed by an uncharacterized enzyme which converts it to HMB-CoA. The metabolism is initially catalyzed?
  3. "HMB is sold worldwide.." source only says commercially available as such
  4. 30-50$ per month for 3 grams - shouldn't there be a location given?; also the citation "PEDS in sports" (currently [19]) doesn't seem to support that sentence from quick looking and searching through the article; addendum: hmm, according to the lead it is worldwide sold at that range of price? Unsure how that can be determined
  5. Metabolic Technologies, Inc., the company that grants licenses to include HMB in dietary supplements, advises pregnant and lactating women not to take HMB due to a lack of safety studies conducted with this population. Seems somewhat repetitive and redundant to the sentence No clinical testing with supplemental HMB has been conducted on pregnant women and not very pertinent; I suggest combining or removal
  6. Unsure why the chemistry section does not use the acronym HMB but instead the full form
  7. In #Detection in body fluids:
    • adequate dietary source of HMB for what? e.g HMB doesn't seem necessary for a normal human's diet
    • Without any real commentary or analysis, writing out in prose all the measurements done in blood plasma, urine, intramuscular and what concentration was found is mostly redundant to the table..
  8. As MOS:CHEM says The structures of many organic compounds are obvious - the chemical structure section seems to not say much and could be removed:
    • β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate are structural analogs of butyric acid and butyrate that have a hydroxy group and methyl group attached to the beta carbon of these compounds. not sure why the butyrate is necessary to be mentioned, and it doesn't say much that a structural diagram doesn't; however it is the more useful sentence
    • By extension, β-hydroxybutyric acid and β-methylbutyric acid are also parent compounds of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid. β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is the conjugate acid of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate, while β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate is the conjugate base of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid. Entirely unnecessary - the first sentence is really "so what?" and the second sentence repeats itself twice with no real meaning or relevance

- Galobtter (pingó mió)

  1. Fair point. I've cut the pipe or removed the wikilink. diff
  2. Fixed (diff). That only would've made sense to say if it were written as "HMB metabolism" instead of "The metabolism of HMB".
  3. I've changed "sold" to is "commercially available" (diff), although I don't think there's much of a difference between the old/new statement TBH; the newer version is just longer.
  4. Good catch. After looking at the ref quote and what it cited in the article, it's pretty obvious that it was meant to cite the first sentence in that paragraph (per the part about being available OTC). Until about a month ago, the 1st sentence immediately preceded the statement about the cost of $30-50/month. Seems like I placed that ref after the wrong sentence. I fixed it in this edit: diff.
  5. This was added following my discussion with two other medical editors at Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Comment about safety. The statement "Metabolic Technologies, Inc., the company that grants licenses to include HMB in dietary supplements, advises pregnant and lactating women not to take HMB due to a lack of safety studies conducted with this population." is a contraindication, and technically should be placed under a level 2 heading titled "Contraindications" per MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices; however, since that section would only have 1 sentence under it, it was juxtaposed with the related sentence under safety. I can create the contraindications section and move it there if you'd like; however, I don't think it would be prudent to omit that sentence from the article because that is a clinically relevant contraindication.
  6. This issue came up in the GA review, so it might be worthwhile to read my explanation there: Talk:Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid/GA1#Linked from FAC.
  7. Changed the sentence to: "This concentration is far too low to be an adequate dietary source of HMB for obtaining pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood plasma, ..." in this diff. I agree that there's a lot of redundancy between the 1st paragraph and the table, although the the text includes slightly more information (e.g., a specific gender is specified in two instances). The reason it was done this way is that some people prefer text over data tables and vice versa for this type of information. IMO, it's more useful to list that material in a table since it is data; however, given that the units of measurement and abbreviations listed in the table are not something I'd expect most of our readers to know, covering those in the article text helps to clarify what the units and abbreviations in the table are.
  8. In light of what I mentioned in the bulleted response below, would you like me to delete one or more of the sentences that you specified above?
    • The entire chemistry section was significantly expanded following the discussion in the first FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1#Comments by Nergaal; if he were to return to comment, I'm not sure how he would feel about the deletion of the entire structure subsection. Also, I think the average reader of this article is unlikely to have a significant chemistry background simply due to the fact that this compound is notable (and hence likely to be searched) for reasons unrelated to its chemistry; hence, intuitively, the average reader likely isn't going to have a chemistry background. In contrast, I suspect that most people reading the page acetic acid would be reading it due to an interest in its chemical properties, synthesis, etc. and would therefore have some relevant background knowledge of the structural properties of compounds (e.g., how acetate relates to acetic acid). So, in a nutshell, unless this article explicitly states that beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid and beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyrate are two distinct albeit related compounds, and not simply synonyms as implied in the lead, then our readers are probably not going to understand that "HM-butyric acid" and "HM-butyrate" are not the same thing.
    • Butyric acid, butyrate, β-hydroxybutyric acid, and β-methylbutyric acid were all mentioned because I think structural analogs of pharmacologically active substances (and even a few biologically inert compounds) are interesting things to mention/know. In pharmacology, the relation between a compound's biological activity and its chemical structure is known as a structure–activity relationship or "SAR" for short. Interestingly, the pharmacodynamics of butyric acid, beta-hydroxybutyric acid, and HMB are different; however, I have yet to read an article that states that and covers the differences in their biological activity, so I can't cover this in the article right now. For comparison with the HMB article, in a similar drug FA that I wrote (amphetamine), there is much more coverage of its stuctural analogs and derivatives in the amphetamine#Related endogenous compounds and Amphetamine#Substituted derivatives sections.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding point 3, I was referring to the "worldwide" part, not the sold - does the source say worldwide? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad. No cited ref states that it's available "worldwide", "globally", or "internationally"; the refs that are cited state that it is a commercially available substance, but do not state a region for its availability. Some of the refs do state that it's not regulated as a drug though (i.e., the one which indicates that it's an OTC dietary supplement). Its global availability simply follows from the fact that non-regulated goods can generally be freely imported to/exported from most countries. In other words, an individual in another country could import it from the United States about as freely as if it were a cotton T-shirt. Based upon a cursory check of a few websites that sell a branded HMB product via the internet, I found https://www.bodybuilding.com/store/met-rx/hmb-1000.html, which appears to offer shipping of that product in over 100 countries (per that website's information page on their shipping policy, if you click the flag in the top right corner, a list of countries where it ships to appears).
In any event, I don't particularly care about specifying the region, so if you'd like me to simply state that it's a "commercially available substance" instead of "commercially available (in such-and-such region)", I'm ok with that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think better to stick to the source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "commercially available worldwide" to just "sold" in this diff. Also, since I wrote my first 4 responses yesterday, I didn't actually respond to the part of #4 that you added afterward. As is evident from the example website that I linked above, that product is sold internationally, but the cost of that product is listed in US dollars. That's the currency that an international customer would be paying for that product in if they purchased it from that vendor. While it's possible that local vendors in other countries sell it for a different amount (if adjusted to USD through the FOREX market), there's nothing preventing an international customer from buying the product from a US website in USD. A financial intermediary (e.g., bank or credit card company) would simply process the transaction using the current foreign exchange rate in order to convert their currency to USD. Since we're not specifying a location and just going with what the refs says, is the listed price range still a concern for you? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the amphetamine, it seems rather more interesting because substituted amphetamines are important class of drugs in of themselves, while HMB's relation to butyric acid seems rather trivial and unimportant. Thinking over, the first sentence about structural analogs explains the diagrams to the right; but I think "By extension, β-hydroxybutyric acid and β-methylbutyric acid are also parent compounds of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid." can be cut; and also "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is the conjugate acid of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate" as redundant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the lead and elsewhere butyrate version was referred too; since it is, does make sense to mention it. If "β-methylbutyric acid" is mentioned somewhere/(addendum: or is used pharmacologically - basically has some importance) then it makes sense to mention it being parent compound. Also suggest replacing "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate are structural analogs of butyric acid and butyrate that have a hydroxy group and methyl group attached to the beta carbon of these compounds" with "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid is butyric acid with a hydroxy group and methyl group attached to the beta carbon." for clarity for non-chemists. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes you listed above in this diff, although I did slightly modify the sentence on butyric acid (i.e., mentioned it being a structural analog) relative to what you wrote above. If you have any further suggestions for changes, let me know!
To my knowledge, β-methylbutyric acid is biologically inert, but potentially toxic in high concentrations. Outside the structure section, it's only mentioned in the synthesis section and depicted in the corresponding reaction/pathway the diagram.
β-Hydroxybutyric acid is a biologically/pharmacologically-active compound (it's a class I histone deacetylase inhibitor, similar to butyric acid). Butyric acid, β-hydroxybutyric acid, and HMB are all natural products in humans, but they're each synthesized through different metabolic pathways (butyric acid: bacterial metabolism of dietary fiber in the colon; β-hydroxybutyric acid: ketogenesis; HMB: Leucine#Metabolism in humans; technically, HMB could be metabolized into β-hydroxybutyric acid via the pathway HMB→HMB-CoA→HMG-CoA→acetoacetate→beta-hydroxybutyrate - that might be worth depicting in the svg version of {{Leucine metabolism in humans}}). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lead Prose edit
  2. ingredient in some medical foods. It is added to certain medical foods that are intended to provide nutritional support for people with muscle wasting due to cancer or HIV/AIDS and to promote wound healing. Can't it be combined to "ingredient in some medical foods that are intended.."
  3. "muscle size" is another EGG link
  4. speed recovery from exercise "quicken" than "speed" - speed isn't used as a verb like that very often which confused me
  5. No issues with safety safety is another EGG link and this phrasing is awkward - what about no side-effects?
  6. HMB is a metabolite of l-leucine that is produced in the body through oxidation of the ketoacid of l-leucine (α-ketoisocaproic acid). "and is produced" would be clearer; or can even cut "a metabolite of l-leucine that"
  7. A healthy adult produces approximately 0.3 grams adding "of HMB" after that would make it clearer

- Galobtter (pingó mió)

  1. Done (diff). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hmm. "Muscle size" was used here in place of "muscle hypertrophy" because the term "hypertrophy" is somewhat jargony. The term "increased muscle size" is synonymous with the term "muscle hypertrophy", but "exercise-induced gains in increased muscle size" sounds a bit odd. In any event, I've removed the pipe, so this now says and links "muscle hypertrophy". (diff) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I've changed "speed" (and "speed up" in the body) to "expedite", which is the term I originally used (diff). Doc James changed this to simplify the language in the lead, although I think it's likely that the majority of our readers know the meaning of the term "expedite". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Changed to "No adverse effects..." in diff (NB: beneficial/desirable side effects on cholesterol and blood pressure have been reported, but I didn't think they were notable since IIRC they were only found in 1 or 2 studies). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Done: diff Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Done: diff Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 2, I think it'd be better to keep muscle size and not include a link to hypertrophy - "increase exercise-induced gains in muscle hypertrophy" doesn't make sense, right? Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're right. It should either read as "... shown to increase exercise-induced muscle hypertrophy" or "... shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size"; the only issue here is that the phrase "gains in" also applies to the phrase "muscle strength, and lean body mass" that follows "muscle size" (In healthy adults, supplementation with HMB has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle hypertrophy, muscle strength, and lean body mass ...). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back to muscle size in the lead and made an analogous change in the body. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Expedite is indeed a common word. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biosynthesis section edit

On the biosynthesis section, according to MOS:CHEM the biosynthesis should be in the synthesis section, which makes more sense than pharmacokinetics to me. That biosynthesis section is confusing and needs major reworking/cutting. It appears mostly lifted from Leucine? There's a lot of irrelevant material about metabolic pathways that don't lead to HMB - A small fraction of l-leucine metabolism – less than 5% in all tissues except the testes where it accounts for about 33% – is initially catalyzed by leucine aminomutase, producing β-leucine, which is subsequently metabolized into β-ketoisocaproate (β-KIC), β-ketoisocaproyl-CoA, and then acetyl-CoA by a series of uncharacterized enzymes. and other sentences in that big paragraph in the middle. The large image squishes the text too much for my taste. If that image could be made smaller but more focused on HMB I think that'd help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May still want to keep it in pharmacology by I don't think biosynthesis is really part of pharmacokinetics. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, I also think biosynthesis does not belong in the pharmacokinetics section. I would suggest that it be moved to the chemistry section just before synthesis section and the synthesis heading be renamed to "Laboratory synthesis" to distinguish it from biosynthesis. This would also mean that File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 1.jpg would need to split into two figures, biosynthesis and metabolism so that they can be placed next to the text that talks about them. As mentioned above the present figure is too large and complex. Splitting the figure into two figures would solve that problem. Boghog (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter and Boghog: That's a fair point. It would actually be very easy to cut the entire image into 2 parts using template:annotated image 4's cropping functionality; however, I'd like to get additional feedback on how to redraw this image in SVG at WT:MCB#Template:Leucine metabolism in humans. I invite you two to comment in that thread if either of you have any comments/suggestions on either technical changes to the diagram (e.g., whether or not cofactors should be indicated and how to illustrate cofactors/inputs to each reaction if they're included) or cosmetic changes to this image when it's redrawn in svg.
@Boghog & Galobtter: Also, which of the two following two solutions do each of you prefer?
  1. Use the full image (Template:Leucine metabolism in humans) which spans two adjacent sections (the level 4 heading "Metabolism", located under the level 3 "Pharmacokinetics" heading, which would be followed by a level 3 "Biosynthesis" heading) in the "Pharmacology" section (see this link for an illustration of how this would look), or
  2. Split the diagram into 2 images, placing the metabolic pathway in the "Metabolism" section and the biosynthetic pathway in the "Biosynthesis" section (which could be located under "Pharmacology" as a level 3 heading or under the "Chemistry" section as a level 3 heading)
FWIW, I think the biosynthesis and metabolism sections should be kept together in "Pharmacology" (i.e., option 1) because it's more cohesive to discuss the entire metabolic pathway of leucine within the same level 2 heading compared to splitting it and covering it in completely different parts of the article. Given that the biosynthetic and metabolic pathways partially overlap along 1 route (specifically, the HMB↔HMB-CoA↔MC-CoA pathway), using 1 image and keeping these sections close together would help convey to readers that this portion of the pathway serves as both a route of HMB metabolism (under physiological conditions) and HMB biosynthesis (during biotin deficiency). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: I've changed your bulleted entries above so that I can easily reply below in a point-by-point manner; I think using a numbered list format will make it easier to identify which point I'm responding to when you/others read my reply or when I'm rereading it at a later time. I hope that's ok with you. If not, feel free to revert my changes to the bulleted list. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: In relation to what you mentioned about the information in the biosynthesis and metabolism sections being copied from leucine: the content in leucine was actually copy/pasted verbatim from HMB, not the other way around (NB: I am the editor that copy/pasted it). As of a few hours ago, I actually just deleted the entire Leucine#Metabolism in humans section and selectively transcluded the same content in from the HMB article. In relation to that minor pathway involving β-leucine metabolism, the reason it was mentioned in the HMB article is that the cited source stated that HMB might be biosynthesized from the metabolites along that pathway; however, due to the fact that the associated reactions/enzymes aren't not well characterized, this is not known for certain. I can cut that part in the HMB article (while still transcluding it to the leucine article) if you think it's not useful contextual information for the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as someone who doesn't know about all that, that minor pathway seems like irrelevant information. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter: See diff. That paragraph still appears in the Leucine article despite its removal from the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Now that I've finished redrawing the diagram in svg and annotating it, I can crop it fairly easily to show only the biosynthesis and only the metabolism pathways; if I were to do this, I could place each annotated diagram below the article text in the corresponding section as a centered image. Centering the diagrams beneath the article text would avoid the text-squashing issue that you mentioned above. I could also move the biosynthesis section under the "Chemistry" heading if I split the image like this. If you'd like me to split the image and move the biosynthesis section – or you'd prefer an entirely different solution – let me know! I'm willing to work this.

Also, have I adequately addressed all of the other issues that you pointed out in the sections above? If I haven't, please let me know which ones still require my attention. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

​ In the biosynthesis section can also cut this "Around 40% of dietary l-leucine is converted to acetyl-CoA, which is subsequently used in the synthesis of other compounds." I think. Issues have been addressed; 50-50 on whether it should be moved honestly. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I figured that would give the reader some context on how much leucine ends up as other metabolites, although that statement is partially relevant to HMB's metabolism because acetyl-CoA is a metabolite of HMB; assuming the isovaleryl-CoA and HMB pathways contribute to that 40% value equally, then based upon the 2–10% range for HMB biosynthesis specified in the article text, the metabolism of HMB would yield between .8% to 4% of that 40%.
I'll cut it if you think it's not useful information for the readers though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If all this isn't explained/important, I don't think it is overly helpful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it in this diff. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tom (LT) edit

I did the GA review and find this article to be of very high quality and certainly worth consideration. I think it has the potential to be amongst Wikipedia's finest works. I had a few concerns noted at the end of the review which I will paste down here. I think it would be a real shame if this review falls down because of insufficient attention (again).

"Some small additional concerns. I don't think these are enough to prevent a successful GA nomination, and they have been discussed with Seppi333 during the nomination and we have reached a loggerheads. I note these with a view to a (1) FA nomination and (2) MEDRS compliance:
  1. I still think some work could be done paring down references
  2. I think information relating to the lack of effects of overdose should be included in text
  3. I am concerned that primary sources are used to make medical claims, which is not something recommended by our WP:MEDRS
    • "One clinical trial with Juven for AIDS also demonstrated improvements in immune status, as measured by a reduced HIV viral load relative to controls and higher CD3+ and CD8+ cell counts"
    • "The efficacy of Juven for the treatment of cancer cachexia was also examined in a phase 3 clinical trial which found a strong trend (i.e., p=.08) for an improvement in lean body mass relative to controls"
  4. I do not think that the article needs so many notes (I think most could be removed without damaging the article's integrity)"

Some of the comments above are fairly general and I'd be interested to know what other reviewers think (I haven't done a FA review before). I'll follow the commentary and will definitely be leaning support if the above are addressed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on addressing these soon. Sorry for the delay in my initial response. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): My itemized responses are below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Are there any sentences in particular that you feel should/needs to have the reference count reduced? The featured article criteria do not include a requirement for limiting the number of references used to cite article content, although they do require articles to fully adhere to the WP:Manual of style, including its guidance on the use and formatting of references. Nonetheless, I realize that FAC is a place for consensus; so, if others feel similarly about the number of citations used to support the sentences in the article beyond those that are required for WP:V, I'm willing to delete all of those. Again, per our discussion at the GA review, I think that would be a really bad idea if applied to the sentences that include medical claims relating to efficacy or safety though.
  2. At present, I haven't come across a reference that I can use to explicitly state that there are no potential adverse effects that may arise from overdosing on HMB. The only thing I can explicitly state based upon the sources I've cited in the article, as well as other sources I've read that aren't currently cited, is that no adverse effects were reported by a single clinical study which involved the use of 15 grams of HMB/day (NB: 15 grams/day does constitute an "overdose" relative to the typical 3–6 gram doses used in the vast majority of clinical studies). If you want me to mention that in the article, please let me know.
  3. All of the medical claims made in this article are fully supported by one or more medical reviews. At the moment, there are no primary sources that cite a statement about this compound's treatment efficacy or safety profile anywhere in the article; since all of the primary sources with a PMID number (i.e., primary medical sources) in the article are marked as "primary source" via a parameter in their citation templates, you can easily verify this by examining the sentences cited by the references that are marked as "primary source".
    • The sentence "One clinical trial with Juven for AIDS also demonstrated improvements in immune status, as measured by a reduced HIV viral load relative to controls and higher CD3+ and CD8+ cell counts" does refer to a primary source, but the two references citing that sentences (PMID 24072740 and PMID 24057808) are a medical review and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Those two references are clearly WP:MEDRS compliant given the publication type of those sources and the their publication dates (2013 and 2014) being compliant with WP:MEDDATE. Given that every single medical claim in this article is ultimately based upon primary research which is summarized in the secondary medical sources that support+cite those claims, I don't see how removing this statement simply due to its basis in primary research would be any different than removing every medical claim in the article for the same reason. However, if others feel the same way that you do about the inclusion of that sentence, I will remove it per consensus.
      • @Tom (LT): On reconsideration, I've decided to delete this sentence: diff. I didn't cover the non-adverse side effects of lower LDL cholesterol and slightly lower blood pressure associated with long-term HMB use simply because they were documented in 1 trial, despite being covered in very recent reviews from the past few months.[note 1] Given that this was my justification for not including that material and given that you're making a similar argument here, I think it's reasonable to apply the same inclusion criterion for all medical statements. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Which notes in particular are you referring to?
    • Edit: I just noticed that I deleted one note when I cut the sentence you specified above about AIDS and immune status. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): Re – the following sentences:

The efficacy of Juven for the treatment of cancer cachexia was also examined in a phase 3 clinical trial which found a strong trend (i.e., p=.08) toward improvement in lean body mass relative to controls;[18][34] however, the trial did not adequately test the ability of Juven to prevent or reverse the loss of lean body mass in individuals with cancer cachexia since the majority of participants did not complete the study.[18]

How would you feel about rewording this material as follows:

The efficacy of Juven for the treatment of cancer cachexia was also examined in a phase 3 clinical trial that assessed improvements in lean body mass relative to controls;[18][34] however, since the majority of participants did not complete the study, the trial was unable to adequately test the ability of Juven to prevent or reverse the loss of lean body mass in individuals with cancer cachexia.[18]

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ E.g., "HMB seems to be safe in humans. A report summarizing data from nine studies in humans, using 3 g doses of HMB for up to two months, including some older subjects (up to 81 years old) did not find any safety concern in blood tests, tolerance or mood [27, 28]. In fact, HMB reduced total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and systolic blood pressure." – PMID 28554316
Update

Thanks Seppi333 and sorry for the delay - I have been travelling and busy with work. Update:

  1. This is a general comment about the whole article as we discussed in the good article review. Lots of relatively noncontroversial statements such as "The safety profile of HMB in adult humans is based upon evidence from clinical trials in humans and animal studies", "The metabolism of HMB is catalyzed by an uncharacterized enzyme which converts it to β-hydroxy β-methylbutyryl-CoA (HMB-CoA" and so on. I don't feel that there is a need to provide so many citations and it makes the article harder for editors to verify. On the other hand, I don't think this should block your nomination to FA status.
  2.  Done Overdose - happy here with your no adverse effect dose. I also like your thorough note attached about how this was identified.
  3.  Doing... thank you for removing the first instance. The second instance is still directly quoting a primary source to make a medical claim, even rewording it. The whole sentence should be removed in my opinion, because it is a single study and presenting the results in this fashion is misleading. I believe WP:MEDRS supports me here.
  4.  Doing... Notes - thanks for removing one. Other notes I think should be removed are, as they are also quoting single studies. I also think original research may be relevant here.
    • " Approximately equal doses of pure HMB-FA (2.42 grams) and L-leucine "
    • "In one study, ingestion of a 1 gram dose of HMB-Ca "
    • "In one study, ingestion of a 1 gram and 3 gram HMB dose resulted "

At present I am leaning support this is a high quality article and Seppi333 has addressed many of my concerns.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: finally, claim removed. Striking out first comment as this is a matter of taste and difficult to address. Would still prefer if notes regarding single studies could be removed. Support nomination. Overall a great article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi edit

  1. Coffman DD, Cramer R, Mochel WE (June 1958) Missing year (that would be 2015).
  2. Mochamat, Cuhls H, Marinova M, Kaasa S, Stieber C, Conrad R, Radbruch L, Mücke M (July 2016) Missing first name for Mochamat.
  3. Is this "Reference notes" section standard practice for your field? It seems that it could be made a bit more accessible than a huge list of bracketed numbers. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the bulleleted list above to a numbered list so I can address each item in the corresponding numbered list below; I hope that's fine with you.
  1. I don't seem to be able to find the year 2015 listed anywhere in this article or the article's publication date on the website where it's hosted (https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja01544a072). Where did you see that year listed for this journal article?
  2. Oops. For some reason the citation template generator I used doesn't initialize Mochamat's first name; it normally initializes the first names of all authors. In any event, I've fixed this issue in this edit.
  3. The "Reference notes" section is for the [sources #] notes in the article, which are used to group sets of 4+ references together in 1 citation; the purpose of grouping 4+ references together is to improve readability in the article, since some people (not me) find that a large string of references makes article prose harder to read. I've used those "sources" notes and a corresponding "Reference notes" section in roughly a dozen articles since I first started editing (NB: I've edited thousands of articles); in general, I don't think it's a useful section to include in an article since most articles don't need several references to support a single sentence. In the case of medical articles, it is sometimes necessary to include several citations when multiple medical claims are made in a single sentence or a group of non-medical claims in 1 sentence are only individually supported by a set of references. Also, since some objected to the inclusion of citations in the lead of this article, the references in each lead paragraph were moved to the end of the paragraph and grouped into a reference note; refnotes #1–3 in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Reference notes correspond to the groups of references for the 3 lead paragraphs.
    Edit: The practice of grouping references like this to improve the readability of article prose is covered in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Sorry, I meant to ping you in my last edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) If I may ask, do you use a tool to add references to the text, or do you do them by hand? If the former, which tool? ... OH OOPS I copy/pasted the wrong title for the article that's missing a year (mentioned above); that would be ""3-OH-isovaleric acid". ChemSpider. Royal Society of Chemistry. Retrieved 10 August 2016. Experimental Boiling Point" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The citation template generator that I use is [7], which is maintained by Boghog (my co-nominator for this article). I really only use that script to generate citation templates for pubmed-indexed articles since the templates it generates for those are always perfectly formatted; all it requires is a PMID number for an input. For websites and textbooks, I manually fill out the citation templates. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the year 2015 to the ChemSpider ref in this edit. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an excellent tool. More later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another couple of comments on the "reference notes" issue: The inline links say [sources #], whereas the section at the bottom is titled "Reference notes". The disconnect between these adds a bit of confusions/. One solution that I've seen in some chemistry journals like ChemBioChem is to nest the references e.g.: my references are this,[1] this,[2] these,[4] and this.[3] (which uses the code {{refn|Reference set: <ref name="ref1"/><ref name="ref2"/><ref name="ref3"/>}}. It at least puts all the references into the same list so are easier to read. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Replied in your comments section below. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am confused by the "reference Notes" section. What is that? Are there many cites for any given assertion, and if so, why? I doubt much of this article is controversial....Could it be made less cryptic? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lingzhi: By it, do you mean the section title? "Reference notes" is just a header for the list of bundled references in the article. I created a separate section for those since it looks odd to juxtaposed bundled references and actual citations in the "References" section. I can rename that section heading to "Grouped references" or something similar if you think that would help clarify the type of content (i.e., a series/list of bundled references) that's located beneath that heading.
      In any event, the reason some sentence have many citations is that multiple claims are included that require several citations to fully support the assertion. Also, the first 3 entries in that list cite the entirety of the 3 corresponding lead paragraphs, which is why they include many refs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the name; it's the format. It's confusing to the point of distraction. People complain about my bundled links when I have 3; you have umpteen. Why do you need so many? Is this a raging controversy in the white coat world? Are people waving their arms and screaming? And if those are bundled cites, what cite referes to what assertion? And what is "Proteins in Human Health and PerformanceLucene image - May 16-17, 2013"? It's a link for a conference? how can you cite a link to a conference. It has no text to back any assertions. And all that after five seconds of looking. I feel very Oppose-ful at this moment based on just this; please persuade me otherwise. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/pasting from that section:

  1. [2][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] ← This set of references cites every sentence in the 1st lead paragraph.
  2. [1][8][14][18][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] ← This set of references cites every sentence in the 2nd lead paragraph.
  3. [8][20][28][29][30][31][32][33] ← This set of references cites every sentence in the 3rd lead paragraph.
    The three bundled references above could be deleted, but all three of the lead paragraphs would be uncited. Doing this would likely cause other medical editors to revert me, but I can do so if you strongly oppose citing it.
  4. [2][8][9][10] ← This set of references cites the following sentence in the body of the article: "Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are intended to be used to provide nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional."
    One ref cites the inclusion of HMB in Juven, a second cites its inclusion in Ensure, the remaining 2 references cite the medical conditions for which these medical foods are used to provide nutritional support. Omitting any of them would result in an issue with WP:V.
  5. [1][11][12][15][16][20] ← This set of references cites the following sentence in the body of the article: "With an appropriate exercise program, dietary supplementation with 3 grams of HMB per day has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength and power, and lean body mass, reduce exercise-induced skeletal muscle damage,[note 3] and expedite recovery from high-intensity exercise."
    Note that this sentence contains 6 distinct medical claims. Omitting any of the citations for them would result in an issue with WP:V.

@Lingzhi: I hope this clarifies things. If I'm missing the point about what you're asking, please let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: that specific reference you asked about cites the following statement in that source "... Juven®, which is a nutritional beverage that is clinically shown to promote healing after injury or surgery." It's used to support the following article text (copied from #4 above) "Some branded products that contain HMB... are medical foods that are intended to be used ... to promote wound healing following surgery or injury ...". Sorry for not mentioning that when I pinged you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I've deleted that reference from the sentence and unbundled the citation (diff) since I really don't feel like arguing about including it. This introduces a problem with WP:V for the underlined portion of the struck-out text above though. I deleted the clause that became unsupported. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either you're missing completely everything I said, or I am missing what you said, or else we are completely misunderstanding each other. Look, in principle, you should try to:
  1. use the very best sources for every assertion; no need to cite every paper that repeats an assertion;
  2. try to avoid cites in the WP:LEDE, unless your assertion is challenged or challengeable;
  3. try to link each cite up with the actual assertion it is verifying.
  • I have been working for almost two years now I think on a history article, and people are screaming at me for violating 1) and 3) above (but pushing me to add more cites in the lede, since assertions are allegedly controversial or whatever). So the article I'm working on has the same potential concerns that this does, but this one is multiple times worse. So:
  1. How many cites match with each assertion? If it's more than 2, go to Google Scholar, find the ones that are closest in relevance to your assertion and with the most real world, off-wiki cites, eg " Cited by 310", and use those.
  2. Do we really need any cites at all in the lede? Keep only the smallest amount you can without arousing the ire of "medical people", eg, support only controversial assertions
  3. I love bundled cites, you love bundled cites, but I bundle cite only a few sources and only for one or at most two sentences. You bundle cite for the whole paragraph. Even I, the guy who loves bundled cites, think that's unacceptable. Try to match the supporting cite with the assertion it supports. If the assertion is non-controversial, it doesn't need to be supported in the lede, but almost certainly does need to be supported in body text. Does that make sense? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've deleted every citation in the lead (this seems like a very bad idea to me, but whatever) and unbundled the 1 citation that I mentioned above. The only citation that I can't unbundle is the 1 remaining one with 6 references since I previously pruned that one down as much as possible when the issue of multiple citations arose at the GA review. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Would you like me to make any other changes? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I certainly didn't say delete every cite in the lede. I said choose them well and choose them carefully, and match the cite to the specific assertion it supports, and in the lede cite only those things that medical editors would dispute.
  • Has someone checked your sources for WP:RS? I mentioned above that you cite a link to a conference (as just one example!), even tho that link offers no supporting text. Are there similar problems elsewhere in the text? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You stated Do we really need any cites at all in the lede? The simplest solution to your objection is to delete them all.
    • A number of medical editors have checked the medical sources for WP:MEDRS – which most of the statements in the article require – a number of times over the course of all 4 FAC nominations. As for the handful (10-ish) refs that only require WP:RS for citing only non-medical claims, I don't think so. In any event, that "conference" reference you're referring to is not citing a conference. It's citing text on a webpage which is about a conference. It cites nothing from the conference itself because I have no clue what was discussed in said conference. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      If you'd like, I can ping some of those editors who reviewed the sources against WP:MEDRS if you want their input. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to ping anyone. You just need to assert that your cites have been checked. if you do that, it relieves me of the responsibility of worrying about it.. But BTW, if you "have no clue what was discussed in said conference", then why the heck are you citing it???? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sounds good. After going through the list of references, it doesn't look like I added any new non-medical sources since the last FAC, so I'm pretty sure all of them have been manually checked for WP:RS. I know for certain that all medical sources have been checked for WP:MEDRS compliance. As for that citation about a conference, it's not a citation to a conference; it's a citation to a webpage. This webpage discusses a conference. I'm not sure why you keep saying it's a citation to a conference. The quote parameter in the corresponding citation template for that reference only contains text from the webpage. FWIW, this particular citation was mentioned at a previous FAC in this link when Jytdog and I were discussing how to phrase the coverage of HMB-containing medical foods and their uses as well as what references should be used to cite that content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you cite.. a webpage announcing a conference... when 1) that website contains zero supporting text for any assertion in the article, and 2) You have no idea what was said in the conference??? is that more clear? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by that website contains zero supporting text for any assertion in the article? The only text from that webpage which is being used to support any statement in the article is the text in the citation's quote parameter. For simplicity, I'll re-quote that text here: "Dr. Nissen and his collaborator Dr. Naji N. Abumrad, Professor and Chair, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, discovered beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyrate (HMB) and its beneficial effects on human health and performance. HMB is currently marketed nationally by Abbott Laboratories as Revigor™, which is a component of Ensure® Muscle Health, and Juven®, which is a nutritional beverage that is clinically shown to promote healing after injury or surgery." Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me summarize, unfortunately at length: 1) I use bundled cites, so you may accuse me of hypocrisy, but I think your use of bundled cites is way overboard. Choose the very best sources available, and match the cite to the corresponding assertion. You can't add eight or nine cites to the end of an entire paragraph when the eight cites are covering seven different assertions. 2) You didn't need to delete everything, most especially if you think medical editors would complain about the deletion. [Please mentally add an exclamation point after that statement]. You needed to choose the very best sources available, and match the cite to the corresponding assertion. 3) In general, when some reviewer complains about something and the nominator "suddenly deletes everything", it makes me nervous. That response doesn't seem carefully thought out at all.... if you can suddenly delete it without harming the article, then why was it in there in the first place? 4) I find it difficult to believe that any non-Wikipedia publication would accept text from "a webpage announcing a conference, with a two-sentence blurb about its history" as a WP:RS or WP:MEDRS source. 5) When I see one source that I think is very shaky, and it's cited four times, that makes me wonder, "Are there more such?" 6) But if all the WP:MED editors are OK with all of that, then I will take their word for it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. The reason I didn't mind deleting the end-of-paragraph references is that each sentence in the lead is fully cited in the source of the article (you'll see what I mean if you examine the source of the lead). Fully re-citing the lead only requires that I decensor those censored refs (note that after the last sentence of each paragraph, I censored the bundled reference markup in the source - I wouldn't decensor that if I decensored the sentence-by-sentence refs). I can decensor those lead refs once I'm back on my laptop in a couple of hours if you'd prefer that sentence-by-sentence citation approach (please let me know if so!). TBH, I prefer citing each lead sentence over citing each lead paragraph; I only cited it by paragraph because other reviewers have complained about sentence-by-sentence lead citations in the past. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do whatever medical articles typically do. I find it difficult to believe that medical articles bundle many cites at the end of a paragraph, even though different cites/sources in the bundle refer to different sentences and different assertions... but if they do, then do so. Heck, the dinosaur people seem to cite to a 50-page range and say "yawn, whatever", which I find quite literally shocking (except in a few cases). But if they say whatever, then hell, whatever. And if the medical people think it's OK to cite to a webpage announcing a conference, then whatever... And if the cites in the lede are covered in body text, then delting them from the lede is the correct thing to do unless they are controversial. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Most medical articles cite the medical claims in lead and use sentence-by-sentence citations as opposed to the grouped end-of-paragraph citations that was being used here. I dislike the end-of-paragraph method. The only reason I used that method is that every other time I nominate an article at FAC and cite individual lead sentences in the nominated article, a reviewer comes along and opposes solely on the basis of the lead's non-compliance with their preference for no lead citations. Neither the FA criteria, nor MOS:LEADCITE, say "don't fully cite the lead" or "don't cite every lead sentence". But, since FAC is based upon consensus, I end up making compromises that result in awkward citation styles like end-of-paragraph citations.
      Anyway, I doubt anyone will come around to object to the sentence-by-sentence format before this nomination closes if I restore it now, so I'll go ahead and do that shortly.
      FWIW, I agree that citing a 50-page range is absurd. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lingzhi: Done. Please let me know if you find the current lead citation format acceptable. I'm open to removing the citations to non-medical claims, although I would prefer to fully cite the lead. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nolo contendere I give up. The problem is not that I don't know what I'm doing; the problem is that Wikipedia has no fucking idea what it's doing. And things "work" only because there really is nothing that says what works or doesn't work, so only the loudest voice or voices always win (not naming names from personal experience, for fear of being blocked, but here I am not talking about the dinosaur editors), which is the same thing as saying it doesn't actually work at all, it just pretends to work, and everyone goes along and pretends it does work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b some ref
  2. ^ a b another ref
  3. ^ a b final ref
  4. ^ Reference set: [1][2][3]

Comments by Jo-Jo Eumerus edit

Image review:
  1. File:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid.svg: License and use seem fine for me.
  2. File:Calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate.jpg: License and use seem fine for me. I wonder where the caption comes from.
  3. File:Muscle protein synthesis signaling cascades.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, and caption is reasonably sourced. I wonder though, is it mammalian target of rapamycin or mechanistic target of rapamycin? My impression is that "mammalian" is much more widely used, despite our article title thinking otherwise.
  4. File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 2.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
  5. File:HMB biosynthesis and metabolism diagram - no labels.svg: Use and factual accuracy seem fine for me; I wonder if it's correct to license a work derived from a CC-BY2.0 image under CC-BY4.0.
  6. File:Butyric acid carbons.svg: License and use seem fine for me.
  7. File:Hydroxymethylbutyric acid.png: License and use seem fine for me.
  8. File:HMB synthesis historical.svg and File:HMB synthesis 2.svg: License and use seem fine for me; may want to consider to copy part of the article text into the file page so that the image is sourced there as well.
The chemical diagrams don't have ALT text, I presume for complexity reasons? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The caption is based upon my measurement of the capsule size (NB: I uploaded this image) and the ingredients listed on the supplement bottle.
  4. mammalian-TOR and mechanistic-TOR are unofficial synonyms for the currently accepted UNIPROT name of "Serine/threonine-protein kinase mTOR"; per MOS:MCB, article titles should be listed under the current UNIPROT name. Based upon a pubmed search, most sources use "mammalian" as opposed to "mechanistic", however most of the sources in the article use "mechanistic" when referring to the protein or protein complexes (i.e., mTORC1/mTORC2), so I chose to use this term instead.
  6. Given that I had to manually redraw every line in this image in inkscape (NB: I didn't use an automated trace module on the original image file), shifted a number of lines in subsequent uploads (~20 based upon the file history), and completely redrew the bottom half of this diagram, I think it would be difficult for the original author to claim that it's a derivative work. E.g., if you superimposed the original diagram on top of this diagram and set its opacity to 50%, you would see that the line segments in these diagrams don't align. Frankly, I think it's more likely that this image falls within the public domain given that it is literally just a graphic containing rather arbitrarily placed line segments.
  • Will do this soon and respond here once this has been done.
    Re – the image alt text: all of the images in this article actually have alt text and captions; if you were looking at the alt text link in the FA toolbox, it wouldn't show this because most of the images in the article are displayed in templates ({{infobox drug}}, {{multiple image}}, or {{Annotated image 4}}) that bork the altviewer tool. The chemical structure diagrams in the infobox have alt text but not individual captions (NB: they do have a footer caption though). The chemical structure and chemical synthesis diagrams in the chemistry section are displayed using {{Multiple image}}, which doesn't display alt text captions in the altviewer tool. All 4 of those images do have alt text and captions though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 5, Since it is BY only (not sharealike) can license it under whatever as long as attribution is given.. (but anyhow older versions of CC licenses can be relicensed into newer versions) Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like it's all set then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've uploaded File:HMB biosynthesis and metabolism diagram.png and used the template caption as the description on the file page. I also mentioned a third metabolic pathway that I didn't depict due to the fact that most of the associated enzymes are not known. This png version is currently only used in ja:3-ヒドロキシイソ吉草酸 and d:Q223081. I intend to upload an SVG version that contains image text within the next week. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a template for Wikimedia screenshots that should probably be applied, but I can't find it now... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ​ c:Template:Wikimedia-screenshot - google works well enough; I'm not sure if it is necessary though Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha. I hadn't even considered that; text on WP is indeed licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0, although it seems sort of odd to change the licensing in this case because the relevant text is really just a bunch of nouns (+1 adjective and verb+preposition). Since I'm the sole author of everything depicted in the PNG image though, I'm pretty sure I can just implicitly multi-license the WP text that I wrote in that image as public domain (see Wikipedia:Multi-licensing) by listing only that copyright license for the SVG background file as the license for that PNG file (i.e., the text is PD and the background is CC-BY-4.0, so the whole image is CC-BY-4.0). That said, this will be a moot issue in a week since I intend to save the PNG conversion of the SVG image and reupload it over the current PNG image file. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by DePiep edit

    • The infobox says: Molar mass 118.131 g/mol
    Wikidata beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid (Q223081) says 118.063 dalton, (from PubChem).

    If you have a source for the infobox value, that would be best. I have reasons to doubt the PubChem calculations, since their atomic weights differ from the standard ones (compared). -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • About licence (US, EU).
    On the FDA site I found no hits (trying variants of Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid): FDA
    On the EMA site I found no hits (trying variants of Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid): EMA (should hit by INN, INN variants like 'acid' might be relevant).
    An Green tickY then for: no FDA and EMA presence. (Others do check me). -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for reviewing DePiep. HMB is not currently licensed as a pharmaceutical, so I wouldn't expect it to have an entry on the FDA or EMA websites.
    PubChem lists a molar mass of 118.132, ChemSpider lists 118.131, and HMDB lists 118.1311 (4 sig figs). It would seem that the molecular weight, rounded to 3 significant figures, is probably 118.131. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So the infobox best uses ChemSpider + add its ref. PubChem values and Wikidata values are fishy (so outside of this FAC, if not used). And I suggest: no more time spending on this. -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the chemspider ref to that drugbox field. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Dank edit

    • I haven't usually been doing prose reviews for biochem articles, and there's some question in my mind whether I have anything useful to add to the process. I occasionally follow biophysics (not the same thing, I know). But biochemistry articles are sometimes failing for lack of support; I see this one is on its 4th go-around. A prose review can help with that problem ... provided I can come up with something useful to say, and I don't embarrass myself in the process. We'll see.
    • I made a couple of edits that got rid of "however"; see if those edits make sense to you, and feel free to discuss.
    • "KIC dioxygenase": I'm not following why that's italicized.
    • "This concentration is far too low to be an adequate dietary source of HMB for obtaining pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood plasma, but milk products could be fortified with HMB to confer benefits to skeletal muscle.": The last sentence of the abstract says "fortification of milk and dairy products with HMB and/or HICA appears to be justified." Recommending that bovine milk be fortified with HMB, presumably for some medical food or even for general consumption, is quite a jump from "there's not much HMB in bovine milk". Do they justify that recommendation in the article?
    • "which subsequently acquired six HMB-related patents": What does "subsequently" mean here?
    • I'm personally on board with the frequent use of "e.g.", but others may have a different view.
    • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking on a review of the prose!
    • I've removed the italics from KIC dioxygenase. I don't remember why I originally italicized it.
    • I'll look into the source about food fortification and respond back when I've done so.
      • Re - the paper about food (milk) fortification w/ HMB: the introduction describes the clinical effects of HMB on muscle protein metabolism (NB: the coverage of this is a brief summary of what was covered in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Medical and Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Enhancing performance) and then states: "The presence of naturally occurring levels of HMB and HICA in milk and fermented dairy products has not been reported to date. Because milk and fermented dairy products are widely consumed, they are potentially suitable media for fortification with HMB and/or HICA in order to deliver the above-described physiological benefits."
        In the last section ("Results and discussion"), the paper says, "On the basis of existing clinical studies and largely musculoskeletal outcome measures, the endogenous concentrations of HMB and HICA found by this study are insufficient by large margins to deliver any physiological benefits. Hence the opportunity arises for the fortification of milk, milk-based nutritional products, and fermented dairy products with HMB and/or HICA."
        You can view the full-text of this article by following this link. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I skimmed it, and then deleted "but milk products could be fortified with HMB to confer benefits to skeletal muscle" ... the safety and benefits of HMB aren't addressed by this study at all, so it's not a basis for recommending that milk ought to be fortified with HMB (which is the conclusion some readers would be left with). - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • which subsequently acquired six HMB-related patents – A synonym for that context would be "later". It's just being used to say that the company wasn't established at the same time that all of the patents were acquired.
    FWIW, I appreciate the edits you made to the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, glad I could help. I'll ping you when I get stuck on a biophysics article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Soupvector edit

    Overall, I think this is a well-written, well-referenced, very interesting article. My comments here will focus on the medical uses section.

    Regarding the first sentence of Uses / Medical (also reflected in the lede) Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are intended to be used to provide nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional.[sources 4] - the cited sources don't appear to be MEDRS. The Nature Medicine ref (Khamsi 2013) has the superficial appearance of being substantial, but is just a news item. The Iowa State ref (Linn 2013) is an Abbott-sponsored conference proceeding; the other 2 refs under ref note 4 are Abbott-produced documents. Surely this is insufficient for medical claims, particularly in the Uses/Medical section of a FAC? There are other references that note the benefits of HMB+glutamine+arginine - but do any of them attribute the benefits to HMB itself?

    Overall, the Uses / Medical reads (and is sourced) like an article about Juven and Ensure - but we have those already. Is there biomedical consensus that HMB, specifically, has efficacy for these medical uses? If not, this might be a stronger FAC if the medical claims were pared back to what the MEDRS support - that products containing HMB have evidence of safety and benefit for fat-free mass (with links to the Ensure, Juven, etc articles), but the specific benefits of HMB for these applications are not known (are they?). One potential mitigation: refer to "HMB-containing supplements" rather than "supplementation with HMB" - especially in the lead - unless the latter has MEDRS support. — soupvector (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: I think you may want to comment on this since you worked with me in the 1st/2nd FACs to expand the content on this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the article on Juven, that was created after this content was added to the HMB article simply because it was readily apparent that the topic was notable from the refs that were cited in the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Will follow up on this tomorrow; sorry for the delay in responding. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about the late follow-up!
    I figured Jytdog would comment, but I'll just go ahead and summarize the reasoning behind why the medical food-related content was worded/cited as it is at the moment:
    • In the United States and EU, medical foods are regulated differently relative to food and dietary supplements. In the US, medical foods have 3 requirements; they must be: (1) a product that can be ingested or administered via a feeding tube, (2) labeled for the dietary management of a specific medical disorder, disease or condition for which there are distinctive nutritional requirements, and (3) intended to be used under medical supervision.
    • The sentence "Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods that are intended to be used to provide nutritional support under the care of a doctor in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer, to promote wound healing following surgery or injury, or when otherwise recommended by a medical professional" isn't actually making any claims about the efficacy of Juven and certain Ensure formulations for the listed uses; if you compare this sentence to requirements (2) and (3) listed above, you'll notice that it's worded in a manner that reflects the definition of a medical food in the context of Juven and "Ensure Enlive". In other words, this sentence was very precisely worded in a manner that states only the aspects of those two products (Juven and Ensure Enlive) that cause them to be regulated as a medical food. Consequently, this sentence is really just making a regulatory claim about a medical use.
      If you still take issue with the wording in that sentence though, I'm fine with cutting the clause that lists the factors that cause those products to be regulated as medical foods. In other words, the sentence would be written as: "Some branded products that contain HMB (i.e., certain formulations of Ensure and Juven) are medical foods."
    • As for MEDRS-compliant source which support the efficacy of the uses which are listed in that sentence:
      • to promote wound healing following surgery or injury – I have come across a handful of reviews that mentioned Juven's use/efficacy for wound healing; but, given that the underlying clinical trials of Juven for wound healing are limited to a small number of trials that each involved a distinct type of wound (e.g., surgery, a burn, an ulcer, etc.), the results of these trials can't be aggregated. In other words, I'd essentially have to summarize the results of individual clinical trials by wound type. I'd prefer not to do that since it'd require an entire paragraph of coverage, which would be excessive given the comparatively small amount of research on this use relative to the other uses that are listed in that section (i.e., Juven for AIDS/HIV & cancer and HMB for sarcopenia).
      • ... in individuals with muscle wasting due to HIV/AIDS or cancer – the efficacy of Juven for these uses is covered in the 1st paragraph of the "Medical" section; all of those efficacy statements are cited by a review, systematic review, or meta-analysis.
    • To clarify what research has been conducted with Juven vs HMB alone to assess their efficacy for preserving lean body mass in a particular condition:
      • Juven – most of the clinical research involves individuals with cachexia (e.g., cachexia due to cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other causes)
      • HMB alone – most of the clinical research involves older adults with sarcopenia; virtually all of the studies that assessed the efficacy of HMB in healthy individuals for the uses listed in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Enhancing performance have used HMB by itself, not Juven or a combination product.
      • In the "Medical" section, Juven's efficacy for various conditions is covered only in the 1st paragraph, whereas the efficacy of HMB alone for various conditions is covered only in the 2nd paragraph.
    I hope that clarifies things. If you'd like me to make the changes I described in the 2nd bullet above, let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the article provide support for HMB itself for these conditions? Setting aside performance, which was not the focus of my concern, is there a scientific consensus (to which we can point) stating that HMB is the active ingredient to which the benefit can be ascribed, or is it just one of the ingredients? I would guess that we won't ascribe, in articles for each of the ingredients of Juven, all of the benefits attributed to Juven? You again cite support for Juven, but Juven isn't the subject of this FAC. — soupvector (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the article provide support for HMB itself for these conditions? ... is there a scientific consensus (to which we can point) stating that HMB is the active ingredient to which the benefit can be ascribed, or is it just one of the ingredients? Yes, provided that the sentence refers to "HMB" and not "Juven". If a sentence about efficacy mentions "Juven" and not "HMB", then it has not been established that HMB alone has efficacy for treating the listed condition. All of the reviews/meta-analyses in "Medical" have reference quotes containing the relevant statements from the ref which support the assertions about treatment efficacy for a given condition, so you'll be able to verify this quite easily; however, statements like "more research is needed to determine efficacy for XYZ" don't have corresponding quotes in their citations since I didn't think that was necessary. To be clear, dozens of studies have examined the efficacy of HMB alone for various medical conditions and roughly 20 studies have examined the efficacy of Juven for various conditions.
    The reason that Juven was mentioned at all in this article is that a number of reviews on the medical uses of HMB have discussed Juven at length (i.e., they usually include several paragraphs on studies that were conducted with Juven). In other words, Juven is notable in relation to HMB; if that weren't true, reviews about HMB wouldn't mention Juven or "HMB/ARG/GLN" mixtures. It's not unusual for articles on drugs to cover the treatment efficacy of combination products which contain them; e.g., bupropion is a featured article that contains a dedicated subsection – Bupropion#Obesity – about the use of bupropion/naltrexone for treating obesity (NB: bupropion is not FDA-approved for treating obesity or even commonly prescribed off-label for that purpose). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I continue to have the sense that this is about Juven and not HMB. Neither the article nor your responses here demonstrate to me that HMB itself is the active agent. Are we going to add all of these claims to the ARG and GLN articles as well, or should we reserve medical claims for the combinations that are actually supported in the MEDRS? I don't want to wade too far into WP:OSE, but your reference to bupropion is illustrative: the first sentence in that section cites a MEDRS that states (as a specific conclusion) that bupropion is effective as a treatment for obesity. Can we do the same for HMB? — soupvector (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I thought you were asking for my assessment of the sources that are cited in the medical section, not links to them. One of the sources cited in the 2nd paragraph is PMID 26169182 - the abstract alone sufficiently answers your second question.
    As for the first question, I don't see why Juven shouldn't be covered in the glutamate and arginine articles. Adding coverage of medical foods in relevant WP articles isn't a priority for me though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I needed - it's not a top-line finding in that review, but they do mention cancer and AIDS wasting as specific conditions that are ameliorated by HMB. Thanks. — soupvector (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by T.Shafee edit

    I've only minor comments, since others have mentioned everything else I'd noticed.

    • Some of the quotes in the references may be overly long,, but I don't think it's a big problem.
    • The image pair of File:Butyric_acid_carbons.svg and File:Hydroxymethylbutyric_acid.png should both be a little smaller in order to better match the text size elsewhere.
    • The greek letters in image File:Butyric_acid_carbons.svg should probably be a little larger.
    • I noted above, but will repeat here for easier reading, that the "References" and "Reference notes" sections should probably be merged. For example: my references are this,[1] this,[2] these,[4] and this.[3] (which uses the code {{refn|Reference set: <ref name="ref1"/><ref name="ref2"/><ref name="ref3"/>}}. It at least puts all the references into the same list so are easier to read.

    References

    1. ^ a b some ref
    2. ^ a b another ref
    3. ^ a b final ref
    4. ^ Reference set: [1][2][3]

    Overall, a very clear and well-written article. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    HMB with larger Greek letters
    Would this version be responsive? — soupvector (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I slightly revised File:Butyric acid carbons 2.svg and uploaded a version of the HMB structure diagram (File:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid 2.svg) with line sizes that are identical to the butyric acid carbons diagram. I replace both of the images that were in that section with these two images since File:Butyric acid carbons 2.svg looks better than File:Butyric acid carbons.svg and has enlarged greek letters.
    With respect to the size of the letters "OH"/"HO" in these diagrams: after looking at all the svg files used in the article, I noticed that the size of the letters relative to the lines in those 2 structure diagrams is actually very similar to the other structure/synthesis diagrams; so, I think it might look awkward if those diagrams had smaller letters if I don't make a similar change in the other structure/synthesis diagrams. I did reduce the size of these images from 250px to 235px though; if I reduce it any further, the captions will end up wrapping to a new line (NB: it looks awkward), which is something I'd like to avoid.
    As for the references, the main reason I separated the grouped references from the reference list is that the references section doesn't appear well-formatted IMO when they're combined. As an alternative, I could change [sources #] to [ref note #] if you think that would remove the potential for confusion that you mentioned above. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work with the diagrams. These sorts of referencing situations are always tricky, so I'm happy to stick with your solution. I support the current version for FA. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Barbara Page edit

    I'm helping to review this article and have a tendency to simply fix an issue rather than leave megabytes of comment on the review page. I will list the things that I have noted about the article and have or have not edited.

    • one of the templates on the bottom of the article displayed in its fully expanded form; I have it now displaying in the collapsed form to be consistent with the other templates.
    • these foods are mentioned but not linked to articles- alfalfa, asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, grapefruit, and catfish. Is there a reason for this?
    • I added more categories. If there is a problem, let me know.
    • There are many duplicate links. Since I am not heavily experienced in the FA process, perhaps there is a reason for so many duplicates. Can you explain that? (not my inexperience but the many duplicate links)
    • Did you take a quick look at the article in the other languages to see if there other references that could be used in this article? I don't think that is required, I am only curious.
    Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 13:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barbara (WVS): Sorry for the long-delayed reply. I've been very busy off-wiki lately.
    • Collapsing that navbox seems fine.
    • I don't really think it's useful to wikilink to those. Wikilinking catfish is potentially useful simply because it's comparatively less common in Western diets.
    • The two ageing-related categories probably aren't that relevant here, but I think the other three you added are apt.
    • Normally, there should be at most 1 link per term in the lead prose and 1 link per term in the body prose; that doesn't apply to wikilinked terms in infoboxes, tables, and captions though - just the prose.
    • The last time I looked at the HMB articles in non-English Wikipedias, they were all very short and most cited outdated sources. If one of the HMB articles on a non-English Wikipedia were GA/FA-class (or similarly rated for quality), it probably would've been a good idea to go through them though.
    Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am quite satisfied with your responses and would be very pleased to see this article promoted to Featured Article status. It is certainly the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It now exists as the best resource online on this topic. The Best of Regards to you, Barbara ✐  ✉ 01:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your support Barbara. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dudley edit

    • Support and minor suggestions.
    • I would wikilink sarcopenic, hypercatabolic, cachexia.
    • p=.08 Is it possible to explain this simply - 8% probability that the result was due to chance?
      • Given this is not statistically significant and from a primary source, I've proposed this should just be removed, especially given there are lots of high quality secondary sources used in the article, and that we are talking about FA. What do you think @Dudley Miles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information about when HMB related patents expire would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look tomorrow and add this info if I can find it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked yesterday, but couldn't seem to find anything from google. I'm certain that the patent expiry information is available somewhere, but I'm not sure how to find it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll try again later when I have more time - the US patent office's website probably includes it somewhere. I agree that this is relevant & notable information that's worth adding to the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Boghog: Do you have any thoughts on where I might find the expiry dates for the six HMB-related patents that are mentioned in the article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • The short answer: In the US, granted date + 17 years. I will try to find an explicit source that talks about the expiration dates of these specific patents. If we can't find explicit source, we will have to rely on WP:CALC. Boghog (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Absent a compelling need to invent patent expiration dates, I would avoid adding them if not apparent in RS; that they "would be helpful" might be true, but only if accurate. Patent expiration is a process, not a carved-in-stone event; often subject to vagaries of patent law and litigation. — soupvector (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, as far as I can tell, the patents in question have not even been granted yet:
    • There is no guarantee that any of these patent applications will be granted, hence it way too premature to talk about expiration dates. Boghog (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for looking into that Boghog. Since that's the case, I suppose it's best to leave the history section as is. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the patents have not been granted, the history section is wrong to say that MTI acquired patents and should be amended. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The source that supports the statement about six patents says ""Metabolic Technologies took out six patents on HMB and licensed the right to manufacture it and to cite Nissen's research to several sports supplement brands."; if "took out" means "applied for", I suppose this can be addressed by just tweaking the verb in that sentence. However, based upon Boghog's patent search results link, there appears to now be 10 patent applications by Metabolic Technologies which include HMB in the patent title. I can't seem to find an indication on that website of whether or not those patents were approved/granted though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Metabolic Technologies website indicates that they currently hold and enforce multiple HMB-related patents. [8][9] It doesn't indicate the exact number, but it's more than 3 based upon the first link. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • In digging further, it does appear that the following patents have been granted to Metabolic Technologies:
    • US patent 8815280, Rathmacher J, Fuller J, Baier S, Nissen S, Abumrad N, "Nutritional intervention for improving muscular function and strength", issued August 26, 2014, assigned to Metabolic Technologies. 
    • US patent 9259430, Rathmacher J, Fuller J, Baier S, Nissen S, Abumrad N, "Nutritional intervention for improving muscular function and strength", issued February 16, 2016, assigned to Metabolic Technologies. 
    • US patent 9539224, Rathmacher J, Fuller J, Baier S, Nissen S, Abumrad N, "Nutritional intervention for improving muscular function and strength", issued January 10, 2017, assigned to Metabolic Technologies. 
    • US patent 9707241, Rathmacher J, Fuller J, Baier S, Nissen S, Abumrad N, "Nutritional intervention for improving muscular function and strength", issued July 18, 2017, assigned to Metabolic Technologies. 
    • US patent 9770424, Rathmacher J, Fuller J, Baier S, Nissen S, Abumrad N, "Nutritional intervention for improving muscular function and strength", issued September 26, 2017, assigned to Metabolic Technologies. 
    Boghog (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing comment: This has had a very thorough review and I shall be promoting shortly. After promotion, I'd be grateful if someone could check for duplinks. We seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. But that isn't worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2018 [10].

    Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort) edit

    Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about the Hogwarts Express attraction that connects both parks at the Universal Orlando Resort. Dom497 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I corrected one typo. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, since this review began, three new images were added, which are listed below:

    All three are from Flikr and have appropriate licenses. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • General: In a number of instances you have included sometimes lengthy quotations from the sources. These are unnecessary, especially where you have links to the source. They merely add clutter, and I recommend you delete them.
    @Sladen: Could you please explain why you added some of the quotations?--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sladen: It's been 20 days. I know you don't want to reply but please do just for the interest of the review. Also just as a FYI, I honestly don't remember if I took part in some conversation years ago about including these quotations. Maybe I agreed to them; you're good at finding this stuff so if I did agree maybe you can find it. However, even if I did agree then, present day me is in favour of removing them as suggested by the reviewer.--Dom497 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:CITE#Additional annotations help to preserve the WP:INTEGRITY of the article, regardless of the number of edits from editors with a theme-park background. Many of the explicit quotes were added in response to queries from editors about not being able to a particular, so the exact wording was often added in the |quote= to assist in surface those words directly to the editor/s requesting clarification. Having these quotes there works several ways:
    • Our readers have the opportunity to read what the sources actually stated eg. about the reasons for its creation, purpose, and construction—regardless of how many intermediate edits have been made.
    • First time editors to the article may take the slight extra the effort to read these most important snippets, hopefully taking on aboard what the sources state the background and rationale. This perhaps helps with discouraging edits based pureply on presumptions stemming from seeing that the locations of the end stations happen to a join the borders of two theme parks.
    • With articles that have a habit of moving/disappearing and foreign language citations, having the wording has enabled the citations to stay (or the new URL to be found). Without those clues the citation would have been lost, along with the hard information it brings to the article.
    • WP:INTEGRITY: the content can be kept better aligned with the citations, and citations to be moved back to the correct text after periods of enthusiastic editing.
    • Per WP:Readers first our readers will get what they actually need to know, without the risk of being mislead, or the mistrust resulting—such as showing up to one of the theme-parks and finding that a normal ride ticket (quite understandably) doesn't work…, and if they do "enter the ride", finding out they ended up somewhere different with no easy way back.
    Many articles do not need this level of citation detail. This one has.proved its worth. It would appear that Dom497 was accepting of the value of some of these citations, based on Special:Diff/672517555/672519450. An explanation for the hesitation in answering this was individually explained to Dom497 in Special:Diff/824462005. —Sladen (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 2: The retrieval date is given in British format – should be consistent with the others.
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 7: Why is this source reliable? I am somwhat put off by the following, from the "about" link: "While this page is called “About Us”, Screamscape.com is really the work of just one person: myself. While I have lots of help from people who sent in information from around the world and from my good friend Mark who covers events for me on the West Coast, the work on the Screamscape website is done entirely by me." This does not suggest a high-level, quality source with appropriate editorial supervision.
    The use of these sources are only meant to support information regarding rumours. For example, Screamscape was reporting on rumours about this future attraction and the reference is only used to support these kinds of statements. Sources like this (including Screamscape) are used in both SheiKra and Falcon's Fury which are both Featured Articles.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not clear as to why statements that are "only meant to support information regarding rumours" can be acceptably cited to inferior sources. The fact that this source is used in earlier FACs is not relevant here – neither of those articles you mention had anything like a rigorous sources review during their various FACs. My advice is to remove or replace the source, but I won't labour the point if other editors don't object to your reasoning. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianboulton: Rumours aren't typically reported by the media because they are just rumours. As crazy as it sounds, in the theme park world, Screamscape is one of the most reliable rumour sites out there. Theme parks (such as Universal and Disney World) will also often invite Lance (the person who runs the site) to get a preview of new attractions.
    The sentence that the Screamscape source is referencing is: "During the same month, speculation arose that an expansion would include the Hogwarts Express to connect Hogsmeade in Islands of Adventure and Diagon Alley in Universal Studios Florida"
    I think having the Screamscape reference for this and only this sentence is acceptable because the sentence is just stating that "speculation arose" (the reference shows that Scremascape published some rumours about a possible Hogwarts Express attraction). If there is a consensus that Screamscape is not acceptable, I don't have an issue removing the sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For what its worth, the LA Times has previously used Screamscape to get some of their information as well.--Dom497 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 8: I have similar concerns about the reliability of "Parkscope"
    I have removed the sentence that this reference was referring to since it was not being used to reference rumours.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    nb. removed in Special:Diff/822549080 which linked to the construction permits for "South Station", "North Station", and "Connector"
    Brianboulton, background to this is at Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1#Planning applications. Originally the article cited the official information (planning documents and permits) directly. The blog content arrived after the hard cites had been removed in Special:Diff/669712807 and Special:Diff/671704082 (both by Dom497). Perhaps the low-quality of the Parkscope cite may be solvable by removing the blog links and restoring the original text and detailed citations… Suggestions welcomed, would be happy to go ahead with this solution. Please can you give a yes if you're happy with this too. —Sladen (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've done your best to deal with my various concerns, and I won't ask that you do more. Happy to sign of the source review at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Using any of the sources listed at the discussion Sladen linked to would be unwise since none of them have any evidence that the permits had anything to do with the Hogwarts Express.--Dom497 (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we are being asked to accept (make an exception for) the Parkscope and Screamscape blogs that rely on those permits/applications/official communications for reporting "rumours" covering the demolition, grading, construction of two stations and connector train track. But not the actuality of the demolition, grading, construction of two stations and connector train track themselves. This is quite an interesting logical puzzle. Which of these actually serves our readers in enabling them to find and read useful hard information?—Brianboulton, independent input would be really appreciated. —Sladen (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I never suggested we use Parkscope. That source should have never been included in the article (that's on me). I am unable to find any evidence that the permits Parkscope linked to actually had anything to do with the Hogwarts Express. Therefore using the permits at all would fall under Original Research.--Dom497 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 25: As the main link isn't working, I advise you to change the url to that in the archive link
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 31: The publisher, more correctly, is "About travel"
     Done It looks like the entire "branding" has changed. I've updated accordingly.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 39: Can you check that this is the intended link page, and if it is, can you indicated where your given headline is found?
     Done The episode is no longer available online so I removed the link.--Dom497 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Really done |archive-url= added for the textual content in Special:Diff/825963274 plus new updated NBC links for the video contents. —Sladen (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Brianboulton (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Old sources review edit

    I've noticed that a major point of contention between the nominator (Dom497) and the article's original creator (Sladen) is related to sources that were used in the article previously, but have since been removed. If you like, add links to those old sources in this section (direct links to them, not links to old versions of the article) and I will tell you whether they "cut the mustard", based on my own experience going through FA reviews. I will also give specific reasons for why I think each source is suitable or unsuitable to be in the article. I should also mention that I don't want to see any finger-pointing in this section. Just add the links and nothing else, please. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Jackdude101. I'll start this off with a question. Are unreliable sources allowed in "Further Reading" sections?--Dom497 (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but none of the links in the Further reading section appear to be unreliable. I'll give my two cents about each one below:
    A.H. (17 April 2015). "A High Technology Nostalgic Experience" (PDF). Seilbahnen International (NSAA/National Ski Areas Association exhibition ed.). pp. 17–24. 168-FUL: Project 722-C: Hogwarts Express … Number of places per trains: 168 p. [originally targetted] Carrying capacity 1,747 p/h … idea of linking both parks. … considered various means of transportation. Then, one day, the idea to use the Hogwarts Express hit home … every seven minutes the train starts … 4 1⁄2 minute train ride … 2 trains consisting of 1 locomotive, 1 tender and 3 coaches for 56 passengers and one attendant each … More than 70 percent of the cables serve show effects in the 42 compartments
    • This one is a published magazine with tons of legit technical info about the ride. Why is it not used as a source in the article body? It should be taken out of this section and incorporated as a source in the article.
    Sim, Nick (October 12, 2014). "The 5 Strangest Secrets of Universal's Hogwarts Express". Retrieved June 30, 2015.
    • At first glance, this source did not look reliable, but upon further examination, it is. The admin is described as the editor-in-chief and they have a team of writers, which is a clear indication that their articles have editorial oversight. It could probably be moved from this section and used as a source in the article, too.
    Interior and exterior design plans for King's Cross station:
    • These design drawings are interesting, and the author describes them as being copyrighted by Universal Creative, but I would not use them as sources just to be safe. They don't appear to be unreliable, though, so a compromise would be to keep them where they are, in the Further reading section. As long as they are not used as sources, I don't think many people will protest these being linked there.
    There you have it. Jackdude101 talk cont 22:02, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101: Ok. I've written articles and op-ed's for Theme Park Tourist just by emailing Nick. I've written this, this, and this. My point is that anyone can technically write articles on that website about anything they want. Nick lets you write them after talking to him about it. He then does a grammar edit on it and posts it. As much as it says that Nick Sim wrote that article linked in "Further Readings", he is technically the author of the third article I linked to that I wrote; therefore it's impossible to know who actually wrote it.--Dom497 (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I'm assuming you were looking at this page? I don't see how this page shows that the contributes are in anyway credible; let alone this page says the website is currently run by one person (Natalie....which is who? A credible reporter or a volunteer?). You should also consider the fact that Screamscape is run by a "team" and posts stuff from random people that email him (Lance; the equivalent of Nick Sim or Natalie). That source was removed because it was deemed unreliable. If TPT is reliable than shouldn't Screamscape be as well? As a side note, theme parks often invite Lance for special events and the LA Times have even referenced his work (but no reliable publisher has ever referenced TPT).--Dom497 (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dom497: The thing where Nick used to grammar edit submissions counts as editorial oversight. I say "used to" because it looks like he died in 2016. Natalie is his widow, who co-ran the website with him and is now the editor-in-chief. The key difference between between TPT and Screamscape is how they present their information. TPT presents things as individual articles with their own dedicated pages. Screamscape on the other hand has one long page for each major park and every new piece of info is simply added to the appropriate long page. In short, TPT looks like a news site and Screamscape looks like a blog. Contrary to what all of us have been told from the time we were children, appearances do matter. Regardless, you have a point about how the two websites gather their info in a similar way, and since the TPT link is not being used to reference anything in the article, I wouldn't mind if it were removed. Things in Further reading sections tend to be extraneous, unnecessary fluff anyway. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Those are the only the issues I had (that I can remember of right now).--Dom497 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice; obituary; and tribute written by Sim's widow:

    Comments by Wehwalt edit

    I enjoyed reviewing this article before, and I enjoyed reading it again. A few comments:

    • "Universal began considering how to keep attendance balanced between the adjacent parks.[4] " You haven't established, in the body, what the two adjacent parks are.
    It's mentioned in the lead: "The route runs 676 metres (2,218 ft) between Hogsmeade station in the Islands of Adventure theme park and King's Cross station in the London area of the Universal Studios Florida theme park". Let me know if sentences still need re-wording.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "between one another." Maybe "from each other."
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and the resort had begun asking visitors about a possible expansion." maybe "surveying"for "asking"
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In the same month," I might cut "In" or change to "During".
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On May 8, 2013, Universal Orlando announced the expansion of Wizarding World of Harry Potter, Diagon Alley, along with the Hogwarts Express attraction, to be located on the former site of the Jaws attraction.[9][10][11]" a verb seems called for in the latter part of the sentence.
    The sentence reads fine for me. I don't see where a verb would be needed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The first of the two trains was installed on October 24, 2013.[13] By the beginning of December 2013, the second train had been placed on the track.[14]" I might cut the first "on the track" both to avoid repetition and because it seems redundant. Where else are you going to install a train but on a track?
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "spotted one of the trains being tested for the first time.[17" was the spotting or the testing for the first time?
     Done I removed "for the first time" since the ref doesn't really prove this claim.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and a shop selling food." a real shop or a visual of some sort?
    Ref 28 shows a quick glimpse of the snack bar and ref 30 explicitly states this ("working snack bar"). Perhaps "snack bar" might be better than "shop selling food".--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reasonable approximation to what one finds in a typical British railway station (ie. the King's Cross theme), and which sells the cheap food and beverage brands normally found in such establishments (Golden Wonder salt & vinegar crips, Boddingtons Bitter, Stella Artois, Tetley's Brewery in cans). Perhaps the crucial bit missing here is that it is flogging British brands to a captive, queueing stream of awaiting passengers. —Sladen (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The queue then leads into a forested area which later leads into the Hogsmeade station building." Might cut "later".
     Done--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As the train departs towards King's Cross, Rubeus Hagrid waves riders goodbye outside of the window." I might cut "riders", also, you link and give Hagrid his full name on second use, when you've just had him (sans link and first name) greet the incoming riders. Similarly, the principal characters are given last names here when they weren't in the preceding section. I suspect you've switched the position of these sections at some point, but either way, please check them over for anything Ive missed in this regard.
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "transit above" maybe "pass over"
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "three passenger coaches each with 14 passenger compartments. " Unless I've missed something, you've earlier stated there are "twenty-one" passenger compartments in three coaches, and you've said it twice. Also, why is twenty-one spelled out and 14 not?
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    2 trains × 3 carriages × 7 compartments × 8 passengers. Reviewing Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments, this round of (removing accurate citations and) inserting inaccurate content has been dealt with. —Sladen (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side as the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing only exist on one side." To avoid repetition, "As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side; the other lacks the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing."
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to make them look as faithful as possible to the Hogwarts Express seen in the Harry Potter film franchise." I might change "faithful" to "similar"
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Frey AG was responsible for wiring the trains; specifically for the video and sounds components." A semicolon requires what follows to be able to stand as a sentence on its own. Also, I would expect "sound" rather than "sounds" in American English, unless it is a specialized theme park term.
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph of "Reception", you could make it clearer that what's being talked about is walking through walls.
    "broke walls" does not mean walking through walls. Rather it was a term used by Robert to describe the overall environment as discussed in the rest of the paragraph.--Dom497 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see I made very similar comments in some areas at the first FAC, so I guess some of those were not addressed. I would review what I, and others, said then and implement as needed, where not mooted by the passage of time, or where your judgment says otherwise.

    That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wehwalt and Brianboulton: Thank-you for your reviews! I will begin addressing your comments on the weekend.--Dom497 (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wehwalt: From your previous review you stated: ""forwards" not a word in this context in AmEng." What word would you suggest to use instead?--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm generally willing to support, but am concerned about Sladen's comments, especially since he mentioned me individually. I'd like to hear if he is satisfied.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional point. You use "metres" and "tonnes", which are less common than "meters" and "tons" in the U.S. Unless there are specialized theme park or transportation reasons, I'd go with the U.S. versions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I just went over it and made some minor adjustments, after which it looks good to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Epicgenius edit

    I just happened to see this since I have almost all articles about Disney and Universal attractions on my watchlist. Some quick things:

    • They can travel in either direction as long as the guest has purchased a Park-to-Park ticket, which gives guests access to both of Universal Orlando's theme parks within the same day. - I actually rode on this attraction multiple times last summer. The thing is that even with the park-hopper ticket, once you leave one park, you can't re-enter that same park on the same day (the ticket allows 1 daily admission each to Universal Studios and Islands of of Adventure). You can only ride in a single direction. Now, I took the sentence in green to mean that visitors with park hopper tickets can re-ride as many times as they want on the same day. I think this should be clarified. (Edit: official website confirms one admission to each park per day. And season and annual pass holders can also ride, not just park-to-park ticket holders. epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Sorry, I can't seem to find where it states what you are describing. I've also removed the reference (for now, I can add it back if needed) as an existing reference mentions that Season Passes are also valid.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius: indeed; Special:Diff/673394720 was a previous attempt to clear this up, with the wording "riders must have [a] pass valid in their destination in order to board." A one-way train ticket is normally valid for a one-way train journey. Repeated edits trying to describe a transport system in the same terminology that a roller-coaster/fairground attraction would be described, ultimately do not help the situation. —Sladen (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sladen: I see what you're saying. However, if you have a ticket for both parks, they would be checking whether you have a ticket valid for both parks; the direction of the train itself does not matter, but you can only ride in one direction unless, I presume, you have a season or annual pass. What I'm saying is that they don't check that you started in Islands and went to the Studios, they only check if you have a two-way pass and whether you have ridden the train earlier that day. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius, there doesn't appear to be a definitive list to use as reference for every valid type of permissible ticket/pass/voucher (or at least one has not been located yet)—in which case saying the minimum and not risking misleading is perhaps a better solution. That said, the wording should be such that it is clear that this is fundamentally not a ride, but an alternative to two long walks and a trip out of the front gate, and back in the other entrance booth. (Of course the owners would much prefer visitors used the provided connector train for the purpose it was built: to keep visitors captive within the parks belonging to one company; balancing the visitor times across the two environments; keep them spending money rather than going elsewhere; and selling a $55 upgrade to those who had only purchased a single-park ticket). To accurately reflect that reality (and the associated ticketing reality) within the article may well require some work to "de-theme-park-ify" the article, lest it risk continuing to confuse readers. Suggestions welcomed. —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ​​Yeah, this is a hard issue to tackle. The Hogwarts Express is basically Universal's version of the Walt Disney World Monorail System: the extra fee is for the privilege of visiting two parks in one day, and the train ride is just a bonus after you pay the extra fee. On the other hand, the train is entirely between two parks, unlike the Disney Monorail, which stops at hotels along the way, so that's why it's being treated as a theme park ride. So, the article could be clarified to this extent. epicgenius (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the ride experience is unsourced, particularly the first and second paragraphs of the Kings Cross to Hogsmeade and the Hogsmeade to Kings Cross sections. If this were a film or TV show, it would fall under WP:FILMPLOT, but I think a ride experience is different. There should probably be a video citation, just to be safe.
    Rather than repeating the same reference(s) over and over again, the references for the ride experience are all listed at the end of their respective descriptions.
    I guess you could also use WP:CITEBUNDLE so you only have to display one reference. I don't have a problem with listing them all at the end of the section, but if you're only using each of the sources once, it would be convenient if you ever needed to repeat them. However, I don't know if other reviewers will agree that it's OK to cite it all at the end. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Things might have changed in the two years I've been gone but way back when, after several GA nominations and discussions, it was agreed that if previous sentence(s) use the same reference and no other references, the reference only needed to be included on the last sentence.--Dom497 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    But I don't recall ever having a discussion about what should happen when multiple paragraphs are involved. Therefore, it might just be better to include the references at the end of each paragraph.--Dom497 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wehwalt, yes, the lack of citation is a problem: eg. today Special:Diff/823589398 (IP edit) changed one character name to other—hard to verify what the name should be. Originally this material was not in the article, most of it arrived in Special:Diff/669720516 (by User:Dom497). —Sladen (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If you watch the video and listen you will know that its Ron talking and not Harry.--Dom497 (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a result, the trains are only designed to be seen from one side as the locomotives' false driving wheels and specific detailing only exist on one side - This is only partially a result of the locomotives facing a single direction, isn't it? Both platforms are on the same side of the train, namely the left side, which is why this is possible.
    This is implied by both the previous sentence and the images included in the article of both stations.--Dom497 (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't notice these images, so I didn't make the connection until I actually made the journey. I think you have to spell it out. The aforementioned previous sentence, The Hogwarts Express enters King's Cross in reverse but forwards at Hogsmeade; the train departs King's Cross forwards and in reverse at Hogsmeade, doesn't mention the platform location. In fact it's irrelevant to whether a train enters a station in reverse.
    But now there's another thing. The sentence in green has an inconsistent structure (i.e. it should be King's Cross backwards but Hogsmeade forwards, otherwise it would be "The Hogwarts Express enters ... forwards at Hogsmeade"). Also the second half might be redundant: if the train is always facing toward Hogsmeade, wouldn't it always reverse out of that station? epicgenius (talk) 01:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I have modified the paragraph in question. Let me know if still needs some revision.--Dom497 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The new sentence is better, though I personally would swap "enters King's Cross" and "departs from Hogsmeade". Like this: "As a result, the Hogwarts Express departs from Hogsmeade and enters King's Cross in reverse". epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I changed it to what you suggested.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That, by the way, is what I meant by my objection in the first FAC. Epicgenius said it much better than I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If I have more feedback I'll leave further comments. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wehwalt, Brianboulton, and Epicgenius: I have addressed all of your comments!.--Dom497 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More comments by Epicgenius edit

    More comments:

    • A week later, Universal Orlando soft-opened the Hogwarts Express, without any announcement. - So when did it hard open? Was it on July 8 as scheduled? Sometimes, agencies change the opening dates behind people's backs. This is kind of a stupid request, but I just need a little confirmation that it isn't still soft-opened.
    So....three years ago and still today I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that Diagon Alley was the "big new thing" so the media focused on that that day (not to mention the media got distracted with the new coaster in the area because it had a 7+ hour wait). There were no reports that the ride did not open on July 8 so its kind of just assumed it opened along with the rest of the new area.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out I'm a liar! Ref 21 says the ride opened on July 8.--Dom497 (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for addressing this issue. I was kinda confused at first because sometimes, the assumptions could be wrong. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    epicgenius, revision Special:PermanentLink/669320997 had this wording

    "It opened for technical rehearsals from 2 July 2014,[open 1] officially opened on 8 July 2014 when queues lasting seven hours occurred and by 9 August 2014 had transported one million passengers.[open 2][open 3][open 4]

    Seemingly shorter, more precise, unambiguous and only needed saying once. This text, and all four of the accompanying citations were removed in edit Special:Diff/672940882 (by Dom497). Now we read "I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8" (by Dom497).
    Had the original wording remained or even just its accompanying citations, we would probably not be a situation two years down the line reading that citations cannot be located. Feel free to restore some of these citations/material if they are now felt useful again. —Sladen (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    1. ^ Kubersky, Seth (2 July 2014). "Hogwarts Express soft opens at Universal Orlando". Orlando Weekly.
    2. ^ Felton, Tom (9 August 2014). "The Hogwarts Express Hosts its One Millionth Rider". Felt Beats.
    3. ^ Universal Orlando Resort (9 August 2014). "Hogwarts Express Millionth Rider Celebration Group" (image) (Press release). Retrieved 30 June 2015.
    4. ^ "Hope you brought a book! Harry Potter fans wait in line Seven Hours to get on new theme park ride". Daily Mail. 9 July 2014. Retrieved 30 June 2015.
    @Sladen: Reference 2 is unreliable but that doesn't really matter since ref 3 is used for to support the same sentence. The Hogwarts Express did not have a 7 hour wait. That was Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts.--Dom497 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably also worth noting that none of the reliable sources say the ride opened on July 8. Ref 3 which might have stated the opening is dead and Wayback does not have an archive of it.--Dom497 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, when you say "Now we read "I'm not able to find a reference that states the ride actually opened on July 8"", the reference was always in the article and the citation was in the correct place, I just accidentally missed the sentence that mentioned it when reviewing the reference. Accidents happen and thats why my comment is crossed out.--Dom497 (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the current wording is fine: the announcement was for a July 8 opening, and the soft opening was on July 1. The July 8 hard opening is implied, but is not mentioned explicitly. And a 450-minute wait for Escape from Gringotts? I couldn't even wait for 45 minutes! epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Robert Niles from Theme Park Insider mentioned how the attraction "broke walls"; including the separation of the Wizarding and Muggle worlds, how Universal made the audience the performers (in the part of the King's Cross queue where guests walk through the wall leading to Platform ​9 3⁄4), and how, "It's become convention for theme park attractions to drop you off at or very near the same point where you boarded the ride, so it's a bit disorienting when you exit the Hogwarts Express and find that you're not only in a different train station — you're in a different theme park." - Consider splitting up this sentence because it's very long. Specifically, the second half sounds like a run-on.
     Done --Dom497 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still a little concerned about that sentence. I just think this would be an ideal place for semicolons: like "Examples included the separation of the Wizarding and Muggle worlds; how Universal made the audience the performers (in the part of the King's Cross queue where guests walk through the wall leading to Platform ​9 3⁄4); ..." However, other than that, I support this article's promotion. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-colons added.--Dom497 (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind if I created a KML file for this ride? It's standard to have a KML file for railroad lines/attractions.
    I don't have an issue with that.--Dom497 (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I will create the KML file soon. epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Already done, for the record. epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The KML appears to be considerably less accurate than the OpenStreetMap relationship that has been linked in the article for several years now. Clicking on the 'global' in the top-right, and zooming in several levels shows large differences eg. around the passing loop area between what the KML seeks to provide, and the more accurate mapping previously and already available via OpenStreetMap. Ideally the quality of the KML could be improved so that there is not a net loss of information available to the reader. —Sladen (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The KML is accurate to 5 feet, which is very accurate considering how much you zoomed in. It is supposed to depict the track from about a half-mile scale. Other KMLs have a range-of-error of more than 50 feet, especially longer routes. I have fixed the file, but if you don't like it, you can be bold and fix it yourself. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have any issues with the rest of the article right now. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. This article looks very nicely written. (Edit: Adding disclaimer. Other reviewers may bring up other issues with this article. My review is by no means comprehensive. I just picked out some of the more glaring inaccuracies.) epicgenius (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I used this article as a structure and style reference when I cleaned up several of the Disney rail transport articles, such as the Walt Disney World Railroad and the Disneyland Railroad, which are now featured articles; and the Carolwood Pacific Railroad, which is currently going through its own FA review. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinator notes edit

    Coordinator notes: We have three supports here and some detailed review. These are the outstanding issues that I can see before we consider promotion. Sarastro (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not convinced by the use of Screamscape.com in the article, and I think this needs looking at further.
    • @Dom497: The fourth sentence of the second paragraph in the History section and the whole first paragraph in the Reception section (the two places in the article that use Screamscape.com as a reference), could be easily removed and it would not disrupt the flow of the article or take away any critical information. I'm a fan of that website, also, and I'm well aware that many of the rumors from Lance Hart's contacts are legit, as they end up being true most of the time. However, if having information from Screamscape.com in the article is going to keep it from advancing in this FA review, as Sarastro is suggesting, I recommend that you bite the bullet and just get rid of it. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. I see that Dom497 has been inactive for almost a week, so in the interest of keeping this review from potentially stalling, I took the liberty of removing all Screamscape.com-related content from the article as I suggested above. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Duplinks probably need to be checked as we seem to have a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Sarastro (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m not sure I ever got a direct answer to my question to Sladen.—-Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wehwalt:, I see that @Sladen: has editing activity since he was pinged by you and Sarastro on this page, and he has not responded here in the Coordinator notes. Would you consider giving your final word on this review without Sladen's input, just to keep the process moving? All of the issues raised appear to have been addressed now. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101: Thanks for helping out. I've been on vacation this past week (forgot to mention this!).--Dom497 (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Statement by Sladen edit
    TL;DR: Good read, but not Good article: fails WP:GA editorial standards per MOS:OUTUNIVERSE.
    • Strong comment. This article is a Good read, a fantastic read—indeed, as has been particularly highlighted by Wehwalt starting with "enjoyed reviewing this article before, and I enjoyed reading it again". It is rewarding to learn that Jackdude101 has "used this article as a structure and style reference [and] cleaned up several of the Disney rail transport articles". This confirms it has firm roots and good structure—and has had a positive wider legacy on other articles.
    But, this is not a WP:Good article "that meets a core set of editorial standards".
    Because of the location (connecting two theme parks) there are multiple levels of "kayfabe": (*wrestling terminology, but it'll do here)
    Luckily. MOS:OUTUNIVERSE gives us good guidance on how to deal with this: in short, we should stay out of the illusion and keep ourselves in the real-world. We have plenty of real-world, hard, reliable information available as cites. We just have to choose to read, cite, and follow the sources. …Reflecting the WP:INTEGRITY of those sources, and instead of trying to bend the article to meet preconceptions, or presumptions.
    In the short timeframe that this FA review has been open, we have these examples suggesting that reading the sources is not taking place:
    1. Special:Diff/821480904, addition of a "Height restriction"
    2. Special:Diff/822551547, changing the number of carriages + compartments
    Making these two changes is/was only possible by ignoring/deleting already-cited sources: "There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation. You get on the train, and it's a train", and the rationale for the increase in number of carriages. (Highlighted by Wehwalt in the last review about leaving compartment/passenger count information for context…)
    Getting the worst of these fixed requires lots of Talking … Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments is not alone, there's the whole of Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1. epicgenius' efforts to get Geo data onto the article are laudable: Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)/Archive 1#WP:GEO data shows how the previous efforts had been deleted. Good, accurate, hard, reliable information deleted, or replaced with presumptions and guess work, or nothing.
    The various levels of "kayfabe" all sort-of work, until each sort-of starts breaking: ticketing (explicitly checking, extra payment at provided ticket booths), height restrictions (explicitly none), technology (train, funicular, built by a cable car manufacturer), blacked out windows (screens required because of passing over industrial backlot).
    This article was (originally) researched (without presumptions) and as-written reflected the (sometimes surprising) results found. Its purpose is pretty unique…
    With this latest FA/GA review we are at a cross-roads: do we rubber-stamp for perpetuity an article shoehorned to document a train/people mover as a roller-coaster/fairground/attraction (despite knowingly being aware of the illusion breaking around the edges), or do we put our foot down and require that this is tightened back to the source material and/or original Infoboxes?
    As Dom497 asked in Special:Diff/672519395 "I thought you thought that the {Hogwarts Express} was literally a train" … it's not about what we throught, it's about what the original cites state, and reflecting these.
    We should place Wikipedia:Readers first and remember the requirement for "editorial standards", not just making a good read. Ordinary, this would be Demote from GA. Don't promote to FA.; but not one to stand in the way if there is broad consensus to allow this to proceed based on the three earlier Supports.
    —Sladen (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you're taking things out of context. Regarding the height restriction edit that you link to, yes, an error was made (humans make errors; just like how you made 11 edits to your statement above) and the mistake was resolved within a timely fashion (as seen in Special:Diff/821516905). Is there a source that says "There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation. You get on the train, and it's a train". Yes. Is there a source that says ""Under 48" (121.9cm): Supervising Companion Required". Yes. As it turns out, the first quote was from an article the day after the attraction/train opened. However, the official Universal website lists a height restriction. Height restrictions change. There may not have been a height restriction at opening but between then and now, a "supervising companion" restriction may have been added. Do we go with what someone said in an interview (the day after opening) or with what the official website says (which contains the most up-to-date information)? I think the answer is obvious.
    Also, recently you attempted to add unreliable sources into the article (Special:Diff/826284556) where after I reverted that edit, you still added it to a "Further Reading" section. In fact, the "Further Reading" section you added is composed entirely of either unreliable sources or personal blogs. Per Wikipedia:Further reading, including the personal blog may be ok I guess (even though we have no way to verify the authenticity of the draws/blog so I'm interested in hearing what other people think of including links to this blog at all in the article). The link to Theme Park Tourist seems questionable given that it is an "almost equivalent" to Screamscape. It seems that you just added links to websites that you either attempted to add into the prose or use previous human-errors as justification. For example, per the Talk:Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort)#Compartments discussion, you wanted to add back three unreliable sources. In that discussion, you say "In summary, had the original wording remained or even just its accompanying citations". This shows that you had no regard to reason why the sources were removed in the first place.
    Regarding Special:Diff/822551547, this was another error I made which has since been resolved.
    Finally, I think that a lot of the issues that Sladen and I bring up are because he has a "transportation" bias and I have an "amusement park" bias. A question that Sladen has been asking for years (and alluded to in his statement) is basically, "Is this an amusement park ride or a mode of transportation". I hope Sladen can agree that we need someone unbiased to answer this question once and for all.--Dom497 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of potential MOS:OUTUNIVERSE violations, the only ones that I believe could be seen as such in the article are the middle paragraphs in the King's Cross to Hogsmeade and Hogsmeade to King's Cross sections, where the multimedia presentations that guests see during the ride are described (i.e.: what can be see through the "windows"). That's an easy fix: just mention at the start of each paragraph that the windows in the cabins are actually monitors that present video of several Harry Potter characters in such a way that they appear to be traveling alongside the train as its moving (since Dom497 is back now, I'll let him decide how we wants to deal with that). As for Dom497's comment above, about whether this is ultimately an amusement park ride or a mode of transportation, I'll throw in my two cents on that. I'm a big fan of amusement parks, roller coasters, carousels, and historic vehicles, especially steam trains. Because this article covers several of my interests, I'm quite fond of it (although, I wish Universal had chosen to build genuine steam locomotives instead of fake ones). The Hogwart's Express attraction at Universal Orlando Resort is an amusement park ride AND a mode of transportation, and is not exclusively one or the other. In one unrelated conversation about one of the Disney railroads, this also came up and I said something similar, but I felt that if I were forced to choose one or the other, I said that it's a mode of transportation primarily, as the locomotives (many of which are historic and were previously used on non-theme park railways) could be plucked from their tracks, put on any other rail line in the world with the same gauge, and they would run the same. This is not the case with Universal's Hogwarts Express, as their trains are literally attached to the line via the cables that control them, and per the List of track gauges article, there is only one other line in the world with the same track gauge. For those reasons, if I was forced to choose, I see Universal's Hogwarts Express as an amusement park ride first and a mode of transportation second. Jackdude101 talk cont 15:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101, Epicgenius, Wehwalt, and Brianboulton: Thanks for your comments Jackdude101. Regarding the MOS:OUTUNIVERSE issue, I wonder if moving the "Characteristics" section above the "Ride experience" would solve the issue. The "Characteristics" section already talks about the windows in the "Media" subsection. I've pinged some other editors involved in this review just for opinions.--Dom497 (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a test edit using a structure you might want to consider that would address that concern, here. But as I didn't really feel it was too in-universe to begin with, what my thought counts for is debatable.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats one possibility. Thanks for that!--Dom497 (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jackdude101 and Dom497: The gauge issue is interesting, but shouldn't affect what mode of transportation this is (e.g. the Washington Metro and the trolley systems in Pennsylvania both use unique gauges). Since this is a funicular, I also wouldn't say that it's a real train. It's definitely a mode of transportation and an amusement park ride. However, since it serves the same purpose as walking to the other park via CityWalk, I'd say it's more of a mode of transportation, with significant amusement elements. I hesitate to call it an amusement ride first because you can only ride in one direction at any given time. I'd just put emphasis on the "people mover" part of the ride. epicgenius (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epicgenius: Alright, that makes sense. I was trying to figure out a standardized set of rules earlier on what criteria a theme park rail line should have in order to consider it as an amusement ride or as transport primarily, but several of the well-known ones defy it all. Take the Disneyland Monorail System. It started out with only one station in 1959, but got expanded in 1961 and got a second station. So, if you consider a rail line with only one station as an amusement ride, but a rail line with more than one station as transportation, the Disneyland Monorail was a ride one day and transport the next. Plus, you have to disembark when you reach the Tomorrowland Station, but not at the Downtown Disney Station (except on busy days). It seems that in regards to defining theme park rail lines, it will have to be done on a case-by-case basis. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's what I was getting at. To use another example, when the Walt Disney World Railroad operated trains that went in continuous loops without stopping at interim stations, it was purely an amusement ride. But when the railroad started stopping at every station, it became a mode of transportation. epicgenius (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your opinions. I took a look at Walt Disney World Railroad and it uses Template:Infobox attraction. This was one of the issues Sladen had (he wanted to use a transportation infobox). Given that Walt Disney World Railroad is already an FA I think we should keep the format the same for consistency.--Dom497 (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Disneyland Railroad uses Template:Infobox attraction, as well, and is also an FA. I should also note that what type of infobox should be used never came up at any point during the entire review process (GA and FA) for these articles. The rail infobox could be used if you wanted, but I found that the attraction infobox is setup better for these types of articles. Ultimately, it's not a big deal, and as long as the appropriate information is presented in the infobox, the average reader isn't going to care what type of infobox it is. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And one more thing. Obviously, Sladen's comments are an oppose, and there is ongoing work on the article. I need to see what comes out the other end, and probably give it another read. I do have this review watchlisted, and feel free to ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok will ping when the these final issues are addressed!--Dom497 (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: Sladen's skepticism is clear, but officially, he has not declared that he opposes it, and actually implied in his latest comments that he would more-or-less abstain if everyone else continues to support it. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wehwalt: I've reorganized the article per the one MOS:OUTUNIVERSE issue that Jackdude101 brought up. I don't think there are any outstanding issues.--Dom497 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the article arranged that way, with the Media sub-section above the Ride experience section, looks much better. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Coordinator note: Although Sladen did not write "oppose", like Wehwalt, I am taking that as an oppose. And given that it is a fairly detailed and reasoned argument, we either need to work on the issues raised, or establish a consensus among other reviewers that this view is incorrect. Sarastro (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: As I have already explained above, the two instances of "not reading sources" that Sladen mentions were stupid mistakes on my part; I have no problem admitting to that. However, I would like to see Sladen list other areas where "not reading sources" occurred since I don't know of any others. Other than that I don't know what other issues Sladen is brining up since I don't understand the slang that he is using ("kayfabe") and I don't see where there are MOS:OUTUNIVERSE issues. In the three bullet points that Sladen mentions (regarding "kayfabe") I don't see how any of those effect how the article is written and why those would cause any issues. Also, when Sladen says, "This article was (originally) researched (without presumptions) and as-written reflected the (sometimes surprising) results found.", he is most likely referring to a period of time when the article included references from unreliable sources (such as Theme Park Tourist). He's attempted to re-add that source recently and included more sources from unverified sources. Unfortunately, as I was preparing the article for a GA nomination a few years ago, some references had to be removed since they were not reliable. In some instances, that resulted in having to remove some information that Sladen would have liked to stay. It's a double edged sword (in a way). Do you leave the unreliable sources in the article so more information can be included or do you attempt to get the article to reach a criteria of higher standards? A good example of this is the Screamscape source that was recently removed. In this scenario I was on wrong edge of the sword (even though I still believe Screamscape was reliable for the context it was being used in, wanting to keep the additional info was creating a road block for reaching a criteria of higher standards). Finally, I understand that Sladen believes that this is a mode of Transportation. The first sentence of the article states, "The Hogwarts Express is an 1,800 mm (5 ft 10 7⁄8 in) broad gauge funicular railway, people mover, and attraction within the Universal Orlando Resort in Orlando, Florida, United States.". I don't know if Sladen has an issue with this statement, but I think this captures what the Hogwarts Express is. It's a little bit of everything. It transports guests while also delivering an experience. Something like the Walt Disney World Monorail System would only be considered as a mode of transportation since it does not deliver any unique experience that separates it from a traditional monorail. As Reference #1 in the article states, "This is fantastic. There's no limitation, no ride-height limitation. You get on the train, and it’s a train except the journey is magical. ... we worked on that and created the layout, the path. Where would the train go? Of course, it will go backstage, but the guests will never know because we're going to take them on the actual journey.". This statement also accurately describes what the Hogwarts Express is (as I've said above, its both attraction and people mover). On that note, I think it is fair to say that Universal intended this to attraction to mess with the real world. Their goal was to make guests forget that they were at Universal by making them feel that they are traveling through the Harry Potter world. Removing this context from the article would end up describing a different Hogwarts Express than what it really is in the real world.--Dom497 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dom497: Regarding "kayfabe", it's a wrestling jargon. It means the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true", specifically the portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine and not of a staged or predetermined nature of any kind. So in this case, I think Sladen is saying that if this isn't a real "railroad", don't portray the Hogwarts Express as one. His direct quote is Luckily. MOS:OUTUNIVERSE gives us good guidance on how to deal with this: in short, we should stay out of the illusion and keep ourselves in the real-world. We have plenty of real-world, hard, reliable information available as cites. We just have to choose to read, cite, and follow the sources. …Reflecting the WP:INTEGRITY of those sources, and instead of trying to bend the article to meet preconceptions, or presumptions. epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sladen: Can you confirm what Epicgenius thinks your saying?--Dom497 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also be grateful for a little more clarity in what Sladen is saying. BTW, possibly it's a new era but when I rode the WDW monorail as a teenager in the late '70s, my family considered it quite an attraction, and to be taken in preference to the ferryboat. Just as an aside, but it isn't that unusual for a means of transportation to become an attraction in its own right, even if it does nothing unique. Say the Star Ferry in Hong Kong. The Universal people seem to have created an artificial version of such a hybrid, a mode of transportation with the tourists hanging off the back.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sladen: Please explain why you re-organized the article and removed references or modified statements without references. To be honest it seems like your trying to sabotage the review. You also moved an image into a section of the article (Reception) that it has no relevance in. Changes like this should really be discussed, especially given the article is in the middle of a review. --Dom497 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dom497. Please see Special:Diff/828128944 below. Thank you for the enthusiastic contributions and additional suggestions. —Sladen (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideas for discussion edit

    As per Wehwalt earlier, Special:Diff/827997473/828125654 is an experiment to try and develop a set of possible changes for discussion (all self-reverted in Special:Diff/828126020…). In particular additional images, WP:NPOV-ification, and high-level contextual introductions for the top of the (presently empty) second-level sub-headings. Further suggestions are likely to prove somewhat complex (Special:Diff/828123252, Special:Diff/828125764, Special:Diff/828123656), which will likely require more Talking and individually responding to. —Sladen (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Meta discussion about process progression edit
    Experiments should really be done in Sandbox's not the main article. Wehwalt's edits, though should have been in a sandbox, was acceptable since it was quick edit and revert. However your editing started at 12:50 and continued until about 13:22 when I intervened. "Experimenting" for that long on the main page really doesn't make sense, especially for an experienced editor like you. --Dom497 (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Dom497, awesome. And any comments on the content itself? —Sladen (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: I'm going to request this review to be closed. Working with Sladen on this issue is likely going to take weeks or months due to the stubbornness of both of us.--Dom497 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping me when you bring it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be a real shame to see this withdrawn so quickly… We can see from Special:History/Hogwarts Express (Universal Orlando Resort), that an attempt by any other editor to propose substantive changes, or expansion or refinement to the article has not really been successfully attempted for two-and-half-years. With so many extra eyeballs, and the few remaining outstanding issues now would seem the perfect time to give it go! Extra contextual images are likely to enhance the article helping to bring it along the way to being a truly great article worth of passing FA. To get to the end that there appear to be only a few remaining refinements around MOS:OUTUNIVERSE aspects to address the presentation, suspension of disbelief and actor–audience relationship involved in bringing guests between the two parks via the Hogwarts Express. To get there, feedback on actual content improvements would be really great! —Sladen (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this comment doesn't help anyone or anything but I find it interesting that when I try to get Sladen to answer a question that he would have a better answer to, it takes nearly a month for him to respond; even after asking on his talk page multiple times (re: very first bullet point in this review). Also, it kind of amazes me how in a matter of days he went from "Demote from GA" to essentially "lets try to promote to FA!"; thats not a bad thing but it seems like when there is something that doesn't fit his agenda he is super fast to act on it but otherwise, he sits on it for as long as possible. <end of rant>--Dom497 (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent; would there be an opportunity to contribute any thoughts on actual (suggested) content changes by other editors? —Sladen (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, now we have more Talk page templates: Special:Diff/828652596. —Sladen (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A sandbox has been created here so experimental edits can be made and to avoid including unsourced material that is included in the experimental content that Sladen was trying to add to the main article.--Dom497 (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dom497:, @Sladen: I made one edit to the sandbox version, which mainly relates to reorganizing the images. Let me know what you think of it. Also, alt text needs to be added to the images (see the images in the stations gallery I made to see examples). Alt text is a requirement for all images, if the article is to achieve FA status. Jackdude101 talk cont 02:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jackdude101, looks good. Please work directly on the article so that the history and copyright are correctly preserved inside a single history without needing a histmerge later. —Sladen (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jackdude101, excellent reminder: Special:Diff/828672452/828708958 adds WP:MOSALT descriptions. The one in the infobox is not working. —Sladen (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sladen: Infobox attraction does not support alt text for the image (I don't know why it was never added to template).--Dom497 (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dom497:, @Sladen: You have to do a simple work-around to make alt text for images in the infobox work. I implemented it in the article and I described how I did it in the edit summary. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hawkeye7, Jackdude101, Sladen, Epicgenius, Wehwalt, and Brianboulton: Hi everyone! The article has gone through some major edits since many of you last took a look at the article; it would be very much appreciated if you could take another look at the article to bring up any new issues you may have or to verify that your stance remains the same. Thank-you!--Dom497 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I get confirmation that everyone's on board?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with all of the recent new edits. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been moving in a good direction. Appreciations in particular to Jackdude101 for the input on what constitutes a good/reliable source. Hopefully the article will continue to benefit from the input of a wider range of editors. —Sladen (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sladen: I made one fix to the article here: Special:Diff/830258008 to make it compliant with MOS:OUTUNIVERSE. Let us know whether the combined recent changes from everyone now make the article worthy of your support. Jackdude101 talk cont 18:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jackdude101, looks good, thank you. —Sladen (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Jackdude101, I'm on board. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2018 [11].

    Red-tailed tropicbird edit

    Nominator(s): RileyBugz (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article we feel has buffed up nicely - and is as good as red-billed tropicbird, which recently attained Featured Status. Let us know if there are any outstanding issues. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Aa77zz edit

    Taxonomy

    • "The red-tailed tropicbird was described by Dutch naturalist Pieter Boddaert in 1783,[3] from Mauritius." The article should include the binomial name at this point in the article.
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mauritius needs a cite - or mention later. Note that the Isle de France = Mauritius.
    the cite at the end of the following sentence covers it. I have added a commented note noting this (visible when editing the page) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    and Buffon's description is here:

    nice work! And as imitation is the best form of flattery I havve shamelessly imported the format! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Gmelin link is to the wrong page in the wrong volume. Should be "volume=Volume 1 Part 2" pp.582-583 [12]
    oops - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "that the original use of P. erubescens" But P. erubescens hasn't yet been mentioned.
    looking for Banks Icones ined. whatever that is... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ok found source of Banks...but now need a source saying he didn't describe it as such Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "lacked a description and was hence a nomen nudum." but Rothschild doesn't state a reason in cited source.
    ok worded badly, but as a nomen nudum is a name that lacks a description, is it worth putting in parentheses after it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Lord Howe, Norfolk and Kermadec Islands" need links
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gregory Mathews then applied the name P. rubicauda roseotinctus to Rothschild's P. rubicauda erubescens." Why did he do this?
    ultimately I think it was his ego and a desire to mark his ornithological territory with as many new names and combinations as possible. The source gives no reason, but second-guessing would be that he was trying to trump Rothschild who was using a nomen nudum in erubescens so he kindly offered roseotincta as a new legitimate name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps helpful for the reader at some point to add an additional citation to Check-list of Birds of the World that gives more of an overview:
    Am puzzled by this one as it says P. r. erubescens Rothchild, 1900 could not be used for P. erubescens Gray, 1844 as it was a preoccupied name - but it was referring to the same taxon (not a different taxon) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ornithologist Mike Tarburton reviewed the known subspecies" Perhaps a year would be helpful here: "In 1989 the ornithologist Mike Tarburton reviewed ..."
    year added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More later. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead

    • "the nest itself a scrape found on a cliff face" but the article also mentions coral atolls and cays
    good point - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Feral cats and dogs prey on eggs" - feral dogs is a surprise - on tropical islands rats are often an important predator of ground nesting birds - the article mentions rats on Kure Atoll - perhaps "Rats and feral cats" in lead.
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Taxonomy

    • ssp list - link the islands
    linked ones that were not sovereign states....reckon I should link them as well? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Description

    • Mention that the sexes are alike - perhaps also in lead
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • link remiges
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • link scapulars
    having a problem here to find a destination, with List of terms used in bird topography being on place with no further information... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Distribution and habitat

    • Hawaii is mentioned twice
    the first mention is in respect to range, the second to breeding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • link Palau
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Breeding

    • "edge of the shrub" Shrub? Unclear. This muddles shade from shrubs and access.
    tried rewording to clarify. does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Feeding

    • flying fish or flyingfish?
    good point - aligned them all to unspaced as all spp. are unspaced in their name Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spell out MHNT in the figure caption.
    good point - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    - Aa77zz (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    aha, I have found [v this], which trumps that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What have you found? - Aa77zz (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    this - 32 years 8 months Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead

    • Mention range - tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans (cf red-billed that occurs in the Atlantic)
    good point, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "one of three closely related species of seabird of tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans." This is ambiguous - the range could apply to all 3 species instead of just the red-tailed. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    tweaked again Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Breeding

    • Perhaps mention that adults feed young by placing their bill down the chick's gullet and regurgitating. (apparently this contrasts with Pelecaniformes etc where a chick feeds by putting its own bill into the gullet of the adult). This is described by Howell & Bartholomew 1969, by Fleet 1974 and Marchant & Higgins p. 398.
    Added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Age at first breeding: this USFWS page has "Birds begin breeding after 4 years of age." but I cannot find a RS for this. - no action required)

    Status

    • "an estimated 32,000 mature individuals". The cite for this is the IUCN page which in turn cites the 1992 HBW article (which doesn't give a total). This number is clearly an underestimate. The 2018 HBW alive article has been updated cf the book: there are more than 80,000 individuals in the eastern Pacific according to: Spear, L.B.; Ainley, D.G. (2005). "At-sea distributions and abundance of tropicbirds in the eastern Pacific". Ibis. 147 (2): 353–366. doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.2005.00411.x.. There are an estimate 9000 pairs breeding on Europa (here - I cannot access ref 25 Le Corre & Jouventin 1997). Possibly better to omit the grand total but quote some of the other numbers.
    added these, plus hawaii, and note on estimate of eastern pacific. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article makes no mention of when or how the birds moult. Moult mentioned in Marchant & Higgins p. 943 (and Fleet 1974). "Streamers replaced constantly; usually one streamer fully grown while other being replaced."

    - Aa77zz (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    moult info added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I've supported above. Good work, well done. Two points (that don't affect my support) Nothing on longevity? The archived BHL links aren't needed - they don't appear to work correctly and add clutter. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review by Lingzhi edit

    • Note that just because a warning is displayed doesn't mean there's really any problem.. but I'm listing errors in case there's something we can improve:
    • Boddaert, Pieter (1783); Latham, John (1785); Gmelin, Johann Friedrich (1788); Latham, John (1824); Rothschild, Walter (1900); Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
    I've never added identifiers - and they are linked by url.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Garnett, Stephen T.; Crowley, Gabriel M. "Red-tailed Tropicbird". Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (6 with; 1 without); Missing Year/Date; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    added publisher and location Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Jim edit

    • one of three closely related species of seabird of tropical Indian and Pacific Oceans.—I'd prefer "seabird species" to "species of seabird", but more to the point, as written it's incorrect. Tropicbirds breed in the Atlantic and Caribbean too. If you meant to describe the range of red-tailed only, make it clearer.
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • two times— ="twice"
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • on sand on a beach— ="on sandy beaches"
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • described this black-billed specimen as the New Holland tropicbird,[10] also described as Phaethon novae-hollandiae—repeat of "described"
    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • he named P. rubicauda erubescens and was larger overall—strange conjunction of completely different ideas
    tweaked - not sure what happened there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Māori called it amokura, tawake, ko’ae or ’ula,[14] while the Native Hawaiians call it koa'e’ula.[15] —why not the more widespread French phaéton à brins rouges? we don't normally give non-English names unless they illustrate a point, such a s onomatopoeia name
    I am keen to promote indigenous culture and folklore...there is a bit of maori material which I forgot to include but will only make a very stubby culture section. Just doing a last-minute skim have added a culture section. Could put names there I suppose... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In "Distribution and habitat" you seem to switch randomly between "they" and "it"
    singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coloration/behaviour—AE or BE?
    now Britishised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, the tropicbird often chooses shrubs with fewer stems, also—You don't need "additionally" and "also"
    trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • lays a clutch of one egg—you don't need "a clutch of"
    trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Predators recorded in Western Australia include large raptors such as the white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) and eastern osprey (Pandion cristatus), —Does the source indicate how often ospreys attach this bird? It seems extraordinary behaviour for an almost entirely piscivorous species to attack a large seabird.
    • Yellow crazy ant—link
    linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If the osprey issue can be clarified, that would be good, but happy to support now anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Marchant and Higgins has no further info and I can't get to the other listed source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Wehwalt edit

    • Probably have seen them, but couldn't tell them by sight. Some comments. I'll complete soon.
    • "clinal change" While it is clear from context what is meant, I suggest a link to an appropriate article or definition.
    linked to Cline (biology) now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a scrape" Ditto.
    linked to Bird_nest#Scrape now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "mainly flyingfish," is the lack of a space intended?
    the individual flyingfish species lack a space, so I removed it from the common term for consistency (during this FAC, see above) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir Joseph Banks is linked twice in the same paragraph, though they differ on whether the Sir is included in the link. If he is to be described as a British naturalist, it should probably be on first usage.
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Māori called it amokura, tawake, ko’ae or ’ula,[14] while the Native Hawaiians call it koa'e’ula.[15]" Not sure why Maori is in past tense and Native Hawaiian in present, when there are more living Maoris than Native Hawaiians and probably more speak the Maori language.
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with one growing while the other is shed" This says to me that there are times when there are no full streamers, that while one is still growing the other is discarded. Is that accurate?
    source doesn't really specify...I'm thinking no Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "newborn" Newly hatched?
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In Australian waters it could be confused with the silver gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) or various tern species, though is larger and heavier-set, with a wedge-shaped tail." I might lose the "is", or else keep it and add an "it" before "is".
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Birds give a low growling call as a defence call, and young chatter repetitively as a begging call—made whenever parents are nearby.[22]" I might add a "the" before "young".
    definite article added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Christmas Islands" At least as far as the Indian Ocean is concerned, there is only one, Christmas Island.
    the stray definite article was a mistake. But "Islands" is plural as it is for Europa and Aldraba as well in same sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Nosy Ve" Nosy Be? I'm not sure it's tiny, btw, given that our article says the name means "big island" :) . Probably more of the locations in this paragraph should have links.
    these are two different islands with similar names. And it is small. Shall I redlink it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, who knew? I don't think redlinks overly necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It is an occasional visitor to Palau, with breeding recorded from the Southwest Islands,[30] and were first recorded from Guam in 1992.[31]" probably "were" should be "was" as you are steadfast in maintaining the singular.
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "California and Vancouver.[32]" The source says "Vancouver Island". You have linked to the city of Vancouver, which is not on Vancouver Island. Blame Canada for their illogic.
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They disperse" since you are now using the plural, I would say "The birds disperse" or similar, rather than
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The red-tailed tropicbird is a strong flyer, however it walks on land with difficulty with a shuffling gait.[7]" the double "with" is unpleasing, I would change the second "with" to "using".
    tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2018 [13].

    Sovereign (British coin) edit

    Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about... One of the world's longest-lived coins, which widely circulated over it in its time and is still popular as a bullion and collector's coin. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review by Lingzhi edit

    • Clancy, pp. 47. P/PP error? pp. 47.;
    Fixed.
    • Journals of the House of Lords. 52. 1818. p. 515. Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
    I can't find an OCLC for this, Google doesn't mention it and Worldcat turned up dry. I'm open to suggestions.
    • Clancy, pp. 64—67. P/PP error? pp. 64—67.;
    Looks OK to me?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    it's an emdash or two dashes, prob the latter
    Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cuhaj, George S., ed. (2009). missing location Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Location added. Thank you for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Is this a full sources review? Please specify. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't sure. Lingzhi?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source review: All clear here, captain! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. A most enjoyable article, well and widely sourced and referenced, and evidently comprehensive. A few suggested BrE tweaks: percent → per cent (4 times); channeled → channelled; and Lloyd George is not hyphenated. And just checking that "enobled" in the Prince Regent's proclamation is so spelled in the original. The two notes, a and b, are to my certain knowledge accurate in every respect, but could nonetheless do, I think, with a citation apiece. That's all I can find to quibble about and I'm very pleased to support the elevation of this excellent article. Tim riley talk 14:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you indeed for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding "enobled", it is how they spelled it in the House of Lords Journal, but I find that most other contemporary sources spell it as "ennobled", so I will assume their Lordships ere in error.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Their Lordships are never in error. I was at ENO's new Iolanthe last night, where we were reliably informed by the Earl of Mountararat that 'if there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement whatever, it is the House of Peers.' But I digress. The added cites to the two footnotes are exactly what were wanted. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all this did happen in good King George's glorious day ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Jim edit

    Excellent, can't find anything to criticise. Now, where did I put that Edward VIII sovereign? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lol. Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

    Hey guv'nor can you spare us a few sovs? taking a look now .... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • His brilliant talent opened the doors of the capital's elite - "brilliant" struck me as a bit flowery (floury?) and possibly redundant...
    • The original, 1817, design had the saintly knight still bearing part of the broken spear. - I'd not have commas here...
    • When the Royal Mint was reconstructed in 1882 - "rebuilt" sounds more natural to my ears..
    All above done.
    • How does a 1500s sovereign compare in buying value adjusted for inflation to the 1800s one? Presumably they are quite different..
    I've added a bit on the high value of the 1500s one. I think the anecdote about it being used for salaries to 1914 puts the scale of value.
    • Is it worth having a note on the One pound (British coin) (ie. UK returning to coin again after note)- any stylistic carryover? Context/legacy?
    There were certainly some jokes that the round pound, when introduced in 1983, should be called a Maggie, as it was hard, brassy, and thinks it's a sovereign ... I'm a bit reluctant.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Otheriwse all in order I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the review, I've done those things except as noted. And the Australian connection is still going, at least last time I was in Sydney there was a hanging sign with the Australian sovereign design for a coin dealer on Pitt Street (if I recall) between the pedestrian mall and the harbour ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think i know where that might be....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments by Johnbod edit

    • Interesting and good article. I have a few minor queries.
    • Since there are only 3 paras in the lead, maybe expand a little bit re Australian etc issues?
    • I found some of the stuff on the designs a bit lacking detail, or maybe precision:
      • "...who showed Pistrucci a model of Saint George and the Dragon by Nathaniel Marchant..." - Nathaniel Marchant was a specialist in engraved gems; was the "model" one? Was it a model in the modello sense, or a finished work just used as a model by Pistrucci? "cameo" should presumably link to Cameo (carving). The head of George III was also presumably also a cameo. Do we know what size it was, and does it survive? Presumably rather large if it had a very detailed crown. "...and the sculptor undertook the engraving of the dies himself." The process would not have involved much actual engraving, but maybe this is a standard term for die-making? Is it used by sources?
    I've added that the model by Marchant was in wax, and so was a preliminary work; Clancy illustrates the final version. The head was a cameo, without a crown. I don't have the exact size, but it was coin-sized. It is in the Royal Mint Museum, though I don't recall seeing it on display when I was there last year. No sort of reducing lathe was in use at the Royal Mint, I believe that started with the William IV coinage, so it had to be coin-size. Yes, engraving, rather than die-sinking (the old term), is used by the sources.
    • "The original 1817 design had the saintly knight still bearing part of the broken spear." - "holding" or "carrying" seems more natural than "bearing". Just after, is a link to Garter (stockings) wanted? Perhaps.
    • "The George and Dragon design is in the neoclassical style." I think "neoclassical" should be capitalized here, and Neoclassicism just after.
    • "When the sovereign entered circulation in late 1817, ..." split this rather long para?
    • "...depicting the armorial bearings of Brunswick, Lüneburg and Celle. Lüneburg (former Hanseatic city) is ok, but Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Principality of Lüneburg are better links for the others - probably disamed to the plain name.
    • "Chancellors of the Exchequer had questioned the wisdom of having much of Britain's stock of gold used as a circulating coin" - reads awkwardly - just one gigantic coin? Maybe "used in circulating coins/coinage" or similar.
    • Link Gold reserve in this para or the next?

    Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your thorough comments, I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you have - thanks. Johnbod (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Support from Iridescent edit

    • I'll do a proper review when I get the chance, but something that immediately jumps out is no mention of sovereign rings, which—outside coin-collecting enthusiasts and readers of historical literature—is almost certainly the only context in which people in the present day ever encounter this coin. (Our own Sovereign ring article is terrible, but there must be sources somewhere for the story of how and why attaching bulky coins to the fingers became a part of the uniform of the Stella-drinking classes.) ‑ Iridescent 11:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, review: as there are a lot of recent changes being made, this is the version on which I'm commenting. I've not conducted any source/image spotchecks. These are all minor nitpicks and quibbles rather than deal-breaking issues.

    • Although the coin pictured in the infobox does have a data on the reverse, they should probably have the date in the caption as well to make it clear that this isn't the current design of the coin (the Gillick portrait pictured hasn't appeared on British currency for decades).
    It still appears on Maundy money, actually. I'll add something. It was in that state when I began work on the article, and I did not think I could justify use of the current portrait when there is an extant portrait out of Crown Copyright. I suspect the Machin portrait (used on early decimal coins) is out of copyright as well, and surely will be on 1 January of next year, given it was used on 1968 10p and 5p coins, so some updating might be considered.
    I'd be wary of using the Machin portrait; because it still appears on stamps, it may still be protected under prerogative powers of some kind regardless of its copyright status. ‑ Iridescent 17:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A name he [Henry VII] must have favoured, for he also called one of his warships Sovereign of the Seas seems like a bit of a jump; he had a warship called Trinity Sovereign (not Sovereign of the Seas which was a much later ship), but one could just as well say he favoured the name "Carvel of Ewe" (the first of his ships).
    Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • an indenture dated February 1817, directing the Royal Mint to strike gold coins weighing 7.988 grams—were the authorities on early 19th-century England really issuing instructions using metric measurements (at that time a peculiarity of French culture that hadn't yet spread elsewhere), and if so why? And if they genuinely were working in grams, why did they choose the ungainly 7.988 rather than a round 8?
    No, all of this was in grains, see quote box for the tedious detail. If they had rounded to 8, then they would be changing the official price of gold. All the indenture did did was set forth specifications for a coin 20⁄21 the weight of the guinea, of the same 22 carat fineness. The diameter and thickness proved satisfactory as they have never been changed.
    • Do we have any idea why Pistrucci created the model for the coins in jasper, rather than a more traditional material like glass or agate? This is purely an "it would be nice to know".
    "In preparing portraits for the last coinage of George III the Italian artist Benedetto Pistrucci cut original models in jasper which, as a gem engraver, was his natural medium. Three of these exquisitely prepared cameo portraits of George III survive in the Royal Mint Museum and the one pictured here looks to have been the basis for the bull-head effigy used on the half-crown." From here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd lose the entire The sovereign also entered fiction… line. If by this point it was a standard circulating currency, then it would obviously be mentioned in works of fiction set in countries which used it; Dollar bill wouldn't say "The dollar bill also entered fiction, and was mentioned in A Fistful of Dollars".
    I've modified the opener a bit, but I'm still inclined to keep it, as helping to illustrate how ordinary a circulating coin it once was (admittedly of high value).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • it was regarded as a circulating coin in dozens of British colonies and even in nations such as Brazil, Portugal and Egypt—I'd lose Egypt from that list, as in this period there were huge numbers of British personnel in Egypt building the Suez Canal (and from 1882, the place was under formal British military occupation) so it's unsurprising that British currency was circulating there.
    • The article talks at some length about gold currency during the First World War, but skips from 1937 to 1953; I understand why (Wilson wanted payment in gold for food and weapons, Roosevelt accepted promissory notes and fiat money) but it should probably at least get a one-liner to explain why gold coins had lost their relevance.
    It doesn't skip that time; the 1925 sovereign was restruck under George VI. I'll look for something along the lines you've stated though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re The sovereign survived both decimalisation and the move of the Royal Mint from Tower Hill, London to Llantrisant, Wales, why is there any reason to think it wouldn't? The value of the pound wasn't affected by decimalisation, and the coinage didn't change when the Mint was relocated.
    Well, as they weren't going to circulate, and the bullion market really didn't develop until the Krugerrand became problematic because of reaction against apartheid, why strike them at all?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • continued to be struck at London through 1917, 1989 through 1997, this went into use in 1998 and was used through 2015; "through" used in this sense is an Americanism which shouldn't be in a British article (the BrEng would be "until the end of 1917" etc).
    Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't doubt that In 2009, the reverse was re-engraved using tools from the reign of George III in the hope of better capturing Pistrucci's design is what the source says, but it sounds like purest bullshit made up by a bored intern in the Royal Mint's PR department. The tools in question would have endured 200 years of wear and corrosion; if the Mint had really wanted to replicate the conditions under which the Regency engravers were working, they'd have used brand new tools. This sentence would only make sense had Pistrucci done the original engravings using tools from around the time of the Mayflower.
    I am not an expert on engraving tools and accordingly feel that we have to defer to the sources, which are consistent on this point (as they would be, since the relevant ones all derive from the Royal Mint or its associated museum).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somewhere, it needs to explain why the Royal Mint so zealously guard the legal fiction that the sovereign is still legal tender; that as a theoretical EU circulating currency, the coins can be traded and transported without being subject to tax.
    That one is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    These are all very minor queries and quibbles, and nothing to prevent a support as it stands, although I do think that sovereign rings, and their particular place in chav culture, do need to be mentioned. ‑ Iridescent 12:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm looking for a good source on that, so far all I've come up with are the Daily Mirror and similar. I will confess I removed the "See also" to the ring it was, as you state, in a poor condition. Thank you for the review. I will work through these in the next day or so.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added something on that. Iridescent, I think I've covered everything. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    No ALT text anywhere. As an aside, source #97 looks broken to me on my screen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've taken care of those. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, is it said somewhere on coininvest what the license is? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Wehwalt, and this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian Rose done.==Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not seeing it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing what? The ANS has released its images under the stated license, which is found at the bottom of each image page. "

    All images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License."--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That'd be a problem, because noncommercial licenses are only allowed as fair use images, and these in turn only in special circumstances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, swapped with a previous monarch. I think this one is pretty bulletproof. I'm traveling at present but when I get home, I'll photograph an Elizabeth II sovereign I have from the year of my birth. In the meantime, this should be adequate. I'll also have a word with the ANS, since they responded to my appeal for images of coins some months ago and tell them that the license isn't suitable.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from John edit

    Nice article. Only a few things to think about.

    • It had a diameter of some 42 millimetres (1.7 in), and weighed ... We don't need the "some", do we?
    Coins of that era had some variation since they were hammered.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the Celtel and Gullbekk source, and this just gives 42 mm. What would the range in sizes be? If it's greater than ±0.5 mm then we should say "about"; if the tolerance is less than than that, just "42 mm" is the best descriptor. I never like using "some" to mean "approximately" (it's superfluous as almost all measurements are approximate, and the degree of inaccuracy is conveyed by using significant figures). It's also potentially confusing as it may also carry a connotation of "large". Of course in this case that would be accurate but it's a usage I dislike. --John (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not at home right now, but as I recall it said c. 42 mm or a similar phrasing. It does not give a range. I suspect Coin World was working from the same sources ... very well, I'll cut the "some".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recently, the wearing of a sovereign ring has been seen as a sign of chav culture. How recently was that? An actual date would be far better.
    • A number of the coin auction houses deal in rare sovereigns of earlier date, as do specialist dealers. A number? Zero is a number, and so are negative nine and pi. If we're not sure how many the number is, could we just say "some"? --John (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, I've taken care of those, with slight variations.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    John, Wehwalt, can you confirm if we're all done here? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done everything asked of me, with the exception of those things I've explained should not be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no problem. Support. Well done. --John (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you as always for the thorough review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2018 [14].

    Jean Baptiste Point du Sable edit

    Nominator(s): Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, a trader living on the frontiers of empires in North America. He is regarded as the founder of Chicago. Although I have been involved in the article for years, now retired editor and former administrator JeremyA (talk · contribs) did much admirable work to get the article to Good Article, and made the prior nomination, here. In North America, February is Black History Month, and in January, I thought it a good time to review this article, again. I looked at the last nomination and thought I might honor Jeremy's work by completing the FA he wanted for this article. Corinne (talk · contribs) kindly responded to a request I made for review at the Guild of Copy Editors. Wehwalt (talk · contribs) has generously provided some peer review. Thank you. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Wehwalt edit

    • As noted, I weighed in at the peer review. On re-reading a few more comments about what is an exellent article.
    • "In 1779 he was living on the site of present-day Michigan City, Indiana, when he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer during the American Revolutionary War. " I would move the name of the war to the start of the sentence to better separate the two "Americans".
    • "In what would become the city of Chicago, he established an extensive and prosperous trading settlement. " I would reverse the two clauses.
    • "though it is likely they were married earlier in the 1770s in the Native American tradition." I would move "in the 1770s" to the end of the sentence and delete "earlier"
    • " were seeking to assert control in the former southern dependencies of French Canada and the Illinois Country. [14]" I might toss an "in" before "the Illinois Country".
    • "In August 1779 Point du Sable was arrested as a suspected spy during the American Revolutionary War at Trail Creek by British troops and imprisoned briefly at Fort Michilimackinac." I might move "during the American Revolutionary War" to just after 1779, and enclose it with commas.
    • "Drawing of the home of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable in Chicago as it appeared in the early 1800s" I might say "former home" as he no longer owned it.
    • "public assistance" from the government or the parish?
    Thanks for asking -- in trying to pin down his last very elderly years, we run again into the vagueness and opaqueness of the record (including in the source used, there) - at some point, it seems his family are no longer in the picture, and he may have sought assistance either due to poverty or the ravages old age - I have changed to 'may have sought public or charitable' to give it a wider latitude, which would also be a fair summary of the source used. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fraudulent land claims" you use this phrase shortly before, so I might change to "such false claims" or similar.
    • "A plaque was erected by the city in 1913 at the corner of Kinzie and Pine Streets to commemorate the homestead.[67] " I assume you mean Kinzie but I'd clarify.
    • " Previously a small street named De Saible Street had been named after him.[44]" If it still is, I'd add a comma after "Previously".
    That's it. A fine article on a neglected topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Wehwalt, I have incorporated all your, again very fine, suggestions in the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • Ref 4: I'm a little uneasy about this source. It states that the website is based on a self-published book. The essay that forms the basis of ref 4 is said to be "currently undergoing revision based on new information and documents found since 1999" which raises issues of its stability. There is no information on the author of the essay, named as "John F Swenson" – is he an expert? The source is also the basis of refs 50, 58 and 59. Can you give any further information that might establish its quality and reliability?
    Thanks. Yes, I once talked to Jeremy, who used Swenson, and then I looked into him, myself, awhile ago. Swenson and his essay are cited on Du Sable in this University of Chicago history here. He is cited as an authority by the New York Times on Du Sable here. Swenson published in this scholarly journal on Chicago history here. The book that is the basis for the website is world cat held by several libraries, including university and scholarly instititions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 15: Paywall, so you should add the (subscription required) template.
    • Ref 51: IBSN missing: it is 978-0-89792-140-4. For consistency, the existing 10-digit ISBNs can be converted to 13-digit form via [15]
    • Ref 60: "Liette" is mis-spelt
    • Ref 68: page ref missing
    • Ref 73: Typo "retrieved" → "Retrieved"
    Oddly enough the template generates that and won't let me change it, or I just don't know how. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 76: Give the site publisher (Smithsonian National Postal Museum) rather than the web address. Also, keep to the established retrieval date format
    • Ref 77: Retrieval date format.

    Otherwise, the sources appear to be in good order and of the requisite quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Brian, I have now made your ref corrections or responded as noted above. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    All images are used appropriately and are appropriately licensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments from Tim riley edit

    I shall be supporting the promotion of this excellent article, but first a couple of quibbles about WP:OVERLINK: we have the Chicago River linked twice in the lead and Fort Michilimackina linked twice in the main text. Other than that, only two more comments. First, there is a statement in the lead that does not quite tally with the equivalent statement in the main text: "he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer" and "Point du Sable was arrested as a suspected spy": not quite the same thing. And secondly, in footnote 2 I am uneasy about "Quaif notes", the verb seeming to me to imply endorsement of his statement, whereas something like "comments" or "remarks" would be more neutral. If you disagree with me on the last point I shall not press the point. Tim riley talk 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Tim, very helpful. I have made all the corrections/clarifications, you have requested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to Support the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support by Coemgenus edit

    There is little here to quibble about. This is a well-written article about an historical figure about whom little is known--a difficult task. I made some minor tweaks to hyphens and dashes, but otherwise this article looks to me to be qualified for the bronze star. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coord note edit

    FTR, although there hasn't been a huge amount of commentary here, the reviews have all been positive and each of the participants is among FAC's most experienced; as there haven't been any issues raised in almost a month I see no reason not to promote -- tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2018 [16].

    Battle of Warsaw (1705) edit

    Nominator(s): Imonoz (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a battle between Swedish forces and Saxon/Polish-Lithuanian forces in the year of 1705, involving the power struggle for the Polish throne between Augustus II the Strong and Stanisław Leszczyński. The outnumbered Swedish force managed to beat their foes after a battle outside Warsaw and protect the coronation of king Stanislaw I. This could be the first battle-article in the Great Northern War to receive the FA status. Imonoz (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    Nikkimaria, Fixed (I believe) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use fixed pixel size - you can scale images up or down using |upright=
    Fixed (can't figure out how to do it with the infobox image, and the doublings however) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Battle_of_Warsaw_1705.PNG: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
    Updated source as best as I could (old source is gone) by adding a new one Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Mányoki_Stanislaus_Leszczyński.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Aŭgust_Mocny._Аўгуст_Моцны_(H._Rodakowski,_XIX).jpg, File:Jacob_Burensköld_SP158.jpg, File:Altranstadt_Mittagessen_1706.jpg
    Fixed Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Campaign_of_Grodno.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
    Added source information (should've done that a long time ago) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Svensk_Kavalleriformering_1707.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an English description (previously only in Swedish) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nikkimaria: I've removed four images from the article (Charles XII, Peter I, Warsaw river and the peace of 1706) as I thought these were not really necessary for this article. I also added one new image in the Aftermath, "The coronation of Stanisław I Leszczyński in 1705". Can you please review this image? And I would also like to know if all the previous issues you noted, are fixed? Imonoz (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Still wondering when and where File:Svensk_Kavalleriformering_1707.JPG was first published. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I have added details to when it was made (2 July 1707) and where it was made (Altranstädt, Germany). Also when and where it was printed and published (1746, Stockholm). Is that enough? Imonoz (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - for US copyright we care more about publication, but that's old enough to be well PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I see. Just for clarification, does the article pass the image review or is there anything else? Imonoz (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking your time. Imonoz (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • There are several Harvard errors:
    • Kling & Sjöström 2015 (refs 1, 4, 30, 52)
    • Imhof & Schönleben 1719 (refs 14, 29, 46)
    • Grimberg & Uddgren 1914 (refs 21, 22, 28, 33, 37, 57)
    I'm happy you noticed these. Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the sources appear to be non-English. Their languages should be stated.
    Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notes 1, 3 and 4 are uncited. Perhaps 1 can be taken as purely explanatory, but for 3 and 4 the dates should be confirmed by sources.
    Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Otherwise, sources appear to be consistently formatted and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Seems like none of the book cites include publisher's location. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Dank edit

    CommentsSupport from Cas Liber edit

    Hi, am reading through and will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ...''...and Stanisław Leszczyński, who eventually seized the Polish throne in 1704 - given this has happened before 1705, which is the time of the narrative, this needs to be in pluperfect tense, i.e. "and Stanisław Leszczyński, who had (eventually) seized the Polish throne in 1704". I think "eventually" is possibly redundant here too.
    Changed to: "and Stanisław Leszczyński, who had seized the Polish throne in 1704"
    In 1705 a parliament in Warsaw was starting peace negotiations between Poland and Sweden, and the coronation of Stanisław Leszczyński was being planned. - this just sounds odd.
    Changed to: "In 1705 two events were planned to take place in Warsaw: a session of the Polish parliament to formally negotiate peace between Poland and Sweden; and the coronation of Stanisław Leszczyński as the new Polish king."
    the caption Charles XII, king of Sweden in his typical military uniform - why are we not just saying, "Charles XII, king of Sweden in military uniform"?
    Removed "his typical" from the sentence.
    After early success, with the seizure of Warsaw, Kraków and Sandomierz[4] and the Battle of Kliszów, where Augustus once again saw himself defeated.. - awkward-sounding, try " After seizing Warsaw, Kraków and Sandomierz[4] and defeating Augustus again at the Battle of Kliszów"

    Changed to: "After the Swede's seizure of Warsaw, Kraków and Sandomierz[4] and another defeat for Augustus at the Battle of Kliszów"
    Augustus' right to the throne of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth became deeply contested in 1704 sounds odd, try "Augustus' right to the throne of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was strongly challenged in 1704"
    Removed this sentence.
    In 1705, the time had come for the coronation of Stanisław Leszczyński, - err, why had the time come? why not merely state he was due to be crowned in 1705?
    Changed to "Stanisław Leszczyński was due to be crowned in Warsaw, 1705, after which negotiations of peace between Sweden and Poland could take place."

    Okay, that's just reading the lead and background sections. I think the prose needs some work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Casliber:. Thank you for these noted errors. What do you think of the changes? The text has been gone through by several editors and heavily improved over the original text. As there still might be some errors in it, I would be really happy if you could skim through the rest of it and see if similar issues appear with the good eye of yours. Imonoz (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay will do later today. I do worry that if I find this many then I am missing others. I don't have a fine eye for detail so I know I miss things. I will get someone to look at it after I have finished. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and they withdrew from the left bank of the Vistula River completely, along with all Polish troops.. - who is the "they" referring to?
    Changed to "who withdrew from the left bank of the Vistula River completely, along with all Polish troops."
    ... and attacked a Swedish guard consisting of 20 men... - "guard"...? "guardpost" do you mean?
    That is correct, fixed.
    .. in which a plan was constructed that envisioned a joint strike on Nieroth's vulnerable cavalry.." --> " in which a joint strike on Nieroth's vulnerable cavalry was planned?" or even "Paykull held a council of war, and planned a joint strike on Nieroth's vulnerable cavalry..."
    Changed to your last alternative which sounds good to me. Imonoz (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, looks better now. Also new lead is clearer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    support comments from auntieruth edit

    This is very good. I'm almost ready to support.
    I'm concerned about the lead, which is confusing, especially as to who is in charge of what. Wondering if this is clearer? auntieruth (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The '''Battle of Warsaw''' (also known as the '''Battle of Rakowitz''' or '''Rakowiec''')<ref group=Note>[[Rakowiec, Warsaw|Rakowiec]] later became part of the [[Ochota]] district of [[Warsaw]].</ref> was fought on 31{{nbsp}}July 1705 ([[Gregorian calendar]])<ref group=Note>Unless otherwise stated, this article uses dates from the [[Gregorian calendar]] (new style), in preference to the [[Swedish calendar|Swedish]] or the [[Julian calendar]] (old style) which were used simultaneously.</ref> near Warsaw, Poland, during the [[Great Northern War]]. The battle was part of a power struggle for the [[List of Polish monarchs#Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1569–1795|Polish–Lithuanian throne]]. It was fought between [[Augustus II the Strong]] and [[Stanisław Leszczyński]], Augustus entered the Northern war as king of both [[Electorate of Saxony|Saxony]] and the [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth]], and had formed an alliance with [[Denmark–Norway]] and [[Tsardom of Russia|Russia]]. Stanisław Leszczyński had seized the Polish throne in 1704, with the support of the [[Swedish army]] of [[Charles XII of Sweden]]. The struggle for the throne forced the [[List of szlachta|Polish nobility]] to pick sides; the [[Warsaw Confederation (1704)|Warsaw Confederation]] supported Leszczyński and [[Swedish Empire|Sweden]], and the [[Sandomierz Confederation]] supported of Augustus and his allies. The conflict which resulted in the [[Polish civil war (1704–1706)|Polish civil war of 1704–1706]].

    In 1705 two events were planned to take place in Warsaw: a session of the Polish parliament to formally negotiate peace between Poland and Sweden; and the coronation of Stanisław Leszczyński as the new Polish king. Meanwhile the allies developed a [[Campaign of Grodno|grand strategy]] that envisioned a combined assault to crush the Swedish forces and restore Augustus II to the Polish throne. Accordingly, an allied army of up to 10,000 cavalry under the command of [[Otto Arnold von Paykull]] was sent towards Warsaw to interrupt the Polish parliament. The Swedes sent a 2,000-strong cavalry contingent of their own, under the command of [[Carl Nieroth]], to protect it. Encouraged by the fact that he heavily outnumbered the Swedes, Paykull took the initiative and attacked. He managed to cross the [[Vistula|Vistula River]] with his army on 30 July, after a stubborn defense by a few Swedish [[Squadron (army)|squadrons]], and reached the plains next to [[Rakowiec, Warsaw|Rakowiec]], directly west of Warsaw, on 31 July, where the two forces engaged in an [[Battle|open battle]].

    Augustus’s allied left wing quickly collapsed; after a short but fierce fight, so did the right and centre. Paykull managed to rally some of his troops a few kilometres away, at the village of Odolany, where the fight was renewed. The Swedes again gained the upper hand and, this time, won the battle. They captured Paykull along with letters and other documents which informed the Swedes of the strategic intentions of the allies. The coronation of Stanisław Leszczyński occurred in early October. Peace between Poland and Sweden in November 1705 allowed the Swedish king to focus his attention on the Russian threat near [[Grodno]]. The subsequent campaign resulted in the [[Treaty of Altranstädt (1706)]], by which Augustus renounced both his claim to the Polish throne and his [[Treaty of Narva|alliance]] with [[Peter the Great]] of Russia.

    @Auntieruth55:. I compared this version with the original one and yes, I agree this is probably a lot better for readers who are not familiar with the Great Northern War or the Polish Civil War. Now the combatants are much more clear. I'll change it. Imonoz (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imonoz: made a minor tweak. All is well. auntieruth (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imonoz: added the conversion of km distances as well. made a couple of minor tweaks to the "aftermath section" (see below) and such. auntieruth (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Auntieruth55: Thank you so much for that, I appriciate it. Imonoz (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Piotrus edit

    • In the Aftermath, who are the allies?
    @Piotrus: In general, in this article, the "allies" are always the coalition forces (Russia, Saxony, Denmark-Norway and also the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth with the nobility supporting Augustus) unless otherwise stated. The confusion of this kinda went pass my nose as most articles in the Great Northern War does the same. I now see the issue and confusion with this. Is it better to use "coalition forces" instead of "allies" for Russia, Saxony etc, or have a note in the beginning of each article that states who the "allies" actually are? I would happily recive suggestions here to improve my writing in the future. Imonoz (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar with the right terminology for this era, but whatever term, define it on the first use. The problem with the article didn't define the allies very well. This is fixed, but I'd recommend adding Augustus' to all usage of allies to make it clear. Currently some sentences say 'Augustus' allies' and some, just allies. This is potentially confusing (are those the same allies? If so, why are they sometimes disambiguated and sometimes, not)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: I've now added clarification to every mention of "allies" in the article that was not yet clarified. Imonoz (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why they were, probably no particular reason. Auntieruth55 seem to have sorted most of these issues out (big thank you), with capitals and also the confusion of "allies" in the Aftermath. Imonoz (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, all capitalization issues fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Piotrus: are your issues addressed now? auntieruth (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2018 [17].

    15th Tank Corps edit

    Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a Soviet tank formation that fought in World War II, serving in many major actions such as the Soviet offensive after Stalingrad and the Third Battle of Kharkov. I would like to improve this as far as possible, and am attempting to improve coverage of an underrepresented area of World War II. Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • Suggest scaling up all maps and providing a legend for the first
    • File:Polozenie_17_09_1939.png: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Same with File:Operation_Star_1.png, File:Operation_Star_2.png, File:Operation_Star_3.png
    • The maps are own work by the users who created them, but they match up with what I've read on the battles. I will post on MILHIST talk asking if there are any users who would be willing to make maps (I don't have the expertise to do it myself), as the books I've consulted have maps that include the corps.
    • File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the rationales in the given tag is believed to apply?\
    • Rationale #3
    • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg: FUR is not adequate for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have any more information on the image than I did for the A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    All sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. In the case of citation 12, the details are not clear. What does "fond 38" mean? If I wished to verify this citation, how would I go about it? Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • To verify, one would go to the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Podolsk which is near Moscow, look up fond 38 (a section of the archives), then find opus 11373 (sub-section). In opus 11373 file 150 would include the data. Unfortunately the document is not one of those posted online, and I obtained the data from a fairly decent SPS. I would hate to make the article less detailed on this point as it is a snapshot of the corps at about full strength. Kges1901 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66 edit

    • No DABs, external links OK
    • No overlinking
    • Link mechanized corps, mortar, sapper, minefield
    • Done, except for mortar which was already linked. Kges1901 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • During its first formation I dislike this phrase here as it kinda negates the impact of its participation in the invasion of Poland. I suggest keeping everything here chronological and combine the second and third sentences of the first para, being sure to moving its disbandment to the last thing in the para.
    • batteries of the two rifle regiments I think that you mean artillery batteries here?
    • Who did the 101st and 119th Rifle Regiments belong to?
    • What's a KMG?
    • Abbreviation for the cavalry mechanized group, explained in the first paragraph of the section. Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • the 3rd Tank Corps had seized Smetskiye Vyselkami How is this possible? Do you mean the 3rd Tank Army?
    • The 3rd Tank Corps, a unit temporarily attached to the army for the operation. Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ordered the transfer of the 15th Tank Corps. transferred to what? This whole section is unclear.
    • I really like the maps, but they don't quite match the text.
    • Could you elaborate on your specific concerns? Kges1901 (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 26 August map looks like it's actually covering the actions from 23 to 27 August. And are Smetskiye Vyselkami and Smetskaya the same place?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed caption for map. As for places, the former no longer exists today, Smetskaya is a location mentioned as different in my sources. Kges1901 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The renewed attack began on 2 September and was delayed due to German air attacks, and a regiment from the 264th Rifle Division was unable to cross the Vytebet River and capture the village of Ozhigovo, which was necessary for the 15th Corps to exploit the breakthrough, forcing Koptsov to commit the 17th Motor Rifle Brigade and the 113th and 195th Brigades' motor rifle battalions to the battle. Break this into two or three sentences. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list of commanders seems redundant with them all listed in the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Dank edit

    Support on prose per my standard disclaimer, assuming Sturmvogel is also happy with your edits. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Ceranthor edit

    • In the lead, why "was formed" rather than just "formed"? this happens multiple times
    • Adjusted. I was unaware that the was was in this case redundant. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Corps commander Koptsov" - why not just say Koptsov again? The commander descriptor is more confusing IMO
    • "Support units included the 401st Separate Communications Battalion." - just the one battalion? I'd use a different word than include here, then
    • "while the 20th Brigade had 61 BAs, a total of 461 tanks and 122 armored cars" - why the separate identification of "total"? Aren't they all totals?
    • "Chuvakin's troops also lost 11 killed and 14 wounded.[3]" - also lost 11 killed? Reads as redundant. And then after that, what does it mean to lose wounded?
    • I meant for also in addition to the previously noted equipment loss. Wounded can be 'lost' in the sense that they are no longer capable of fighting, because depending on the severity of the wound they would be evacuated to hospitals. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "killed around 40 officers" - about, not around
    • "the 15th had advanced only 200 to 300 meters" - convert template would be helpful
    • "During the fighting, the corps reported 650 German soldiers killed at a cost of 350 killed and wounded.[41]" - not sure "cost" works here, perhaps another word?
    • Cost is commonly used to describe casualties in military history, for example "costly victory". Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "suffering losses of 360 killed and wounded" - same note as above; what does it mean to lose wounded?
    • Think you may need to add some {{nowrap}}s and WP:NBSPs throughout. I can help if you need instructions on how to go about doing that.
    • Could you elaborate on specifically where? I am unfamiliar with the use of these templates. Kges1901 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea is that you shouldn't break up words that make up proper names or organization names. I can run through at some point and try to fix them up. ceranthor 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Prose looks solid. ceranthor 03:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A note: I think I want to post a few more suggestions after I get through an NBSP cleanup. Will post those asap. ceranthor 17:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Few more comments, then happy to support:

    • "In February, the unit fought in Operation Star, whose objective was the capture of the important city of Kharkov in eastern Ukraine, and participated in the capture of that city." - last bit seems redundant
    • " which divided Poland between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and also guaranteed that neither country would attack the other." - would cut the comma before "and" as well as the "also" after it
    • "eliminated a group of around 250 officers" - same "around" note as before
    • "The 27th Brigade had lost two burned" - total nitpick, but don't think you need "had" before lost
    • "On the first day of the attack, the 154th and 264th Rifle Divisions were sent into the attack first, but could not break through" - just saying "break through" seems a bit vague and perhaps a tad unencylopedic, does the source provide any indication of a more specific verb to use?
    • Addressed all except the last as the source only says breakthrough. Kges1901 (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Great work! ceranthor 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinator comment edit

    Sorry to come to this a little late, but I think we need an eye or two more on the prose. For example, a lot of paragraphs begin with a date. I don't think it is a large problem, but I wonder if Ian Rose, HJ Mitchell or Mike Christie could have a quick look? Sarastro (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy to take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support on prose Comments from Ian edit

    Copyedited so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything. I'm not expert either on tanks or the Eastern Front campaigns so this review is purely for prose. Outstanding points:

    • "the 27th Brigade, which crossed the river behind the 119th, eliminated a group of about 250 officers defending the wooded hills" -- "eliminated" in this context sounds a bit like "liquidated"; were these officers killed in normal fighting or executed?
    • Rephrased to "destroyed" since the mention of tank support looks like conventional fighting. Kges1901 (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Main Military Council had considered the tank corps' performance in Poland unsatisfactory" -- anything on the Council's rationale for finding the performance unsatisfactory; do any of the sources comment on whether this was a reasonable judgement?
    • "The order was given to relocate to the Kozelsk area in preparation for the attack on 14 August" -- this makes it sound like the attack was due to begin 14 August but presumably means either that preparations took place on 14 August, or the order to do so was given on 14 August, or both; which?
    • "after a short artillery preparation" -- does "preparation" mean "softening up"; could we just say "attack" or "barrage"?

    Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tks for your prompt attention, Kges -- rephased your new wording a bit but overall this addresses my concerns and I'm happy to support on prose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2018 [18].

    Eliza Acton edit

    Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Eliza Acton was an English poet and food writer extraordinaire. She produced one of Britain's finest cookbooks, which, even 170 years later, remains fresh and engaging. The book is also important for being the first to provide a list of ingredients for each recipe, and timings for each step of the process. She was also a passable poet, and provided a later, scholarly work on the history and culture of bread making in England. This has been through a bit of a re-write recently and a very useful PR; any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review edit

    • File:Eliza_Acton_1799-1859.png: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea, I'm afraid! I'll have a hunt round to see if I can find it, but if not, I presume we're all good to have it as a non-free (only one, up in the infobox, etc)? Thanks Nikkimaria - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Gone for plan B after SarahSV established that this isn't Acton (the second time we've added an image and then found it wasn't the lady herself!) – SchroCat (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review by Lingzhi edit

    • Humble, Nicola (2006). Sort error, expected: Hughes, Kathryn (2006-);
    Done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • David, Elizabeth (1968). CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
    • Ray, Elizabeth (1968). "Preface". CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand some of these two, but what I have done is add the page numbers for both and put in the right ISBN (ISBNs were introduced in 1966, so this 1968 book wasn't too early). This is the original year of publication, so doesn't need the extra parameter, and an OCLC isn't needed because of the ISBN. If you could explain what the CS1 bit is,about, I'll see if I can sort that too. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, ISBNs introduced in 1970, unless Wikipedia is wrong. Your isbn is from a 1974 reprint of "Ray (1968) The best of Eliza Acton". Which source did you use, 1968 edited version or 1974 reprint? OCLC of 1968 is 123755053, but pagenums may be different, so pls verify. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the infobox has brilliantly given an incorrect date, as the history section makes clear; some books in the late '60s carried the numbers. I'll check my copy later to see which one it is. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Tim riley edit

    I think "a bit of a rewrite" is unduly modest; 504 words to 3,859 is rather more than that! I was a peer reviewer, and had my few, minor, queries dealt with then. One additional point that I must have missed (sorry!): in the Legacy section, last para, first and second sentences: "...indebted to Acton and her work. In her work...". Two points here: first there is a bit of a jingle in the repetition, and secondly the first "her" is Acton and the second "her" is David, and at first reading this is not clear till one gets well into the second sentence. I think you need to bring Mrs D in at the start of her sentence, like this or something similar: "Elizabeth David wrote in 1977 that The English Bread Book was a major influence on and source for her own English Bread and Yeast Cookery." That's all I can find. This is the third time I've read the article, and it has been a pleasure once more. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks Tim, I'm much obliged for your comments at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Wehwalt edit

    I also was a peer reviewer. Seems fine for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks, Wehwalt, for your comments here and at PR, they are always extremely useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Gerda edit

    Thank you for another interesting woman! I missed the peer review, and found only so minor points (which you may consider or not) that I can support right away.

    Lead

    • "The first recipe for spaghetti" would be surprising, - first in England? Or first mentioning of the word in English*
    • "admired by and influential with" sounds (to me) like a phrase that is correct but perhaps not the most elegant way to put it.

    Early life

    • I'd move the image down a little, more to the context.
      • I work on a relatively wide screen, and if it moves down, it forces the next image down, which affects the triple image down. I know we can't mitigate for all screen sizes in the world of tablets and mobiles, but this is the way that affects least people. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cookery writer

    • St John-at-Hampstead: is she buried in the church, or on the church graveyard?
      • It's not clear from the sources, but as we say "at" the church, rather than "in" the church, we cover both possibilities. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cookery

    • Imagine someone who goes from the TOC directly to there: "O'Brien", the first word. Who is that? Perhaps one line of summary before?
      • We outline who is is in the section just above (about poetry), so we should be OK as it is. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hear you, only I thought - and said so - of a reader who comes via the TOC. Our readers have different interests, and not all read an article sequentially. Example: in a longer article about a composition, I repeat links in the Music section, because some readers may read there only, without background and history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Legacy

    • I suggest you move the last line (1974) in chronology, to end on (2000) Seafood Lovers' Guide.

    I love the flavour of the article, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Gerda, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your replies, understood, fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Chetsford edit

    What a fascinating article. The only possible complaint I have is in this sentence: In 1861 Isabella's husband, Samuel, published Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management which also contain several of Acton's recipes. I'm not sure if "contain" should in fact be "contains" or "contained"? Maybe not. Chetsford (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks Chetsford, I've tweaked the point you raised, so it should be ok now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceoil edit

    • lead: Well structured, and written in an engaging prose' - I dont think this phrasing is worthy of the lead, though I have no issue with the substance. Should be toned down and broken into specifics - ie describe the structure, which was certainly innovative.
      • I've removed it: we outline the structure in more detail in the opening para, so it doesn't need repeating. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • lead: 'the book was successful - Better might be that the book sold in the region of x copies, and mention how this was way above numbers for anything previous and similar. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed this too. It would mean going into too much detail if we outline numbers sold, etc, and the following line says it was reprinted soon afterwards, which sums up the situation enough. Many thanks Ceoil - much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Jim edit

    Only one thing struck me in this excellent piece Modern Cookery was not reprinted in full until 1994, and The English Bread Book was reprinted in 1990. since the later item is listed first perhaps link with although instead of and Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many thanks Jimfbleak - much appreciated; I've tweaked as you've suggested. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from JM edit

    A great topic; very much worthy of the star.

    • You use several different names for the The English Bread-Book (I use that title because it's apparently on the title page!) and it may be worth taking a quick look at the article on that book, if you find a few minutes; at the very least, the title and the (apparently not a) picture of Acton may need changing. (for shouldn't be capitalised, I think?)
      • I've clarified in the footnote. Although Bread-Book was hyphenated in the original, it wasn't in later editions, so I've used the hyphen almost all the way through as we tend to be talking about the first edition.
    • "Hardy considers the story as apocryphal" Is the as really needed?
    • Is "invalids" the best term? I worry that it's a little archaic. I may be wrong.
    • "referred in her preface that she was" Are you sure that works? I would have thought that she wrote in her preface that x, or referred in her preface to the fact that x?
    • "bread making" Dash? For that matter, what about "well received" in the lead? And "left over"? Maybe I'm wrong.
      • Bread-making and left-over now hyphenated. I'm not sure about well received. I think "the book was well received" is OK, but it would be a "well-received book". I think I have that right, but if a grammar bod wants to correct me for the nth time in my life, I'll do my best to remember it this time. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The food writer Alan Davidson considers that Modern Cookery "is" Surely he considers it to be, or says that it is?
    • The final paragraph of "Cookery": is your use of speech marks around recipe names consistent?
    • "The food historian Bee Wilson considers that many modern cookery writers are indebted to Acton and her work." How about "The food historian Bee Wilson considers many modern cookery writers to be indebted to Acton and her work."?
    • The second sentence in the final paragraph contains two semicolons; is that deliberate?

    A really great read; I may not be back to look again (my time on Wikipedia is currently very limited), but I hope these comments will be useful. Finally: I made a few small edits; please double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Many thanks, Josh. All sorted now, except "well(-)received", about which I am not sure. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. I really don't know why I thought "well received" should have been "well-received", as it obviously shouldn't be. Great topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Josh - very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Brianboulton edit

    "The book was well received" does not require the hyphen; "a well-received book" would. I looked in on the peer review, made suggestions, saw the article in good order, even more so now. My one difficulty is reading an article about cooking and recipes as I sit in my snowbound house, unable to get to the shops while the larder slowly empties. And keeping my fingers crossed that the lekkie stays on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks Brian, for your thoughts at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2018 [19].

    Vesna Vulović edit

    Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Vesna Vulović was the sole survivor of a 1972 plane crash that killed almost 30 people. She is recognized by Guinness World Records for having survived the highest fall without a parachute. I look forward to any and all constructive criticism so that the article meets FA criteria. 23 editor (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment What an extraordinary person. The article is in excellent shape, and my only comment is to ask whether we know why the crew of JAT Flight 367 might have been so fatalistic? Had there been other attacks on aircraft? Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As a matter of fact, there were quite a few aircraft hijackings/bombings in Europe and North America in the early 1970s (mostly by Middle Eastern or Latin American "freedom fighters"). Around the same time, a number of terrorist attacks were carried out in Yugoslavia and against Yugoslav targets abroad by exiled nationalists. This part of the article is more or less told from Vulović's perspective. I don't want to speculate as to why the crew acted as she described, but I feel this passage provides valuable insight into their activities/overall disposition the day leading up to the crash. Of course, I can trim this section if it's overly confusing. 23 editor (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest working that in (perhaps as a short para in the 'JAT Flight 367' section?), as the crash and terrorist attacks is also part of the story here - especially given that Vulović was perceived to be at risk while recovering and what seem like absurd claims were made about the incident late in her life. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, you want me to mention that there was an uptick in Croatian nationalist attacks before and after the bombing? 23 editor (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like that: whatever's needed to provide context for the attack on the aircraft (if only Croatian nationalist terrorist attacks are relevant, then limit it to them). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some context . What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good, but starting the next sentence with 'the same day' is unclear, as it's not obvious which day is being referred to. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this edit remedied the issue, Nick? 23 editor (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that looks good. I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Support Very nicely written. I had to pause only twice reading it through:

    • "Nobody ever expected me to live this long," she recounted. - Begs for the year in which she recounted this to be added
    • It's stated that she disputed the assertion that she was discovered in the fuselage, then goes on to quote her as saying "...I was in the middle part of the plane...", which seems somewhat contradictory.

    Factotem (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the input, Factotem. I've addressed the discrepancy you brought up (good catch!) and added that the quote is from 2008. 23 editor (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • Ref 10 lacks publisher information
    • Ref 20: Clarify which part of this source is supporting the article.

    I'm not able to check the foreign language sources for reliability, but they don't appear to be problematic. Otherwise, all sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ref 10 is from the Czechoslovak Civil Aviation Authority. Ref 20 is from the official Discovery Channel episode guide. The results of the Mythbusters' experiment is mentioned by this website , whose reliability I'm unsure about. The fact that her case was tackled by the Mythbusters is also mentioned in this article by Serbia's state broadcaster. 23 editor (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't seem to be anything in the Discovery Channel source that supports this statement: "In 2005, Vulović's fall was recreated by the American television program MythBusters, which concluded that surviving such a plunge was unlikely but plausible". This statement is supported by the alternative source you mention, but I would not classify this as reliable. Unless the Serbian source makes specific reference to the plausibility of survival, I would recommend that you drop the statement from your text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've trimmed this part to only mention her case was featured on the show without explicitly stating the team's findings. 23 editor (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from Ceranthor edit

    • I've been fascinated by this woman's life for years. I intend to post some comments when I get the chance. ceranthor 04:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "She went on to make an almost complete recovery" - Have never liked "went on to"; I think it's redundant. Better as "She made an almost complete recovery"
    • "The airline apparently felt that her presence on flights would attract too much publicity. " - why apparently?
    • "The final years of her life were spent in seclusion and she continued to struggle with survivor's guilt." - You haven't previously mentioned this survivor's guilt in the lead, so it's confusing to say that she continued to struggle with it
    • "Srbská Kamenice" - needs an WP:NBSP
    • "Vulović was fired from JAT in 1990 or 1991[e]" - for consistency's sake, when the marriage date was different among sources, you only listed one of the years. why do you list both here?

    Otherwise, the prose is fantastic. Support on 1a. ceranthor 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All addressed, Ceranthor, except for the NBSP. In which spot does it need to be added? 23 editor (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just fixed it. ceranthor 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jimfbleak! 23 editor (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - convinced by the above arguments, article still might need one or two minor fix ups in some areas but overall seems fine for a potential FA. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi , Inter&anthro! What improvements did you have in mind? I'd be happy to address any concerns. 23 editor (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 23 editor, I think that the opening early life section, while adequate, could perhaps be expanded a bit more, and that further on in the article many of the sources are in the Serbian language. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either aspect (and neither should hold this article back from becoming a FA) it would be nice to see the early life section a bit more fleshed out and if possible some more English language citations. But that is just my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as her early life is concerned, I couldn't find the names of her parents, despite my best efforts. In the Aviation Security interview, Vulovic mentions that she studied languages in university, hence her desire to travel to the UK to learn English, a language she was interested in due to contemporary pop culture. She stayed in an English town with a family friend before going to Sweden. Her parents forced her to return to Yugoslavia because they perceived Sweden to be too sexually liberated. I can add this info to the article if the Early life section as it appears now seems a bit thin.
    As for the Serbian sources, most are news reports published following her death. These go into quite a bit more detail about reactions to her passing than their Western counterparts, which merely rehash old English-language articles that were written about her. 23 editor (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support from Cas Liber edit

    Taking a look now...

    She sustained severe brain damage, having fractured her skull and then hemorrhaged. - I'd be wary about the term " brain damage" as it is generally used to describe people with permanent disability after an injury. I'd remove the term, and join mention of the skull fracture and hemorrhage onto the previous sentence about the coma.
    In 2005, Vulović's fall was recreated by the American television program MythBusters. - do we know what they concluded?
    Vulović's deteriorating health prevented her from taking part in annual commemorations at Srbská Kamenice, which she had previously attended for many years - ummm, in which year?

    These are minor issues - it reads welll and is on target to becoming Featured. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, Casliber. I've addressed the brain damage issue. We do know what the MythBusters concluded on the basis of the show itself (there's a Youtube video), but unfortunately I haven't been able to dig up a reliable source that explicitly states what their conclusion was. If you're interested, they said that surviving such a plunge was plausible under the right circumstances. As for the last point, it is referring to the last decade or so of her life. 23 editor (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok all good. a nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2018 [20].


    University of Washington station edit

    Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about a glass box in front of a football stadium that tens of thousands of people enter in order to descend 100 feet and board a train. In other words, a pretty standard train station, though one that had a long and complex planning process that preceded its construction. This article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE cleanup and I feel it's ready to join Seattle's other glass box as an FA. SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Disclaimer: This nomination is part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review edit

    • Ref 14: Check the page, given here as "p. 2-2" – single page or mistyped range?
      • The reference is on page "2-2" (section 2, page 2). I use endashes and the pp. parameter for multi-page citations.
        • Maybe a "2:2" format would be less confusing, but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have decided to replace the citation entirely, since I recently found the original document with that specific map. SounderBruce 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 35: I'm not sure how this untitled source supports the statement cited to it: "The FTA rejected the mid-block crosswalk and a compromise pedestrian overpass connecting to the center of the Montlake Triangle from Rainier Vista was adopted in 2011."
      • The first part (about the FTA rejection) is supported by page 5 of Ref 35 (the PDF), which states the following: "Spring 2010 – at-grade crossings not approved by FTA;".
    • Ref 58, also 77: I was denied access to these Seattle Times sources as I had apparently "reached my limit of free articles". Curiosly, I was allowed access to 60, 66, 67 and 81.
      • The older articles (community.seattletimes) are not behind the paywall that newer articles are. You can load them into incognito mode to bypass the paywall.

    Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability and in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above. SounderBruce 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Images review edit

    Not all images appear to have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Added ALT text for the pictogram. Only remaining ones without ALT text are portal icons. SounderBruce 06:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Epicgenius edit

    I don't think anyone has reviewed the prose yet. So I will have a try.

    • the terminus of the Central Link line, which continues south towards Capitol Hill station and Downtown Seattle - This is weird because usually, terminus means end. But in railway terminology, this is fine although it's grammatically awkward. I suggest clarifying that this is the northern terminus. Anyway, you'll need to update this when the Central Link Northgate Extension opens, so maybe this is kind of minor.
      • Tweaked a bit.
    • University of Washington station; Capitol Hill and University of Washington stations - doesn't the definite article "the" come before this phrase?
      • The station itself doesn't need the definite article, and sounds a bit awkward with it.
    • To the northwest is University of Washington campus - also needs a definite article.
      • Done.
    • rejected 1911 comprehensive plan for Seattle - this could be worded into "rejected comprehensive plan for Seattle in 1911" or something similar.
      • Done.
    • after it received construction bids that were $171 million higher than expected - I'm assuming that the soil was the cause of the high cost. Is that correct?
      • Yes, and I have added a second factor to that sentence.
    • The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002; - the semicolon at the end should be a colon.
      • Done.
    • By the end of the year, the station was averaging 9,300 daily boardings, placing it second among Link stations for ridership. - I'm interested as to what the first station is.
      • Added.
    • downtown transit tunnel - this should link to Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel.
      • Done.
    • the planned "U District" station to the west of the campus, which was scheduled to open in 2021 - with this phrasing, it sounds like U District won't open at all.
      • Fixed.
    • Station layout - so is the Northgate-bound track not in service?
      • It is in service, as trains layover and leave from both sides of the platform (with signs directing people towards the next train to leave). I switched it so both tracks are labeled as southbound ones.
    • The colors of the walls drew criticism from fans of the Huskies football team because they were similar to the neon yellow that was later adopted by rivals Oregon - the end of the sentence is awkward. What about "Oregon, the rival team" or something similar?
      • Done.

    Otherwise, seems like a very good article. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Epicgenius: Thanks for the review. I have gone through and made the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 02:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SounderBruce: Looks good. I think I'll support this nomination. I might come back with further comments later, but I think everything is OK for now. epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

    Looking over it now...

    • The station area is within a short driving distance of the University Village shopping center and Seattle Children's Hospital - need to be more specific. I mean, SF to LA is "short" compared with SF to NY....
      • Added distances based on a map reference. Couldn't find any text sources listing out how far the two are from the station.
    • ...due to a competitive labor market and unexpected soil conditions found during testing that would require a deeper tunnel - reads oddly as you have a noun and verbal construction. it would flow better with something like "due to a competitive labor market and underground testing that indicated a deeper tunnel was needed" - come to think of it, anything more on the soil conditions?
      • Fixed.
    • The alternatives were narrowed to two finalists in early 2002 - finalists?? why not just "options" or "routes"....
      • Changed to "options".

    Otherwise looks on track prose- and comprehensivenesswise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Casliber: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your three points. SounderBruce 04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Mike Christie edit

    • The University of Washington has long-term plans to redevelop its parking lots along Montlake Boulevard into additional office and classroom space, due to their proximity to the station: I don't see support for this in the given source; can you point me at the right paragraph?
      • The plan is listed under the "East Campus" section, with the graphic showing its proximity to UW Station. I have removed the last phrase, since it isn't directly supported.
        OK; that was what was bothering me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sequence of sections seems odd; wouldn't it be more natural to have the station layout and services before the history and future plans?
      • @Mike Christie: The sections are made to match other station articles, so I'm hesitant to change the order. I would rather have the Station layout after the history, since it describes the final design and would be a natural successor to the history section; in the same vein, the Services section describes current schedule and would complement the history section once it is expanded to include former service patterns (come 2021 and beyond). I would be willing to move the future plans section after the Services section, since it only describes changes to the service patterns. SounderBruce 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll strike this, since the sequence isn't wrong, but I suspect that this organization will seem less natural in ten or fifteen years, when the planning and construction phase is a distant memory. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The prose is very clean; I can't find a single comma to copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. The one issue I had is minor and a matter of opinion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2018 [21].

    Osbert Lancaster edit

    Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Osbert Lancaster had three careers at once: cartoonist, stage designer and architectural historian and polemicist. I've expanded his article and, I hope, covered all three aspects appropriately. I have had the benefit of expert guidance here and here on the use of unfree images showing the three areas of his work, and have had a peer review from colleagues including some of Wikipedia's leading producers of featured articles. Further comments on text and images will be most welcome. Lancaster was a very English phenomenon, but I hope readers from other countries will find him interesting. Tim riley talk 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Source review by Lingzhi edit

    • what is "prowenochess"?
      • A typo, now corrected.
    • are you averse to using {{sfn}}? It makes everything so much easier, esp. including providing a link between notes and references, and the ability to cross-check them... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find sfn hideously difficult, ugly and inflexible. I have used it when collaborating with editors who prefer it, and follow it as best I can when adding to an article that uses it, but in none of the FAs for which I have been flying solo have I used it, and hope never to have to. Tim riley talk 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said:

    1. Now I have to go through a process of copy/pasting your refernces onto a text file, massaging them in various ways, copy/pasting from there to a word doc, sorting, and then manually eyeballing each and every one, one by one, to compare them with your sources. That would be almost OK if I find no errors, but for many editors I find many very egregious errors. In that latter case, it is difficult for me to consider their actions as anything other than simply selfish.
    2. Moreover, as I also said, sfn creates a clickable link between references and sources – a service to the reader...

    I'll start copy/pasting now. I'll check back in a while. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This has never been raised as a problem by any reviewer in any of the 30+ FACs I've taken articles to. Perhaps you might leave reviews of non sfn articles to reviewers who do not object to them as you do. Tim riley talk 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done checking. I do not object about yours; yours are perfect. I am unhappy (as I said) when people use "I hate templates" as an excuse to leave large numbers of egregious errors on the page in hopes that either a) no one will see them, b) someone else will see them and clean them up, or c) someone else will at least save them the trouble of finding all the errors. I humbly suggest that you might chew your pencil tip in frustration if you had to check that kind... I don't think I could point out examples, as that would of course fluster the editors. But there are some repeat offenders. No problems in formatting or reliability here. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a relief, anyway. Thank you for the check. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. With the addition of the extra information into the reputation section, this now rounds out the only area I thought lacking at the PR. This is an excellent article, fully within the FA criteria and a pleasure to read. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, SchroCat. Input at PR and here much appreciated. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Participated in the PR, and all points raised there were resolved. Very nice work indeed. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ditto on the PR, ditto, ditto. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm most grateful to both Ceoil and Wehwalt for excellent input at PR and for support here. Tim riley talk 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with a few uncontentious observations:
    Early years
    • "The headmaster, Stanley Harris, was a celebrated amateur footballer and cricketer..." Celebrated footballer, perhaps, but distinctly modest as a cricketer. Perhaps amend to "...celebrated amateur footballer and occasional first-class cricketer"?
      • I'll happily be guided by you on any cricketing matter. Done. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd to see Thackeray described as an "artist". Perhaps he illustrated his own books, but so for example did Evelyn Waugh, and you wouldn't really include him in a list of artists.
      • That was my reaction when reading the sources, but both Boston and Knox, the main sources, include Thackeray among the Carthusian "artists", and so I felt I ought to follow suit. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Aside): gaining a fourth-class degree after four years' study doesn't suggest he made much of a "belated effort"!
      • Having rashly switched from History to English, he found, like many before and after him, that the compulsory Anglo-Saxon is frightfully hard going. He was astonished to get a degree at all after a disastrous viva in which the only words he could translate were "Jesus Christ", and the fierce examineress thought he was letting loose an expletive. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    1930s
    • "...the diverse gifts of contemporary artists from Edward Burra to Giorgio de Chirico, Edward Wadsworth and Paul Nash." Do the last three represent collectively the other end of the range from Burra? Or is the intended sense "the diverse gifts of contemporary artists such as..." etc?
      • I'm not sure, and have adopted your wording to be on the safe side. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was the nature of the "centrepiece of the Festival Gardens" that Lancaster and Piper designed?
      • Boston desctibes it as "a 250-yard succession of pavilions, arcades, towers, pagodas, terraces, gardens, lakes and fountains, in styles that included Brighton Regency, Gothic and Chinese". I don't think this need go in the main text, but I could put it in a footnote if you think it would be a good idea. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Later: the more I looked at this the more I thought a footnote a good idea, and I have added one, consisting of the above quote from Boston. Tim riley talk 16:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence beginning "He illustrated or designed covers..." is in my view rather too long and over-complicated through punctuation. It could I am sure be stated more elegantly.
    Later years
    • I'm not sure why you specifically mention the "Labour government" in relation to plans demolish the front of the Tate Gallery. A couple of sentences earlier you mention the actual demolition of the Euston Arch without naming the incumbent government.
      • I mention the Tories in the sentence immediately following, as well as later referring to OL's objection to their being in hock to developers: I wanted to make it clear that he opposed both the main parties in an even-handed way. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Stage design
    • Nitpick: do we include the "Sir" when we refer to such as Geraint Evans (and, see below, Roy Strong)
      • The MoS (rightly, I think) enjoins us to be careful to give people the titles they actually held at the time in question. The NPG show was commissioned by Mr Strong; the quoted comments were made by Sir Roy (and Sir Geraint). Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reputation
    • Superfluous "But" in line 2
      • I'll defend this "But", I think. York's first quoted comments might lead one to expect OL to be elevated to the immortals, but York goes on to say that his fame is anything but immortal. Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sir Roy Strong, when he was just Roy a section or two back.

    That's all. The article has the grace and style that we expect from the Riley stable, and is thoroughly deserving of elevation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, BB, not only for your contribution at PR and here, but for putting the idea of overhauling Osbert's article in my head in the first place. I am only sorry that it couldn't have been a joint effort as originally planned. I hope another opportunity will arise in due course. – Tim riley talk 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Gerda Thank you for making his interesting three-fold career better known! I missed the peer review, and not much seems left. Consider and perhaps ignore some minor points.

    Lead

    • "... as important works of reference on the subject." - I guess the subject means architecture in general, wouldn't hurt to repeat, after many details in between.
    I am reluctant to repeat "architecture" in a single sentence. Tim riley talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Early years

    • Most of the people are given (at least first) in their relationship to him, but then we come to Clare Lancaster, having to look up again and conclude that it is his mother, now with her married name, followed by "her husband". I suggest to say "his mother, his father" again for clarity.
    Done. Tim riley talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd have a comma after "Lincoln College, Oxford" but perhaps English don't need one.
    Not needed here. Tim riley talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking again, though a comma is not needed it does no harm and I have added one. Tim riley talk 20:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1930s

    • After he studied history in Oxford, "art" comes a bit as a surprise.
    • I made a red link for Polunin which will not stay red for long.

    A pleasure to read, thank you. Meeting the quote "the most polite and unsplenetic of cartoonists, he was never a crusader, remaining always a witty, civilized critic with a profound understanding of the vagaries of human nature" made my day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Changes made where appropriate in response to above suggestions. Thanks. Tim riley talk 17:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from KJP1 edit

    First off, apologies for missing the Peer review. It's a fine portrait of the man and his works and, having read it through twice, I'm quite certain it meets the FA criteria. Some minor suggestions below, which can be considered and acted upon or rejected as appropriate, but nothing that stands in the way of my Supporting.

    Lead
    • "his books have continued to be regarded as important works of reference on the subject" - more simply, "his books remain important works of reference in the field of architectural studies." I appreciate that causes you to use "architectural" twice in the same sentence (see above), so you may just prefer to leave it alone!
    • "Cartoon and Coronets: The Genius of Osbert Lancaster" - I think the title is "Cartoons and Coronets: The Genius of Osbert Lancaster", as you have it later. And should it be italicised, as a title?
      • Typo corrected. I've followed up your point about italics in the relevant bit of the MoS and you're right. Done. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Life and career - Early years
    • "a few blocks away were the deprived and dangerous Notting Dale and the Portobello Road" - "a few blocks away were the deprived and dangerous areas of Notting Dale and the Portobello Road..." Sounds like your neck of the woods!
    • "There, as at Charterhouse, he found two camps in which a vociferous minority of students chose to group themselves" - I got a tad confused here. We've "two camps" into which a "single (?) minority" of vociferous students chose to group themselves? Not sure what to suggest, will ponder as I go.
      • Well, most of the students had better things to do than join either tomfool clique. I've recast the sentence a bit more vaguely. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "most importantly John Betjeman, who became a close friend and lifelong influence" - you've already identified him as a friend, early in the sentence. Close "companion"?
      • Redrawn
    Life and career - Second World War
    • "His duties included daily news briefings of other public servants and the British press" - are we missing something? "His duties included producing daily news briefings for other public servants and the British press".
      • It wasn't so much that he wrote them: it was that he delivered them to gatherings of journos and civil servants. I've added "giving". Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "drawing caricatures for leaflets in German, Dutch and French for aerial drops" - clear to me, but to a wider audience? Perhaps, "drawing caricatures for leaflets in German, Dutch and French for distribution in Occupied Europe"?
      • Redrawn.
    • "Following an initiative by Macmillan, backed by Winston Churchill, a new government took office in Athens" - the point could be debated, but I wonder whether this rather downplays Churchill's role? Colville records WSC's intention "of flying to Athens to settle the matter" (Fringes of Power, p=537) and Gilbert devotes a whole chapter, (Road to Victory: Christmas 1944: Athens Amid Gunfire, pp=1117-1136), to WSC's personal involvement and presence. Personally, I'd attribute it to WSC, supported by Macmillan, e.g. "Following a personal intervention by Winston Churchill in support of an initiative by Macmillan, a new government took office..."
      • Boston is not wrong when he says as a preliminary to his chapter about Lancaster's time in Athens that as far as this bit of European history is concerned "it is rare to find two experts who agree on the facts, let alone the interpretation." I have Colville’s two volumes, but with all respect to him he was parti pris, and I rely more on Alistair Horne, a historian whom I greatly admire. According to him, Churchill took some talking round to get him to back Macmillan's initiative (which may actually have been Leeper's idea originally, but I don't propose to pursue that). WSC was at first all against having Archbishop Damaskinos as Regent. I've nevertheless tweaked the sentence a bit. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Life and career - Later years: 1960–1986
    • "before joining his wife for a midday dry martini and finally dressing and going to one of his clubs for lunch" - did he really take a cocktail in his pyjamas or did he dress first?
      • Of course he had his midday martini while still in pyjamas and dressing gown. Doesn't everyone? (He really did). Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They played a major role in defeating the Labour government's plans to demolish the front of the Tate Gallery" - wasn't the intention to remove the portico, rather than the whole front?
      • More than just the portico - it was the grand steps, the lot. Everything that makes the front of the Tate look Tate-like. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1978 Lancaster suffered the first of a long series of strokes, and he began a slow decline in his health" - perhaps, "In 1978 Lancaster suffered the first of a series of strokes, and his health began to decline".
    Works - Architectural history and comment
    • "The twisted columns in the "Baroque" section are drawn from no real baroque building, but are the artist's distillation of the many examples he has seen and sketched" - I think I know what you mean, but in a sense they are drawn from real examples, Solomonic column, but exaggerated. Perhaps; "The twisted columns in the "Baroque" section are not drawn directly from actual baroque buildings, but are the artist's distillation of the many examples he has seen and sketched"?
    Works - Cartoons
    • "Canon Fontwater, a personification of the Church Militant" - I know you're not a great fan, but I think you need a bluelink here for clarity.
      • I wish there were some recording mechanism that shows which links have been followed and how often: I bet this one would register a big round nought, but OK. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Character and views
    • "But despite what he described as his strong traditionalist feelings he was a floating voter:" - perhaps a comma, or two, he suggested hesitantly? "But despite what he described as his strong traditionalist feelings, he was a floating voter:".
      • Doesn't improve the sense or flow, to my mind. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Legacy, honours and reputation - Exhibitions
    • "an exhibition titled "Cartoons and Coronets: The Genius of Osbert Lancaster" - should the title be italicised, see Lead above?
      • Indeed. Something I'll try to remember if the question comes up elsewhere, though using itals is logical enough when one thinks about it. If the book of the same title is italicised it would be particularly odd if the show were not. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That's my lot. Thoroughly enjoyable, for which many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for these. I shall enjoy working through them and reporting back here. Tim riley talk 12:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done as detailed above. Thank you, KJP1, for these points, and for supporting. Tim riley talk 16:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review

    • File:Osbert-Lancaster-1950s.jpg: the 'unique historic image' tag is primarily meant for cases where the image itself is historic (eg. Tank Man), not just what it depicts. {{non-free biog-pic}} would be better.
    • File:Sir_John_Betjeman_(1906-1984).jpg: are more specific copyright tags available?
      • I'm not sure what type of tags we'd be lookng for here. Could you give me a steer, please? Tim riley talk 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like the original Flickr link is now dead - is anything more known about provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not by me, I fear. I just picked the image off the shelf, as it were, in Commons. Tim riley talk 15:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Παντάνασσα_Μυστρά.jpg: as Greece does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work.
      • The work itself dates from the 15th Century. I've added {{PD-art-3d}} Is that the right idea? Tim riley talk 16:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • On Commons that is a redirect to the life+100 tag, which is fine - suggest just adding a mention on the image description page about the age of the work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Osbert-Lancaster-fille-mal-gardée.jpg: source should be a more direct link rather than a Google search, and part of the FUR seems to refer to a different article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)]][reply]
    I see I have neglected to thank Nikkimaria for the review and help, and I hasten to remedy that dereliction. Very grateful, as always. Tim riley talk 12:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments by Dudley edit

    • Worth mentioning knighthood in 1975 in lead?
    • "Lancaster agreed with Beerbohm's remark, "My delight in having been at Charterhouse was far greater than had been my delight in being there"". This confused me at first. I thought it was a quote from Lancaster and looked for the previous comment he was agreeing with.
      • I admit I had vague doubts about my drafting here, and I think perhaps I'll recast this from a direct quote to reported speech. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Following an initiative by Macmillan and the personal intervention of Winston Churchill, a new government took office in Athens acceptable to all sides, and peace was restored in January 1945." I am not an expert, but I am pretty sure "acceptable to all sides" is wrong. The article on the Greek Civil War presents it as a defeat for the left which was part of the run up to the outbreak of the civil war in 1946. It also sounds odd to quote a description of his 1947 book as "an unflinching but lyrical account of the conditions of post-war Greece" without mentioning that by that time Greece was in the middle of the biggest war between Communists and anti-Communists in Europe of the post-war period.
      • As I have said above, my main source comments that no two historians agree on the facts of this period of Greek history, let alone the interpretation. I have based my account on OL's biographer, Richard Boston, with further recourse for key details to Alistair Horne's book on the period. I take the point about the quote on the 1947 book, and will tweak. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He and his friend John Piper were commissioned to design the centrepiece of the Festival Gardens on the south bank of the Thames." This is a bit vague. I would move the note to the main text.
      • The review process is a real blessing: I only put the note in because another reviewer asked for details, but the more I reread my own prose the more I agree with you that it should be in the main text. I'll hoik it out of the notes and into the text. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No change needed but I find it interesting that I have always understood Pevsner and Betjeman to be the pioneers of architectural preservation. It no doubt reflects my ignorance that I have never heard of Lancaster in that regard until now.
      • My own surprise, a mirror image of yours in a way, was to discover that in the 1930s Pevsner was known for advocating modernism rather than preservation. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A fine article but I doubt whether your sources are reliable on Greece in the late 1940s. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Dudley. I'm very glad you looked in. All now attended to, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 16:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again! Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Smerus edit

    Very nice article, I'm very happy to support its progress to FA. Sorry I didn't have time to look at it before.One quibble:

    "Knox singles out as Lancaster's most lasting contribution to the magazine a series of illustrated satires on planning and architecture, under the title Progress at Pelvis Bay. The collected articles were turned into a book, under the same title, published in 1936. It satirised greedy and philistine property development in a typical seaside resort."

    Two 'satire's in three sentences is perhaps also over-intensive development. Besides, PPB is more than just a satire, it is (imo) a brilliant and scathing work of architectural and social history. Lancaster refers to the book in his preface as 'a detailed account of a splendid metamorphosis. It traces with loving enthusiasm the development of a flourishing seaside resort from the original poverty-stricken fishing village to the present magnificent marine metropolis...' It's not only about greed - it's about the decay of taste and the invasion of the British landscape by motorcars and bypasses....--Smerus (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish I could quote the entire preceding para. OL's subversive adoption of the tone of a well-meaning local cheerleader is wonderfully funny in a gruesome way. I'll tweak my own prose, meanwhile. And thank you, Smerus, for comment and support. Tim riley talk 20:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support from Johnbod edit

    • Support nothing much to say about this very enjoyable and thorough article. The notes are entertaining and I wonder if some might not be moved up into the text? That's all. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your support. I admit I'm tempted to move some of the gossipy notes into the main text, and will examine my conscience. Tim riley talk 19:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Encouraged by you and by the reviewer below, I have moved one note up into the text, and am pondering whether to go further. Tim riley talk 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be slow to move anymore up. As the page stands, they are all gathered together in an easily accessible section for the interested. I think they have more impact as stands, without being tonally jarring within the main text. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Remark by SN54129 edit

    @Tim riley: That's interesting what you say above re. his poor academic career; from what you say, It's presumably sourced, so perhaps add the vignette/s about changing degrees or even the harsh examiner?

      • ...or even examineress!
    • On edit: I see the midstream equestrian transfer is mentioned in the notes; agree with the rever reviewer advice about moving this to the body. Likewise, perhaps, if the Anglo-Saxon attitudes are deemed a little flighty for the body, they would suit a note? (Re. gossipyness!)

    Couple of questions; Pont Street Dutch is linked in the lede-any reason Stockbrokers' Tudor isn't? Also, "a few blocks from..." sounds curiously transatlantic for you, Tim..a few streets, surely? Great article though. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    On "Stockbrokers' Tudor" I was going to link to the Tudor Revival architecture article until I read it and found that the phrase "Stockbroker's Tudor" appeared nowhere in it, which I think would confuse and perhaps annoy anyone who clicked on the link. I may possibly revise that article a little, at which point I shall link to it. On 'blocks', I was surprised you think it wholly American. I have just checked the Times archives and "several blocks away" repeatedly comes up in a British context. Tim riley talk 11:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times, very good. "Block", yes—"You've been round the block a few times mate," as in, circuit— but "Blocks"? Cambridge Dictionary—"Mainly US"—and OED, "esp. in U.S. and Canada." For such a quintessentially English character it jangles so. IMHO of course. Fair point regarding the Tudor architecture though. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for comments and support. Tim riley talk 15:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem Tim riley; the important stuff is in my view the prose, as it's almost always waht the reader (IN WP: CAPS) is here for; and although we are indeeed a serious publication, there's no harm whatsoever in giving that reader the sizzlng gypsies they will appreciate all the more for it being fully sourced, neutral, and well-toned. My other comments are really cosmetic; since that there same reader is very likely / almost certainly going to have learned their English from US-weighted sources, they will, ironically, understand your use of "block" completely. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Stage designs section edit

    I don't as a rule attempt to review my own FACs, but I feel I should mention that I have just added to the article a list of Lancaster's stage designs from his first in 1951 to his last in 1971. I don't think anyone will object to it, but I raise it here as it is an addition since all the above comments and support were contributed. Tim riley talk 15:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coord note edit

    Hi Tim, I see a few duplinks (the originals mainly in Postwar and the dups in Stage design) so pls review -- won't hold up promotion though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Ian. I was taking advantage of what seems to be an informal convention that in Life and Works articles, it is legit to have important terms linked in both Life and Works sections (I've been getting away with it for years), but I'll certainly review, as you request. Tim riley talk 13:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that, I sometimes do it myself in long military unit articles (linking the same things under both Current Role and History) so as long as there's a rationale I don't see a particular issue... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

    The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2018 [22].

    Hydnum repandum edit

    Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about the wood hedgehog, a cute mushroom. It was heavily improved by Sasata who has sadly retired. I reckon it was nearly FA-worthy then and have updated it with latest information and done all that I think is outstanding. I feel it is the equal of other fungus FAs - if anything arises I will fix it pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Image review - Market caption could use editing, licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, looks pretty comprehensive, although white fruit bodied probably needs at least one hyphen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    thx. aha...question is.....between which two words....I take it you mean between "white" and "fruit"...? done... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources review: All sources in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

    thx/appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    From FunkMonk edit

    • Pretty much all I know about mushrooms I know from reviewing articles here, so it will always be form a layman's point of view. Here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    how an article appears to laypeople is important Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be inconsistent in how you present the various writers mentioned throughout. Some get nationality and occupation, some only get occupation, and some get neither.
    added all except two bits (Russia and Slovenia) where I felt it would be repetitive as the names are obviously Russian/Slovene. I could change to "Slovenian researchers" and take out "Slovenia" I guess... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused by the various mushrooms mentioned that are either presented as forms of this species, synonyms of it, or species separate from it. This goes for for example Hydnum rufescens and Hydnum albidum, whihc also have seperate articles. On Commons, these are also categorised under Hydnum repandum[23], which seems puzzling as well. So what does it all mean?
    Commons is lagging behind WP...and the latest literature. The species was originally very broadly defined and a bit of a wastebasket taxon. Genetic analysis has shown a few species lay within the definition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the very wide distribution natural?
    as far as I know yes. I have no sources saying it's been introduced anywhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate the scientific name or not.
    now tweaked so abbreviated everywhere except at first mention and where the name is discussed in the taxonomy section (word-as-word) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you start off by calling it hedgehog mushroom in the beginning of the edibility section? Seems strange when you return to the scientific name right after and throughout.
    mixing it up and varying words...but not necessary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - very nicely glossed, which has been an issue with some earlier nominations. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lingzhi edit

    What's your rule for including books in the "Cited literature" section and give them shortened format cites? I see several books cited more than once, e.g. Arora cited 7 times. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I generally do it if pages referenced are scattered through a source. Arora all comes from two consecutive pages. I will leave as one ref if a small range of consecutive pages Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (24 with; 2 without) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe I am tired...but I am missing the books with missing locations..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, Schaeffer 1774 had the location listed as the publisher (I changed that so now it is missing a publisher; did you fix one?
    added and yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mabey R. Food for Free. Missing Year/Date
    added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Seven sources older than 1970 are missing Oclc nums (not required but very helpful). These are old sources; dunno if they have oclc nums. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never used oclc numbers as I thought there was only a very limited period they were used before isbn. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from JM edit

    • "Molecular studies showed that the current species concept for H. repandum needed revision as there was a poor overlap between morphological and molecular species concepts." Curious tense
    well, they are all past tense as the species has been revised and so now there is no poor overlap as the morphological species concept has been updated...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok- perhaps I misread. When I saw "current", I thought you meant as it exists now. Perhaps it could be framed as "In 2010 [or whatever], molecular studies showed that the accepted species concept..." or something? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, have changed to "have shown" (i.e. past but still current) - and both studies now have dates Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Although it is missing from Central America, genetic material has been recovered from Venezuela from the tree Pakaraimaea dipterocarpacea, suggesting it had jumped hosts." I am struggling with this.
    it's ectomycorrhizal. researchers found evidence that it had adapted to a new host in a new location, which is weird.... 19:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    I leave it to you, but I wonder whether a little further explanation would be helpful here! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, added a bit. The source doesn't talk about it too much... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The variety alba is known as "white wood".[20]" Presumably you mean album, here?
    yes/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with a cap measuring 2–7 cm (0.8–2.8 in) wide and a stipe that is 1–3 in (2.5–7.6 cm) long" Imperial (metric)?
    that's odd....switched now anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is repandiol worth a (red)link?
    sure, redlinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    That's all that jumps out from the article body. I made a few edits; please double-check! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    your edits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. On the shorter side, perhaps, but I think this is where this needs to be. A worthy topic, and some great work has gone into this. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support I think that all of the previous reviewers have done all the hard work and I didn't see anything that needed to changed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2018 [24].

    Pyramid of Neferirkare edit

    Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This article is about the Pyramid of Neferirkare, the monument of the Fifth Dynasty pharaoh Neferirkare Kakai –yes that other candidate that you can read about below this one. Eye-catching facts: It's the largest of its period, and about the same size as Menkaure's pyramid–the short one with the big gash in the middle of it's north face– at Giza. Underneath it's exterior true pyramid face, lies the heart of it's step pyramid design; a design deprecated in the Third Dynasty and famously used first in the original Egyptian pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. It's also the best article I've written to date, hence my nominating it. For Egyptologists, however, it's most important for the Abusir paypri archives discovered in the adjoining mortuary temple which gave insight into the daily workings of the royal funerary cult. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support Comments by Iry-Hor edit

    It is nice to see this topic coming up at FAC. I believe there is currently no featured pyramid article on wikipedia so this is an important addition. I will add what I see here as I read along. I will then do a source spotcheck.

    • Ref 49 should be pp.

    Leaving this here for the rest (likely tonight).Iry-Hor (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • First mention of the Old Kingdom in the body of the article should be linked.
    • One sentence on the necropolis of Abusir could be welcomed in the first section. The article says "The Pyramid of Neferirkare is situated at the necropolis of the site Abusir, located between Saqqara and the Giza plateau." I think this could nicely be followed by a sentence recalling that Abusir was, at the time, the royal necropolis as Sahure had built his pyramid there. This is likely the reason why Neferirkare chose Abusir as a site for his pyramid (following in his father's footsteps). If you don't find a source corroborating this latter hypothesis, owing to the very recent establishment of Sahure as Neferirkare's father, don't say it but keep the observation that Abusir was the royal necropolis due to the location of Sahure's pyramid (who in turn may have chosen the place because of Userkaf's temple).
    • Is there any source which discusses the reasons why Neferirkare chose Abusir? At least one must mention Sahure's pyramid as a driving factor.
    • From what I've read Sahure's pyramid is considered separately from the pyramids Neferirkare, Neferefre and Nyuserre. Verner and Zemina state: "At the same time the latest archaeological discoveries in Abusir indicate that apart from Sahure's pyramid all the other pyramids in this cemetery make up a whole that is architecturally and functionally very closely connected with Neferirkare's pyramid." There doesn't seem to have been any change is this perception despite the recent discoveries. Even newer research such as Dodson's 2016, Verner's 2014, and Barta's 2017 works didn't bring up any connection between Sahure's pyramid and Neferirkare's pyramid. It's either hiding somewhere I haven't read or as yet unknown. I'm hoping you know something I don't. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am guessing this is because of what happened after Neferirkare's rule, with Neferefre and Nyuserre wnating to be so closely associated with their father (in the case of Nyuserre, likely to further legitimise his rule). However I am surprised that Neferirkare did not attempt to align his pyramid on the line formed by Sahure's and Heliopolis. But well, if no source discusses the relation Neferirkare / Sahure, then we shall remain silent on it.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured the same thing, but, I thought somebody would at least mention that Neferirkare's pyramid is south-west of Sahure's. I'm sure Neferirkare made the alignment for heliopolis intentionally, but, it's only mentioned in the context of all three pyramids together. Not that any individual pyramid was intentionally placed there. I'll add it in if I find something though. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you believe it, I found a source stating that the pyramid complex may have been intentionally located to draw a line to heliopolis, but, and this is important, Neferirkare may also have been motivated to distance himself from Sahure and for this reason he founded his own cemetery and redesigned the mortuary temple to differ from Sahure's. Or, alternatively, that slope between his and Sahure's pyramid complexes might have been in the way. Krejčí, 2000, pp= 475-477 (source is in article). Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The pyramids at this site hold the tombs of kings from Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom", I think it could be made clearer that at the time of Neferirkare's reign, only one pharaoh had been buried in Abusir.
    • It would be good if I could get a sentence in between that goes something along the lines of: "following his father's footsteps, Neferirkare joined the newly founded necropolis with his pyramid complex". Though I may have to settle for; "Sahure's successor, Neferirkare, joined the newly founded necropolis with his pyramid complex". Mr rnddude (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "(transl. inbw-ḥḏ)" would fit nicely in a footnote but it is up to you.
    • "Providing that the location of ancient Memphis is accurately known, the Abusir necropolis would have been no further than four kilometres from the city centre" Very nice what you did here ! I am very happy to see that you have been cautious on this complicated subject.
    • Done - should I drop the German name from the article and just leave "German oriental society" or leave both? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is up to you really.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • First mention of Sahure in the text is linked to his pyramid so you need to wikilink the second mention of him to his article. This mention is in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the layout section "These two conceptual changes had developed by the time of Sahure's reign at the latest."

    More to come.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • "as the second member" I like the sentence you wrote about why Abusir and what was Abusir at the time. However I think it would be more precise to say "as the second ruler" rather than member. After all at the time of Neferirkare many people had already been buried there: courtiers of Sahure, his queen etc.
    • True, true. Done although I've rephrased it slightly to avoid the impression that Nefrirkare was the second to rule over the necropolis. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extremely nice section on the layout !
    • Thank you. That's one of the sections which was reworked for GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "cult pyramid" : Unfortunately, there is no wikipedia article on this concept at the moment, so I think this needs some explanation. A single sentence or a footnote would do. Indeed, I don't think most readers know what this is and what the purpose of this was. EDIT: I just saw that later in the article you give such an explanation as to its possible function. I think this needs to appear in the first mention of the concept (e.g. you could put a footnote to avoid disrupting the nice flow of the article and keep the second mention in the text).
    • Done - I've added a footnote. I tried to keep it from being an exact replication of what's already written. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Food for thoughts: The fact that the pyramid of Neferirkare was originally meant to be a step one is strange but perhaps less so when one considers the position of Userkaf's own (next to that of Djoser). For the latter article to be written on the Fifth Dynasty, it might be good to look for sources talking about the influence of the 3rd Dynasty during the 5th.
    • If I recall, Neferirkare is put as the founder of the Fifth Dynasty on one of the king lists or maybe by Manetho. In any case I'd read somewhere that the step pyramid design might have been an attempt to emulate the founding of the dynasty by mimicking Djoser's step pyramid. Or something along those lines. I'll see if I can dig up where I read that. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr rnddude Improtant this was written in the article on Neferirkare before I started working on this but I found no source backing up this claim so I removed it. In addition I had a good reason to be suspicious : the concept of Egyptian dynasties was invented in the Aegyptiaca of Manetho in order to adhere to then prevalent Greek concepts, as was required by his patron Ptolemy. On a deeper level, Egyptologists and Hellenists have argued that this is a result of a phylosophical change in the perception of time, with the Greeks of the classical periods adopting a linear vision (which we have very much retained) while the Ancient Egyptians had a cyclical vision of time. In the latter, dynasties have no sense. In any case, it remains true that no Egyptian king list predating the Hellenistic period explicitely uses dynasties. Even the Turin canon, which does have tallies of reign lengths at some places, do not place these tallies where we now place divisions between dynasties. Therefore the claim that Neferirkare was the founder of a dynasty in a source can only either be : 1) a misunderstanding of the placement of Neferirkare's name in an ancient Egyptian list (e.g. beginning of a column or row); or 2) given as such in the Aegyptiaca, but at least in Africanus version this is not true and Userkaf is given as founder. Of course if we can find a serious source saying Neferikare is a founder I would be happy to include it but I very much doubt that a source can be found. To conclude, we should be warry of our own preconceptions on the organisation of history and royal lineage. Egyptologists have argued that while dynasties are handy for us as historians, they do not reflect the truth of the time. For example, the transition from Unas to Teti is likely not have been perceived as a dynastic change by the contemporaries, being no more special to them than the transition from Djedkare to Unas.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok there is possibly one exception to that, the Den seal impressions dating to the reign of Den of the 1st Dynasty and which present Narmer as the first of a list of kings. So it seems the Ancient Egyptians did recognise Narmer as a founder of sort.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had read that Dynasties as we refer to them are concepts useful to us that don't reflect Egyptian views. I've also read that the First Intermediate Period is effectively an invention of our own to help explain the transitional period between the Old and Middle Kingdoms. It doesn't really exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, Iry-Hor, I found where I'd read it. It's on p. 297 of Verner's The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments (2001): "Why did Neferirkare decide to break with earlier tradition and to return, after about two centuries, to a tomb in the form of a step pyramid? Were the reasons connected with religion or dynastic and power politics? In the Nineteenth Dynasty king list on the famous Royal Canon of Turin, Neferirkare is considered the founder of a new dynasty. Is there some connection between that view and the unusual character of the original project for Neferirkare's pyramid?" He ends by saying that to answer that question and others, new sources would be required. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy hell. Well this is contradicted by a number of sources who argue that the canon does not follow dynasties. Malek explicitely says that such breaks in the Turin canon coincide with change of location of the capital between the various settlements that flourished near Saqqara and would later fuse into Memphis. I don't know what to think.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • First appearances of Neferefre and Nyuserre in the body of the article should be wikilinked. These are in the 1st paragraph of the mortuary temple section.
    • Eh, actually the first mention of Nyuserre is in the last paragraph of the layout section, but, Done for Neferefre. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • First apppearance of Khentkaus II in the body of the article should be wikilinked. It is also in the section on the mortuary temple.
    • "which would have otherwise long ago disintegrated buried under the mud" this reads weird to me, maybe a comma is missing between disintegrated and buried ? I am no native speaker though so I will let your native sense of English be the judge here.
    • Done I've added the comma. I actually wrote and rewrote that sentence twenty times, originally, till I got it to say what I wanted. I think the comma works. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "tomb construction in the Abusir necropolis appears" do you mean royal tombs or all tombs ? I doubt this is true for "all tombs" but in any case you need a citation here. If you only mean royal tombs then there are plenty of sources confirming that Nyuserre was the last king to be buried in Abusir.
    • "Activities by the cults, however, had ceased by the First Intermediate Period" this is explicitely contradicted by Morales and to a lesser extend by Malek, at least in the case of the cult of Nyuserre. See the article on Nyuserre for a summary of this problem. I think you could use a less sweeping statement, e.g. by making it clear that you talk specifically about Neferirkare's cult and not about royal cult in Abusir in general.
    • Hmm, that one is on Verner's head: "During the First Intermediate Period, there were no royal mortuary cults at Abusir" Although I'll be fair to him and note that Morales work is newer. I'll notify when I've fixed this. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr rnddude Then we must state everyone's opinion on an equal footing. I don't think Morales should win only because he published the latest on the subject. We could say : "Verner believes that royal cults at Abusir stopped during the First Intermediate Period, but the Egyptologists A. Morales and J. Malek argue that Nyuserre's cult did continue during this era."Iry-Hor (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - I've presented the views of Verner, Malek and Morales in a small paragraph dedicated solely to that discussion. Morales' paper should be very handy for the article on Nyuserre's pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section "Pyramid of Khentkaus" Raneferef is wikilined but this should be removed in favor of the earlier mention of Neferefre in the section on the mortuary temple. In addition, I think it would be better to either write Neferefre or Raneferef throughout and not change in the article as this might cause confusion.
    • Done - I can't think why I'd written Raneferef there. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section "Pyramid of Khentkaus": Nyuserre is wikilinked but this should be removed in favor of the earlier mention which appears in the section on the mortuary temple.
    • "a primeval mound" this might need a one sentence explanation (possibly in footnote). This was notably asked in the FAC on Neferefre. You can use what I wrote there.
    • Done, but, differently - this seems like a topic that is better expounded upon at Pyramid of Neferefre (and indeed it will be). I've converted "primeval mound" to the universally acceptable "square mastaba". Mr rnddude (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and far away from the Nile delta." I think you mean "Nile valley" or more specifically "Abusir lake" and not "Nile delta".
    • Done - You are correct, it's Nile valley. The point was to illustrate the cost of moving material and people over land and into the desert for the construction. I'll see if I can dig up something on the materials and where they were quarried from. That might be a nice addition to the Pyramid of Nyuserre article. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine quality limestone was invariably quarried from Tura. I don't know about the granite and diorite for sure, but I know that during Djedkare's time quarries for these were exploited in Lower Nubia.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Tura is a place?!?!, every time I read that I thought it was a type of limestone "Tura limestone". Oh my... I am a muppet. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahah! Yes it is a place, with the quarries still visible and they can be visited ! This kind of misunderstanding happens to me all the time with spoken expressions in English. This shows that we should wikilink Tura whenever possible.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the Abusir plateau fell into disuse" this sentence is actually in the article on the Pyramid of Nyuserre. I just wanted to mention that while sources may say things like this, this is not quite correct see e.g. here for a recent discovery (Ptolemy IV)! I just wanted to mention that we should be careful with statements regarding the end of Abusir as a necropolis.
    • Fair point and I've revised it to just say that burials took place in the late period. Believe me, that section needs a whole lot of work before it's ready. I still haven't worked out whether Ptahshepses mastaba, which is near to the pyramid, deserves just a mention or a dedicated section. I also need to get some appropriate images for the article, which coincidentally, I've been working on translating inscriptions from a granite column found by Borchardt (pl. 13 I think). The work is in my sandbox. I've managed to crack Cols 2–4, but, I can't make heads or tails of Col 1. I'm wondering if you have any clue what it says. I figure it would be a nice addition to the article: an image with translation provided. Overall I'd say the article is about 70% of the way to GA. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    THe problem is the article needs to stay on focus so I would be more inclined to say that Ptahshepses' mastaba cannot be given a whole section for itself in the article on the Pyramid of Nyuserre (of course you can always edit the article on the mastaba to have more info). I will take a look at the sandbox inscription, however I don't think we can really put up the translation on the article as this would clearly be original research. PS: Ptolemy IV is actually after the Late Period, being the Hellenistic Period.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I had considered the OR problem, and my strongest defence is that "nobody would accuse me of OR for translating a work from English to German... how is this any different?" Though I doubt that defence would hold up "in a court of law". I used a dictionary for most of it, though the cartouches with pharaoh's names are obviously available translated from many different sources. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you can always put up the translation and see what people say. However, you have to admit that knowing Germand and English is a lot more common than being proficient in English and Old Kingdom Egyptian so you might not convince everyone with this. I personally wouldn't make a fuss over it since I agree with your translation (I added the 1st column as well).Iry-Hor (talk) 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all !Iry-Hor (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a deep pleasure to read your pyramid articles and therefore to support the article reaching FA status. In fact, it fills me with joy to see these monuments get the treatment they deserve at last, here on wikipedia. This article is not only of FA standard, it is amongst the best FAs I have read. I hope you will continue to produce this kind of work!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. I am humbled to receive such praise. I look forward to working with you in future and getting the pharaohs, pyramids, and the Fifth Dynasty as a whole to FA. Thanks for your review. Let me know if there's more work to be done. :) Mr rnddude (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well not on this article, I think you really nailed it. There is definitely a lot of work that could be done on other pyramid articles while I bring Sahure to FA standard from its current GA status. Once I have done Userkaf as well, I will start the article on the Fifth Dynasty and I hope you will agree to contribute to it, especially a seciton regarding pyramid building.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments from FunkMonk edit

    • I'll review this soon. Is it a coincidence that you two were working on such closely related articles at the same time? FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This moment is the result of a whole saga of coincidences. It started just after the new year. We lost two of our long time contributors. One who had their TBAN extended on a technicality that was unclear in the TBAN. The other was given a TBAN from AP2 for conduct that did not transpire in that topic area. They were being hostile at AN/I and AE. The TBAN was purely punitive. I went to a former admin and experienced editor for some advice on what could be done to overturn the AE decision. In the interim I received a notification, on that admins talk page, that we had in fact lost a third editor: Tony1, the same Tony1 who wrote a guide for writing at the FA level. Via a fourth discussion I end up reading that guide for a few days. It's a very good guide. I was wondering if I could apply what I'd learned to an article. I figured an FAC would be the most appropriate venue for this exercise. Looking through the then current FA noms I read the name "Neferefre" and immediately figured out that he had to be an Egyptian king –my interest is in ancient history. I was correct, and after reading just the lede of the article, I was interested enough to do a full prose review for it. Coincidentally, Iry-Hor had put up Neferirkare Kakai for a GA review. When I finished the prose review for Neferefre I took on that GA review as well. I was struggling to follow the pyramid section of the Neferirkare Kakai article; couldn't make heads or tails of which phase of construction was which – the rest of the article was impeccable save for a few phrasings and an NC CC-by-SA image that had to be removed. I ended up going through the sources and doing some research to get the full picture and then decided why not write the article? Originally the plan was to just clean up the article somewhat, but, that's snowballed out of control as you can see and now after a GA review and some more prose work, I find myself here. Not entirely coincidence, but, not at all pre-planned. In fact we're going in opposite directions. Iry-Hor will be working on Sahure next (predecessor) and I'll be working on Pyramid of Neferefre (successor) Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, that's quite a convoluted series of events. I'll continue my review when the one above is over, so there won't be potential overlap in observations. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pixel size forcing for images is discouraged, so should be removed. You can add the upright parameter to vertically long images, though.
    • Done - take your time, thanks for taking on the review. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are various seemingly important people, places, and other terms (especially under " location") which are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro.
    • Done - I've added many links, and dropped resulting redundancies. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all units are converted yet, for example "four kilometres".
    • Done - I believe. Just a note that "linear metres" and "linear feet" are incompatible with the convert template. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all historians, writers, etc. mentioned are presented yet. Some get an occupation listed, some get nationality, others get nothing.
    • Done? - I dealt with the obvious ones under "location and excavation", and I didn't notice any others I had missed while adding links. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His findings were published in the Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Abusir: 1902 - 1904 (Band 5): Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-Ir-Ke-Re (1909) part of Volume 11 of Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft written in German" Why do we need this long title listed? Other publications aren't listed in-text. I presume you could give an equal amount of details for other publications, so this one seems arbitrary.
    • I was actually asked to add this in at GA. It's a rather important work and the first properly in-depth excavation work conducted at the Abusir necropolis. I can reduce the title to it's shortened name, if that's preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, you should state the importance of the work, and simply give its title(s)? Not sure why we need volumes, journals, and language listed in-text. It doesn't really help the reader, especially since it isn't even in English. Maybe Iry-Hor can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was the one who asked this at GA, although to be precise I only asked for the title of the work to be mentioned in the text because it is still the reference on the pyramid of Neferirkare. I would back the idea of simply stating that Borchardt published his findings in Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Nefer-Ir-Ke-Re and remove the rest from the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shortened to just the title and date. I originally included the journal as well because Verner cites the journal by name. I'll do the same at the other two articles. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any theories as to why it was changed from being a step pyramid? Or why it was supposed to be a step pyramid to begin with?
    • To your first question, not that I've read. To your second question, Verner has a speculation, but, even he says that further evidence is required. I'll have a look and leave a new comment here when I'm done. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I'll be ready to support afterwards. Could be interesting to mention, while noting it is speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done I've added in a couple sentences on it and a long footnote explaining a contested issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "ad a slope of about 74 degrees" Why not use the symbol, like you do elsewhere?
    • It seems slightly misleading to use a coloured version of this[25] image instead of the original. I also find the sourcing a bit questionable, but I'll leave that to an image reviewer.
    • Removed - you're right, I think it's very dubious. I'll see if there's a replacement available. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "published by Paule Posener-Kriéger" Present.
    • Should the "Significance" section be changed to "papyri"? This seems to be pretty much all it's about.
    • Done - I think "significance" wasn't misleading, but, if we want to be technical, yes that section is dedicated to the papyri.
    • Support - everything looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Source Review by Lingzhi edit

    • sort order of sources is a bit off. Names are in alpha order, but articles by the same author are sometimes ascending by date and sometimes descending. Or something like that. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lingzhi I went alphabetically by author name followed by article/book title. Should I go by author then date? I can do that in a jiffy if preferred. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No not necessarily, not according to Wikipedia's rules. The rule here is consistency, and if everything is arranged consistently as you say, then it is OK. I just didn't notice they were sorted by title after name, mainly because I have never seen that method used before.. If you have seen that method used in publications, then don't change anything. If you haven't, and you just did it that way yourself, then it might be kinda nice if you sorted by name-date (that is the most common way out in the real world, I suppose), but it still is not required. No one could oppose over that. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, Lingzhi, I'm an inventor... and as I just said on AN/I you must adapt your work to suit the encyclopaedia. Wilco. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - I believe, notify me if I missed one. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (15 with; 17 without);
    • Missing date(s) for Bárta, Miroslav. "Abusir in the Third Millennium BC"
    • It... doesn't have a date. It's a web page. Do I add n.d. or use the copyright date? Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've always used copyright myself, but to be on the safe side I double-checked with Nikkimaria. Turns out he/she thinks it's OK as well. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Altenmüller, Hartwig (2002). Missing isbn
    • Done - Added an ISSN. It doesn't have an ISBN. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fakhry, Ahmed (1969). The Pyramids. Pub. too early for ISBN (probably reprint, use |orig-date=) ; Missing OCLC; 
    • Not a source I used, and it's redundant to other citations. So I've gone ahead and removed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Verner, Miroslav; Zemina, Milan has an error message; "CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown" and a link to Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown, which has a bit of explantory text... I have never seen that error before and am not sure how serious it is. I clicked your linked pdf twice and couldn't get the download to complete, but that may be my slow internet or whatever... I read the dead-url stuff in the documentation for {{cite book}} and didn't find a clear answer. I dunno... but just for the sake of completeness maybe you should do something to fix it... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the pdf link, it still works. It just takes a while to load. The error is a result of "deadurl=bot : unknown" in the citation. I'll see what should be done about it. I think I've fixed it, but, check anyway. It seems to be a result of archiving. A bot couldn't work out if the link was dead or not, or something. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Lingzhi, are you doing a sources review for this article? If so, could you head your comments accordingly, in bold? Otherwise I, or someone like me, may think such a review is necessary and do the work all over again. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Brianboulton: I apologize; I was never doing actual source reviews. I am using all these FACs and Milhist A-reviews as guinea pigs for my source-checking script. If you would like me to help with source review load, i can do that later today, bt my better half is sweetly calling me at this very moment. So let me know if you want me to chip in with some full source reviews. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Help with source reviews is always welcome. If you could manage this one – when your better half allows, of course – I would be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lingzhi is more than capable. I'd give him a week of doing the washing up and buying flower before he can re-engage. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting that Donald B. Redford is blue liked twice, neither time in the first instance. Mr M this is actionable. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the two redundant links. The editor is linked at first mention. Also it's r n, not m. Though this is a common misconception. Now that, is actionable. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ive always thought you have had of the most confusing, and therefore best user names in this literal godforsaken hell on earth website, Mr rnddude. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should create an alternative account: User:Mr mddude and just alternate between the two. It had crossed my mind to capitalize the r. But, that would ruin it. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added |display-authors= to the topmost source and and |language= to Krejčí, Jaromír (2015). "Abúsír". Are any other sources in a foreign language? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Borchardt's source is in German, but I've already added that in. The rest are all in English. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • chapters of books, when listed in the Sources, should include page numbers. Forex, Lehner's "pyramids (Old Kingdom), construction of" seems to be 644-46, tho the Index says his contributions start at 639. Other examples found. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verner & Zemina 1994, Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verner & Zemina 1994, Zemina is just a photographer not author.
    • Any way I can provide attribution for their contribution, or not necessary? Mr rnddude (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The authors/editors of "Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids" seem to be incorrect. Online sources differ; perhaps Arnold, D. (ed.), 1999. Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids. New York (NY): The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
    • The copy I'm using is here. I just copy pasted the names across. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Altenmüller 2002, p. 270. ref a, abusir papyrus, five statues. Can't find "five statues" in source, but source does mention abusir papyrus. ref b all info found: :
    • Done - the Altenmüller citation might be a remnant from something else that's been removed. There's definitely nothing on the statues in it. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia says

      A second record is the existence of at least four funerary boats at Abusir, according to which, two are located in sealed rooms while the other two are to the north and south of the pyramid itself. The southern boat was discovered when Verner unearthed the funerary boat during excavations.

    • [BTW, That's some strained grammar there...according to the funerary boats? boat was discovered/unearthed the boat..]
    • source says

      The papyri indicate that two of these ships were situated in sealed rooms, and two other ships buried to the south and north of the pyramid. A single ship to the south of the pyramid was brought to light by the excavation of M. Verner.

    • Source also says: In the Abusir-Papyri of Neferirkara, there is mention of at least four boats. I'll fix the grammar. It's according to the papyri that there are ^. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - amended the grammar to clarify that there are four boats according to the papyri. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No online access to Lehner The Complete Pyramids, unfortunately.
    • Leprohon Texts from the Pyramid Age (pub. Brill?) was actually written by Nigel Strudwick and ed. by Leprohon, and published by Society of Biblical Literature. But I was able to find info from Wikipedia text in source on page indicated...
    • That's what it says here. Although the cover says Nigel Strudwick. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edwards 1999 [In Bard, Kathryn. Encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt]. has 9 cites to p. 98; I can't find text on Neferirkare on that page... but my amazon is screwed up tonight so... pages seem different for Goelet from same book too.. are we looking at different editions?
    • For me it's on pages 97 and 98. I can give quotes if you like. Goelet is page 87. You may be right about editions. Mine says copyright 1999 but I've just noted that it says "This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005" elsewhere on the same page. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interestingly, Isler on p. 201 has detailed descriptions (attributed to Verner) of the geometry involved in selecting the pyramid's location, its geometric relation to Giza and Heliopolis, to the equinox (also explained on p. 106 etc.). I'm not sure this info is or isn't repeated in our article. Forex, no mention of "equinox", plus our article mentions Heliopolis twice: "the site may have been intentionally selected to build the pyramid in line with Heliopolis" (cited to Krejčí 2000, pp. 475–477) and "Instead of being seated on the Abusir-Heliopolis axis, Nyuserre's pyramid is..." (cited to three sources). I'm just not sure the connection to Heliopolis is clear at all in our article. I haven't checked; is our article too long already to go into detail? If not, may be a 1b "comprehensive" concern.
    • I can put in a footnote on the significance of Heliopolis – it'll be a bit longish to incorporate directly into text. There isn't a "geometric relation" per se between the Abusir pyramids and the Giza pyramids. They sit on separate lines that appear to intersect at Heliopolis. I did expound briefly on this at Pyramid of Neferefre and can do so here as well. I'll aim to have this done tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • more later Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be nice if you could find the Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.) for Sampsell, Bonnie (2000). I looked for 1 minute & couldn't find one. But this is extremely far from being a deal-killer; if fac coord wants to promote then go ahead, can find issn later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ceoil edit

    Support

    Reading through, gripping stuff. Comments shortly, mostly around prose. I expect that I will eventually support this excellent article. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead:

    • the unusual circumstances in which it was built - give some indication
    • Give some indication of what? the circumstances? Cause I kind of wanted to end the paragraph on a cliffhanger... silly as that may seem. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'unusality'. Cliff hangers yes are good, but too little meat here yet. Ceoil (talk)
    • like this? - I've summarized the basic facts which I expound on in later paragraphs. Death -> rush -> no cult pyramid. Courtesy ping: Ceoil. I added pyramid town, since that's where the archives would normally be kept. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have trimmed that a bit. Happy if you are; obviously you are allowed to dissent. Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about removing the latter half of the sentence myself. If I may say, you're very good at tightening prose. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • known to the Old Kingdom - during
    • Neferirkare's pyramid deviated in construction from its contemporaries - deviated isn't right. Do you mean the design or the build. Also, "Neferirkare's pyramid's construction" is better.
    • Revised - Please check and tell me what you think. I meant that the design of the complex differed from those of his contemporaries: Sahure and Userkaf. Granted, the construction was a departure from standard practice in parts as well, not least of all because it took at least three pharaoh's lifetimes to build: Neferirkare's, Neferefre's, possibly Shepseskare's, and Nyuserre's. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • originally erected - how many times was it erected. Nine times out of ten the word 'originally' is redundant.
    • Twice technically. It was built as a step pyramid, and then effectively encased in a second step pyramid which was to form the base template of the final "true pyramid". Refer to the image in "Main pyramid" for clarity. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats a nugget, so say so. Ceoil (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later alterations were intended to convert it into a true pyramid - All alteration are "later". 'True pyramid' should be explained here rather than blue linked. "were" is redundant.
    • Revised - Dropped "later" and "were", but, how exactly do you want me to explain what a "true pyramid" is? It's really just referring to the geometric shape that we call a "pyramid". You're effectively asking me to explain what a sphere or cube is. The term "true" is used to distinguish it from the step pyramid. Effectively what I'm trying to say is: it was converted from a stepped pyramid, into an actual pyramid. Except step pyramids are actual pyramids, but, they aren't pyramid [shaped] pyramids? you catch my drift? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    *Dont assume that readers know the technical difference between a sphere and cube, not to mind that the term "true pyramid" refers to purity of form. We should aim to write for the comprehension level of reasonably intelligent teenagers, so I'd spell it out here, no disrespect to reasonably intelligent teenagers. Ceoil (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a footnote next to the first mention of "true pyramid" clarifying that the term refers to pyramids with a basic pyramid geometric shape. I've also described the shape: square base with four triangular faces converging at an apex. I've also dropped the link as no longer necessary. Tell me what you think. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats good; like. Ceoil (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • untimely death - all deaths are untimely; early maybe. Unfortunate I could live with if there was a timing issue.
    • Revised - It's an issue of timing. He died before the pyramid was completed, leading to a rush to finish it so that it could hold his mummy. I don't like "unfortunate" because it implies "regrettable". I mean sure, most deaths are unfortunate, but, that doesn't really have anything to do with "bad timing". Malapropos?... I'm kidding, how about: inconvenient? The central point here is how well-timed it was, not how sad. If he'd died the day it was completed, while probably regrettable, it would have been perfectly timed. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • and a "cheap" outcome - "cheap" is not the right word, too modern, and vague as to the intended meaning.
    • Depreciated, devalued, reduced... I don't know what do you think? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is to this fact - "Because of"
    • Revised, tentatively - Already used in the same paragraph once, how about: The discovery of the Abusir papyri in the 1890s is owed to this happenstance or... what about fortuity or fortuitous situation? I've never used the term before, but, I think it fits. Not to mention it sounds better than "because of". Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like the suggestion Ceoil (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • discovery....in the 1890s and early twentieth century - I'd leave it as 1890s; presumably you mean evacuation but it was only discovered once. Ceoil (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - I did actually mean that it was discovered more than once. Graverobbers found some fragments in the 1890s in the storerooms, Borchardt found an entire archive in the 1900s while excavating elsewhere. Two separate discoveries. There's been more discoveries since then: one archive in Neferefre's complex and one in Khentkaus IIs complex. The sum of these discoveries all refers to the Abusir papyri. Though I get what you mean. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Location and excavation

    • the second ruler to join the necropolis - to be entombed in - "join" sounds like modern romance
    • Done - I didn't like "join" either, though for different reasons. I don't know what you're thinking about, but we're not talking about sexual embraces here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • proposes a number of hypotheses explaining - if the propositions were hypotheses, they were proposing rather than explaining
    • Done - switched "explaining" for "for". A hypothesis is a proposed explanation (based on limited evidence) in itself, so "explaining" was both incorrect and redundant. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • particularly the presence of a slope between.. - suggest particularly the slope between.
    • Another practical reason for choosing the site is the presence of a limestone. The phrase "Another practical reason" could be cut. Its clear you are developing arguments, so no need to labour. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't that leave me with a sentence fragment? I've rewritten the sentence as: The site allowed workers to exploit the limestone quarry present just to the south-west of Abusir. I can also drop "just to the" if that's preferred as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes you will be left with a fragment. I think you need some sentence and fact placing restructuring here. Ceoil (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - here: I've made the central point first, tied it into the comment about resources from the previous sentence, and removed some repetitive material. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Valley Temple:

    • Only the foundations of Neferirkare's intended valley temple and causeway had been laid at this time of his death.[45][70] The causeway's foundation was specifically laid about two thirds of the way from the valley temple to the mortuary. - Can you rephrase "at this time of his death". "Neferirkare's intended..." could be more along the lines of "the valley intended for Neferirkare's". "was specifically" could be "planned to be", or such - there is no doubt that the architects were precise in their calculations. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Revised - "At this time of his death" was meant to be "at the time of his death"; I can't tell if you want me to rephrase the whole thing differently or just fix the error. If you want to drop the rephrase I can replace "at the time of" with "prior to". I've made the second change as requested. With regard to "was specifically" to "planned to be": there was no plan, the thing had been laid two-thirds of the way when he died. I've changed it to "had been laid". Let me know if these changes, and my proposed alternative fix, meet your expectations. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    From the lead, its ancient name translated - from what language, would be interesting to know. Ceoil (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • ORLY, Can you link the specific branch, is what I mean. Ceoil (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh... it'd have to be Old Kingdom Egyptian, better known as Old Egyptian. Unfortunately the source doesn't say that. It can't, however, be Middle Egyptian since it wasn't spoken until about 500 years later. I'll see if I can find a suitable reference specifying the dialect. If not, then, per OR, no. Can I invoke WP:BLUESKY? Because it's not controversial and it's not going to be from a dialect that did not yet exist. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am happy with the revised wording if you are. Ceoil (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Abusir papyri document contains details" - don't like "contains details", maybe just "details"; next sentence "attestation", dont like that either.
    • Done - Dropped "contains" and switched "attestation" for "testimony". Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • A second record in the papyri - "in the papyri" is repetitious given the preceding sentence
    • two of these boats - "two of which"(given the preceding sentence)
    • Done dropped "of these boats" (boats wasn't needed given the first half of the sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • are located to the North and South of the pyramid itself - drop this second instance of "located".
    • Will take another look during the week, hope these are helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take your time, thanks for the review so far. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for delay in coming back to this, got side tracked. Given the all the work since my last comments, aided by the evident willingness of the nominator to engage in the threads above and below, this now certainly cuts the mark. Support, with enthusiasm. 22:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

    Comments from Tim riley edit

    This is an interesting, and as far as a layman can see, comprehensive article, but the prose needs a bit of work if it is to achieve FA standard.

    • General
      • Dash style – not compliant with the manual of style. You have some en-dashes with a space on one side only. What you should have are either en-dashes with spaces on either side of them – like this – or em dashes with no space—like this—. I noticed this defect only in the lead and the footnotes, but you should check the whole article.
    • Done - there was a bunch that needed fixing. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead
      • "pyramid's deviated" – should, I think, be "pyramid deviated"
    • Done - It used to be pyramid's construction deviated, hence pyramid's. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "pyramid, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger stop than a comma – a semicolon would be usual. I think the sentence would read better if you had a full stop after true pyramid, dropped the however and started a new sentence with "The pharaoh's…"
    • Semicolon added - 99% of the time, I'll get rid of the "however". But I really like it here because it forces a pause. I got rid of all other instances though. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "owed to this fortuity" – I had to look that one up. It is in the OED, but is a most obscure word, and I think the sentence could do very well without it, finishing with "this".
    • Aww... and just above I was complimented for thinking of it. I'll think on this one. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Location and excavation
      • "Egyptologist Jaromír Krejči" – rather clunky false title, which I see you have avoided in the next paragraph with the desirable definite article in "The Egyptologist Miroslav Bárta"
      • "dominated over the surrounds" – not quite sure what is meant here. Does it mean "dominated the surrounding area"?
      • "owing to the fact that" – rather a wordy way of saying "because"
    • Sigh... Done - but differently, "considering" that who likes "because". Such a plebeian term. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "In 1838, British Egyptologist" – he and his Prussian confrère suffer from false titles as Krejči does earlier.
    • Done Confrère? and you say I'm using obscure terms. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "long term excavation project" – I'd hyphenate "long-term"
    • Substructure
      • "two turns, but, maintains" – not sure why the comma after "but"
    • Done - a result of ", however," syndrome. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The roof of the corridor is unique and not found in any other Old Kingdom pyramid" – tautology: if it's unique it can't, ipso facto, be found anywhere else.
    • Done - tautological end of the phrase removed. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the passageway preventing collapse" – I'd be inclined to put a comma after "passageway"
      • "width, however, the" – as with the earlier "however", you need a stronger stop than a comma before it, and in my view it would be better as "width; the antechamber"
    • Mortuary temple
      • "a less impressive aesthetic, despite that" – not clear what is meant here. Is "despite that" meant to mean "although" or do you mean that despite the less impressive aesthetic the the layout etc are analogous to the other structure? I'm not sure what a less impressive aesthetic is, in any case. Less aesthetically impressive?
    • Done - Well I did something to it, you tell me how it looks. It used to say "cheap", but, that was too chic, mode. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "columns, however" – once again, I'd replace the comma and unnecessary "however" with a plain semicolon.
      • "Fascinatingly, it wasn't found" – two things here. You really, really need to lose the editoralising adverb, and we do not use contractions such as "wasn't" in the text (except in quotations).
      • "which: two" – why the unexpected colon?
    • Done I've put a comma in the interim but I'll check with you. Comma or semi-colon to replace? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "North and South" – not capitalised earlier and should not be capitalised here.
      • "such columns, however, these" – this is the fifth "however" of a total of ten, and like the nine others it is unnecessary verbal clutter. Blitz the lot and, where appropriate, replace those in mid-sentence with semicolons is my advice.
    • Done - I only left the one. The rest... gone. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Later history
      • "uncertain, but, may" – another inexplicable comma, after "but".
    • Pyramid of Khentkhaus II
      • "By consequence, Borchardt" – I think you mean "In consequence, Borchardt"
      • "It wasn't" – "it was not"
    • Nyuserre's pyramid
      • "beared heavily the construction" – not English. I'm guessing you mean "bore heavily on the construction", though whether one bears heavily I'm not certain. Perhaps something less flowery such as "seriously affected" or "badly affected" might be safer.
      • "it need to have been located" – a word missing by the look of it: "it would need" or some such?
    • Replaced with "It would have needed to be" Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significance
      • "French Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal" – another unbeautiful false title.
    • Done another beautified title? (I mean I added a definite article). Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "states that; "[t]his" – you could have a comma or a colon here but you can't have a semicolon.
      • "Importantly, the papyri" – a touch editorial, though I don't press the point here. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does that mean you approve of the "touch" of spice, or that you're hoping I'm going to correct the course without prompt? Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh dear god that's hilarious. Sorry Tim, I accidentally overwrote your signature. The above is the result. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the fragmentary evidence of the papyri indicate" – singular noun (evidence) with plural verb.
      • "The full extent … are unknown": ditto.

    Those are my comments on the prose. I'll look in again once you've had time to consider them. – Tim riley talk 16:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for helping with the cleanup. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. The content seems to me of FA standard, and the prose will now pass muster. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 17:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinator comment: Is the source review now complete? It's not quite clear if we have had a check for source reliability. And on that subject, I believe that this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted. Therefore, a spot-check of the sources for accurate use and close paraphrasing would be required. I wonder if Lingzhi would be able to do this? Sarastro (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Should be able to do it w/in 24 hours or so.... more later Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Happy to act as stand-by for Lingzhi if wanted: I live near the British Library and it's no trouble to pop in (unless London vanishes under an Arctic avalanche as threatened by the Meteorological Office, in which case all bets are off). While I'm here, I see the ISBNs in the sources need tidying up: some hyphenated, some not; some 10-digit some 13. Tim riley talk 13:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Later: I've done the necessary with the ISBNs. Tim riley talk 14:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be great, thanks Tim. I could say something about Londoners and the weather, but I'll resist. Though I might tempt fate and say that the snow seems to have avoided Yorkshire all winter. I think between you and Lingzhi we should wrap this up quite quickly. Sarastro (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully suggest to the coordinator that if he persists in accusing a Scouser, albeit one resident in Islington, of being a Londoner he had better look out for his hubcaps. Tim riley talk 20:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Source spot check (if still wanted) I've checked a 15% sample and with one small quibble I find everything correctly attributed and a true reflection of what the source says, with due rephrasing avoiding any close paraphrase. Checked refs 3, 8, 11, 15, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57, 63, 69, 81, 83, 89, 98, 100 and 104 against the cited sources Lehner 2008, Malek 2004 and Morales 2006. My only nitpick is that at ref 15 I think page 3 should be page 2. Otherwise impeccable. – Tim riley talk 12:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Done - I checked Dieter for ref 15, and corrected it to page 2. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinator note: From an "official" viewpoint, I'm happy with the number of spot-checks now done and could promote. Lingzhi would you like me to wait until you have done more checks, or could it be done after promotion? Either way is fine with me, there is no great rush, and I'm happy to do it whichever way you feel is necessary. Sarastro (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2018&oldid=832145468"