Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2017

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) 13:39, 31 January 2017 [1].

---

Siberian accentor

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Siberian accentor is a drab little bird from the Russian Arctic, and this article is short by necessity because it's so little researched. The unprecedented westward irruption of October 2016 was the catalyst to write this page, especially after I'd joined its admirers in Yorkshire. Thanks to Nikkimaria for advising on the licensing of the NOAA map and vetting the associated reference

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

This article is well prepared and I can find very little to quibble with. Please check that you are happy with the small edits that I've made to the article.

Taxonomy

• "is most closely related to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." I think it would be safer to write: "is most similar in appearance to ..."

• I think you should mention the phylogenetic study by Drovetski et al published in 2013. It is an open access article. Very surprisingly (to me) they find that the Siberian accentor is sister to the Japanese accentor (Prunella rubida). This species looks very different as it lacks the pale supercilium, dark crown and eye patch - (click on "Go to the plate of this family" here). The authors state that this relationship is strongly supported by their data (p. 1523) and that these two species are among the four that can be found in lowlands. The full reference is:

Drovetski, SV; Semenov, G; Drovetskaya, SS; Fadeev, IV; Red'kin, YA; Voelker, G (2013). "Geographic mode of speciation in a mountain specialist avian family endemic to the Palearctic". Ecology and Evolution. 3 (6): 1518–1528. doi:10.1002/ece3.539.

• I can't find any modern study that looks at the relationship of Prunellidae to other passerine families.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Aa77zz thanks for the review and copy edit, it's astonishing what you miss through over-familiarity with the text! I've removed second part of the comment about relationships with other families and added your reference, which, as you say, has quite unexpected conclusions. I've not mentioned the lowland bit, since it's not a relationship indicator, and is open to interpretation. Only the Dunnock is truly a lowland species. Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Looks pretty good so far! I have a few nitpicks:

• I think that it would be better to change the "4–6" to "four to six" in "The nest is an open cup in dense shrub or a tree into which the female lays 4–6 glossy deep blue-green eggs that hatch in about ten days."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• In "It is therefore evaluated as a species of least concern by the IUCN," IUCN needs to be put in its unabbreviated form, with IUCN in parentheses.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• In "The autumn of 2016 saw an unprecedented influx of this species into western Europe, reaching as far as the United Kingdom," the "autumn of the 2016" needs to be changed to something that doesn't include the season, per MOS:SEASON.

• Good catch, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• You should probably unlink accentor in the lead, but keep it linked in the taxonomy section.

• Yes, that first link is poor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Supercilium is overlinked.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am pretty sure that you have some inconsistencies in your usage of oxford commas.

• Fixed a couple, feel free to fix any I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the behaviour section, it might be better to either put the second paragraph in the status section or make a predators and parasites section.

• Yes, i was uncertain what do do with this, since not really enough for a separate section, moved to status for now

This is just a quick review, I will probably do a more through one soon. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz Many thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Extra comments:

• You missed a period in the taxonomy section, specifically in the description of the nominate subspecies.

• Spaces have a place in headings. Particularly the subheading in the movements section.

• You should probably changed "2–6" in the sentence "The breeding season of the Siberian accentor is from June to August. Little is known about territorial or breeding behaviour, but birds of the nominate subspecies tend to occur in small groups of 2–6 closely spaced nests," to "two to six".

• For consistency, you should probably change "10" in the sentence "The clutch of four to six eggs is incubated by the female for about 10 days to hatching and the downy brown-black chicks are then fed by both parents. They are able to breed in the following year," to "ten". This comment and the previous one are both about the breeding section, just so you can easily find them.

• Second paragraph of status, probably need to change "7·4" to "7.4".

• Jumping back to the taxonomy section, you need to change the weird apostrophe in "but within that genus the Siberian accentor is most similar in appearance to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." (in Radde’s specifically).

I also fixed 2 oxford comma mistakes, so check those to make sure they are correct. That is the thorough review, it looks pretty good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, all done. Well spotted with the apostrophe, I don't know how it's possible to do it like that. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading through it a third time, I forgot to catch one thing, which I am unsure of. The usage of "winter" in the sentence "It is rare in winter in Japan," is dubious. Perhaps "It is rarely seen to winter in Japan," instead? Other wise, I am ready to support. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, I'm not sure I get this. Although you were right to comment on seasons earlier, there is nothing wrong with using seasonal terms if attached to a place, eg "winter in Japan" can't possibly be read as referring to the southern hemisphere winter, and your suggestion just moves the seasonal aspect to a verb instead. Changed to "It is only rarely recorded in Japan in winter" (adding "local" or "northern hemisphere") seems redundant). Apologies if I've completely missed the point of your comment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that! You didn't miss the point, anyways. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good, all of my nitpicks were addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Interesting article. Just a few things:

• "In winter, some seeds may be consumed and the accentors may then sometimes feed near human habitation." the word "then" leads to some ambiguity. I might say "In winter, the accentors may also consume seeds or feed near human habitation."

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• You refer to the incursion being in October and November in the lede, but only October in the body.

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "sometimes cold environment" "sometimes cold seems kind for Siberia.

• yes, but they aren't there in the winter, so that's probably appropriate for May when they return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Seeds are be consumed in winter," some slight problem here

• Ugh, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Estimates for the small European part of the range vary from 100–500 breeding pairs, with up to 10,000 breeding pairs in Russia" This is confusing. Is European Russia meant? Or the whole of Russia?

• The source isn't totally unambiguous, but I think it means the whole of Russia. In practice, these figures are very approximate anyway, so it doesn't make much odds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I might move the tick image down to the final section, were there is room for it and where you talk about it.

• The text started higher on the page, forgot to move image when I moved text, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is it usual in these articles to mention lifespan or the amount of time it takes for the young to reach maturity?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Songbirds are invariably mature after the first year, so it's easy to omit to actually say that, done. Average lifespan, like so much regarding this species, appears to be unknown. Scientists appear strangely reluctant to investigate species breeding in the mosquito- and horse-fly-infested forests of Siberia :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Query by WereSpielChequers

A breeding range of 2.2 million square km and a breeding density of 5pairs per square KM would imply a population in the region of 10 million pairs rather than 10,000. Since the bird is of least concern I would be surprised if there were as few as 10,000 pairs. ϢereSpielChequers 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ϣere, good point. Looking again, the IUCN's ref for this was a table in the back of Mark Brazil's Birds of East Asia (see my reflist), but that only gives a rough estimate for the part of eastern Russia covered by that book. Brazil says his table is based on "published sources" but gives no further info. Population estimates for these Siberian species are always going to be a bit "think of a number, any number" but IUCN have misused Brazil's data, which is in itself dubious. I've removed the estimate, other than the not-unreasonable figure for the small European range. "Large" seems adequate for the total Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. No other questions. Prose is fine. ϢereSpielChequers 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• The licensing and sources of the images look good. But I see the Gould art is in very low res, while it can be found in high res here:[2] Seems you dramatically shrunk it when you cropped it? You could also give its date in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. Not sure how I did that, but large version uploaded now, date added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

, amen

Coord note

Have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's copyvio tool clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ref formatting consistent. author names, dates, titles in sentence case etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 15,16,17,18 and 19 all used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 14 used once - my take on the source is that the Canadian occurrences are also in September (so autumn) as much as winter...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cas, thanks for review. I've added autumn (and removed an extraneous full stop from the ref) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

cool. all good then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I don't think there are any outstanding issues at present, image and source reviews have been done, but if there is something I've missed please note that I'm going away for three days and I'll address any further points when I return. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Take plenty of bird photos :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim, yeah we probably could've promoted before now but I prefer to leave noms open a few weeks -- I expect I or one of the other coords will close on our next walk through the list unless someone jumps in with concerns... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 13:25, 31 January 2017 [3].

---

Spalding War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Another war memorial. Curiously, this one is not for a big city or a county or a rich company, but a relatively obscure town in Lincolnshire. It's interesting for several reasons, not least the personal tragedy suffered by an aristocratic family that led to its creation. Also curious is that little was written about it from its unveiling until relatively recently. Nevertheless, the article has passed an A-class review within the military history project and I think it's of featured quality. Of course, I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Close to a Support:

• A nice article. Some thoughts below:
• "The memorial as-built consists of a brick pavilion" - in the context of the lead, I wasn't sure what the "as-built" was contrasting with (e.g. the first design, later modifications?)
  • I've done away with the "as-built" in the lead.
• "The memorial as-built consists of a brick pavilion at the south end of the garden and a Stone of Remembrance (designed by Lutyens for the Imperial War Graves Commission, for which he was one of the principal architects), both at the head of a long reflecting pool, which incorporates the remains of an 18th-century canal." - I'd advise losing the bit in brackets - I don't think it is helping the flow of the sentence, and doesn't appear vital for the lead.
  • Agreed.
• "In the aftermath of the First World War, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain. Amongst the most prominent designers of memorials was architect Sir Edwin Lutyens..." We're picking up the story at an odd moment here. The lead has told us that the plan originated in January 1918, when the war was still ongoing - this is roughly where the next paragraph picks up. So at this point in the main story, there haven't been many war memorials built in England and Lutyens isn't a famous designer of them. The background is therefore giving us the aftermath of the work at Spalding, not really the pre-story. Would this work better if the article described the situation regarding memorials as of early 1918, and pushed this bit down in to the final part of the history section?
• "Lutyens designed the headstone for McLaren's grave in Busbridge in Surrey, where he was also responsible for the village's war memorial,[3] and had previously designed the McLarens' London house on Cowley Street in Westminster." - the sequencing here is a little out I think. Isn't the village war memorial post-war (1922?); this gives the impression that that Lutyens has already produced it in 1918.
• "McLaren had hoped to include space for the families of those commemorated to add their own epitaphs—though she insisted that her husband not receive any special commemoration beyond that afforded to the other casualties—but this proved impractical due to the amount of space that would have been required" - is "though" right here? It implies a contrast with the first clause, but the content shows that it is supporting it (i.e. she had insisted her husband not receive any special treatment and had hoped to included space for the other families; this proved impractical however"?)
  • I've reworded this; see what you think.
• "functional schemes like the conversion of Ayscoughfee Hall into a youth centre" - really, really nit-picky... I think you mean "such as", not "like". ;)
  • If you insist!
• "The youth centre and Lutyens' proposal emerged as the leading proposals " - "leading options"? (would reduce the repetition)
  • Done.
• "Henry McLaren (Francis McLaren's brother, Barbara's brother-in-law)" - do you need "Francis McLaren's brother" here? I don't think that she could have had a brother-in-law named McLaren who wasn't Francis's brother, could she?
  • Done.
• "The stone is a monolith (carved from a single piece of rock)," - I was wondering if this could just say "The stone is carved from a single piece of rock,", which would remove the need to explain what a monolith is.
  • If it really bothers you it can go; I just like the word "monolith".
• "with a contemporary Peace Garden located to the east" - contemporary to the 1920s, or contemporary to now?
  • Clarified (hopefully).
• "The unveiling took place at a ceremony on 9 June 1922..." - it felt odd jumping back to 1922 after the architectural description of the gardens in 2016. Personally, I'd have gone for doing the history, then giving a modern description of the architecture etc.
• "until Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War (first published 2008)" - the brackets felt odd here. "until the publication of Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War in 2008"?
  • Done.
• Are there any details from local newspapers etc. about the adding of the additional names in 2015? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There's this, but it doesn't contain much useful detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments; I'll come back for the remaining points later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iridescent

Reviewing this version. As usual, I've intentionally not looked at anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

Lead

• Just a suggestion, but you may want to include the pronunciation of "Ayscoughfee" either in parentheses, a footnote, or as one of those fancy-pants embedded sound links. I've lived in England for over 20 years, and I have no idea whether this is pronounced "ice-coffee", "aye-skog-fee", "ess-koff" or something else, so people in other countries will certainly struggle;
  • I've borrowed the pronunciation form the article about the hall, but I have no idea if that's how it's pronounced locally.
• The town's Member of Parliament Francis McLaren, was killed in the war is true, but to me seems a little misleading as it implies he died in combat; looking at the Francis McLaren article, he actually died in a plane crash in Scotland;
  • Fixed.
• I'm no fan of using the "inflation" template for capital expenditure—because it's based on CPI it's misleading for anything other than household staples—but you should probably include something to give the idea of what £3,500 was worth then, as otherwise it may as well be a random number. ("The average labourer's wage at the time was around £200 a year", "a typical house in the area cost £400", etc.);
  • I have absolutely no idea what a labourer's wage was or what a hose in Spalding cost in the 1920s I'm afraid; at least the inflation template would give a rough idea, if only I could get it to stop spitting out nonsense, but as you say even that's not much use.
• "Painted stone flags" should probably change to "stones painted with the Union Flag and White Ensign", since the common usage of flag stone means something entirely different.
  • But a "stone flag" is not a flagstone and I don't think there's any risk of confusing them. "Stones painted with" sounds like lumps of rock with patterns painted onto them rather than intricate sculptures.

Background

• I'd suggest including photographs either of Lutyens or of one or both McLarens here ({{multipleimage}} is your friend). This section is currently unillustrated so another image won't cause sandwiching, and it would solve the problem of the article being illustrated by four very similar photos.
  • There are no free photos of Lutyens (the only one of him used on his own article is fair use); the only free photo of Barbara is from when she was a girl; there is a free photo of Francis, but the connection might be a bit tenuous.

Commissioning

• The chronology here is somewhat garbled, as the Background section immediately preceding begins with "In the aftermath of the First World War", the Cenotaph (1920) and an exhibition in 1919, but all of a sudden we're now back in 1918 with the War very much still ongoing (and the winner by no means certain). As I read this, McLaren approached Lutyens before any of his other memorials had been built. This probably needs tidying up to give the actual dates, as if I'm reading that right then it might account for why this design is so different to his other memorials.
  • Working on this.

History and design

• If you can find one, this really needs a photo of the internal design. It's not reasonable to expect the reader to visualise what "two painted stone flags, three panels and a central panel, and a stone of remembrance" actually looks like in practice—while there are lots of photos in the article, they're all distance-shots;
  • Those are the only free photos available; I scoured Commons, Geograph, Flickr, and Google Images when I was writing this; I see Carcharoth suggests linking to some non-free photos below.
• Regarding A central panel bearing further names was added in 2015, do we have any idea why the authorities suddenly decided to alter the memorial after 95 years, and who took that decision?
  • All I can find is a brief report in the local rag (linked above); i'll add it in, but it's not much.
• Presumably when it was erected, the Stone of Remembrance didn't include the dates of the Second World War. When was that added, and was the memorial itself also altered at the time to include a list of WWII casualties or does it still only list those killed in WWI?
  • It only lists WWI casualties; it was fairly common for the dates of WWII to be added to a town's WWI memorial later on, but if this was reported on at the time, I can't find anything.
• The pavilion and the pool are surrounded by yew hedges—were these there already, or did Lutyens install them as part of the design?
  • Not in the sources, I'm afraid. It seems there were already yew hedges in the gardens, but whether these ones were added by Lutyens or just remodelled like the canal isn't specified.
• By a modern peace garden located to the east, do you mean Lutyens designed it in a modernist style, or that it wasn't in the initial plans and was installed at a more modern date?
  • I've found the date (1994) and added that.
• Was not featured in any publication about Lutyens' works until the publication of Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War in 2008 is sourced to Skelton himself, who has an obvious motivation to boast about how comprehensive he is—do we have a better source for that?
  • It's difficult to prove a negative; I'll see if Historic England have anything to say, but I have several books about Lutyens sitting on my bookshelf for this project and none of them mention Spalding (in fact they largely overlook his war memorials altogether, which is possibly why they're only now being written about).
• The sources may not exist for this, but does anything exist on its reception? If it was widely condemned when it was unveiled, that might account for why Lutyens didn't re-use the design in his later memorials, and why it slipped into obscurity—at the moment "an exceptional departure" from the usual style of Lutyens' war memorials is just kind of floating there without any explanation.
  • Unfortunately we're dealing with a relatively obscure memorial in a small town in Lincolnshire, not a major monument on Whitehall; whereas everybody who was anybody had something to say about the Cenotaph, this one seems to have gone largely unnoticed. The only thing I can offer, which is a combination of OR, SYNTH, and speculation, is that most of his war memorial commissions for major towns and cities resulted from the Cenotaph and many of his later memorials were based on it; Spalding being somewhat off the beaten track, it never really registered.

All fairly minor quibbles, and I assume unless anything problematic comes to light this will be a support. ‑ Iridescent 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'm still working on a few things, so I'll have more replies later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re-review

A few further thoughts on re-reading;

• Does it really need the coordinates both in the corner and in the infobox?
• I've taken the liberty of adding a photo of the clock and carillon in their current location. As I understand it, the clock is just as much "Spalding War Memorial" as Lutyens's structure; plus, this is quite a striking image and including it at this point breaks up an unavoidable flow of rather similar images. Ideally IMO it would be paired with a photo of the clock in situ on the Corn Exchange; since the Corn Exchange has been demolished for 50 years, you could probably get away with slipping a fair-use image of it (this one might be good, and is blurry enough to be of minimal commercial value but clear enough to show the clock clearly) past Nikkimaria's watchful eyes…
• …and searching for 1922-published (and thus out-of-copyright) photos of the clock leads me here, which might be worth stripping of anything you can pass off as fair use. (I assume they won't raise any objections, since a Wikipedia TFA will generate public interest in their collection.)
• Is "The solid rear wall bears two painted stone flags" correct? Looking at this photo, it looks to me like the stone flags are on metal poles embedded in concrete blocks on the floor, although admittedly it's not entirely clear whether they also attach to the wall.
• On the subject of Flickr photos, if you can persuade this guy to change the licencing for this photo, you really should, as despite having read the article top-to-bottom quite a few times it's only on seeing his photo that it's really made sense to me what's being described and how the parts relate to each other. Since his interest are listed as "trains, churches, canals and weather" if he's not already on Wikipedia he certainly should be, and Flickr users tend to lose their scruples about protecting their rights when you point out that as part of a FA their photo will literally be seen by a thousand times as many people as will see it languishing in a Flickr album.
• How do we get from she insisted that her husband not receive any special commemoration beyond that afforded to the other casualties to A separate stone is dedicated to Francis McLaren in the space of a couple of paragraphs?

These are all quibbles rather than serious issues, and I'm happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Carcharoth

Comments (picking up on a couple of points raised above):

• The death of Francis McLaren in Scotland was a flying accident while a trainee pilot in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. This was a relatively common occurrence at the time. Not a combat death, but a bit more precise than either 'killed in the war' or 'died in a plane crash'.
• I haven't been able to find a freely licensed photo of the interior. The painted flags and Stone of Remembrance are visible in one of the images used: this one. Better detail is needed. There are some images out there that could be linked in the external links if all else fails. One is here (Flickr photo). There is also a collection of images at the War Memorials Online page, mostly showing the poor condition at the time of photographing, plus one of the memorial garden. That should be an external link at the very least. There is also a hint there that some restoration work should be happening (or has happened) but I can't find any record at the War Memorials Trust website.
• The IWM War Memorial Register page here is used in the references. Given that the IWM register is (or aims to be) a standard reference for war memorials in the UK, might it not be worth giving that link in the infobox or external links? ('IWM memorial ID' is a property on Wikidata for what that is worth).
• It is definitely worth having more on the later history of the memorial, such as the recent commemoration events and the addition of names. An important point: the central panel and its inscription was not added in 2015. The inscription was present from the start. It was only additional names that were added in 2015. The phrasing used in the article gets this wrong at present. The Flickr picture I linked to above was taken in 2014, before the additional names were added. I haven't found any pictures yet from after the additions were made.
• About the Lutyens design elements and influence on his later memorials (this is mentioned in the article, but does need more explaining or putting in context). The stone flag element of the design (which Lutyens had wanted on the Whitehall Cenotaph but that didn't happen) are seen at Etaples and also on the Rochdale Cenotaph. From the Historic England listing the 'Tuscan pavilion is a precursor to the shelter buildings built in the cemeteries of the Western Front'. Pictures of those exist and could be put in the article. Identifying such architectural features with a reliable source can be a bit of a pain though.
• Bit of a stretch, but does a photo exist of the 'earlier castellated tower' that this memorial replaced? Or even of the general area before the memorial was built?

Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Few additional comments on looking at it again this morning:

• Northampton War Memorial (a featured article nominated by the nominator of this article) mentions the 'stone flags' design element and goes into some detail about how they are a common element in several memorials by Lutyens. It seems odd that this level of detail is missing from this article. Is this just not mentioned in the sources for this one, or was this level of detail left out for some other reason?
  • I can include it if you want. It just didn't seem relevant here. It is a common design element but its use here doesn't seem to have had much impact or been commented on anywhere (unlike Northampton, which was one of the last to actually be erected, albeit a relatively early design).
• The wider history of Ayscoughfee Hall is already covered in the article. There should be more on the tower that preceded the memorial and the plans for the 'Victory Clock and Carillon'. Some sources that mention this are here (the 'Owl Tower') and here ("This memorial project was originally meant to occupy the site of the present memorial at Ayscoughfee Hall. On this site was a folly - a 50 foot high Owl tower. However despite protests the Owl Tower was demolished by Spalding Urban District Council and the present Cloister style memorial designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens was constructed on the site."). Pictures of the Owl Tower are here and here. This is mentioned in books as well, such as here. At the very least, the name 'Owl Tower' (built in 1848 and variously described as a 50-foot-high Victorian Gothic folly) should be included in the article.
  • I've added some minimal detail about it but I'm reluctant to add more without better sources. Neither Skelton nor HE go into any detail about it (the listing description for the garden doesn't even mention it), Pevsner gives it the briefest of mentions, and those sources look like local history enthusiasts rather than reliable secondary sources.
• There seems to be some confusion as to whether the clock and carillon plan was originally for the Owl Tower and later changed to the corn exchange. It seems the bells were funded and purchased, and a tower and memorial arch erected at some point. See the IWM Memorials Register record. Not sure how much of this is worth mentioning. (The bells and clock are still there today, see picture here).
• You mention Spalding Urban District Council. It would be worth mentioning that changes in local government (in the 1970s) means that the current custodians of the memorial are South Holland District Council.
• "the connection with Barbara McLaren may have led to his commission for the Royal Naval Division Memorial in London after she married a prominent officer in that unit" - this feels too speculative and too much detail to warrant being in the lead section of the article.
• The lead says "in conjunction with a clock on the town's corn exchange building." This contradicts the body of the article which says "with a carillon on the corn exchange building". Is it possible to go back to your sources and be clearer on what actually happened here? (Possibly it was both, possibly plans changed again after the vote).
• "curved so slightly as to barely be visible to the naked eye" - maybe make clearer that you mean the curvature (entasis) is barely visible to the naked eye, not the Stone itself. Entasis would be more useful to link than monolith.
• "modern peace garden" - see here. If you are going to mention this, it might be worth expanding on the context of what Spalding did to commemorate the Second World War and why there are proposals to add WW2 names to this memorial. (FWIW, the WW2 names appear to be in the local churches). EDIT: I did find this for what it is worth. (added 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)).
• "McLaren and her son" - she had two sons at this time (Martin McLaren and Guy Lewis Ian McLaren). Both would have been under 10. Was it just one of them with her, and do we know which one? I suppose it is unlikely the source will give that level of detail. This detail probably came originally from a report in a newspaper like The Times or a local newspaper. Similar reports will cover any re-dedication of the Stone of Remembrance for the dead of WW2, which will answer one of the outstanding questions above. (EDIT: Having scoured various news archives, I think only local papers will have details on this. 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• About Skelton and Gliddon's claim that this memorial hasn't featured in previous publications about Lutyens and his works, this memorial was listed here (what looks like a 1981 gallery exhibition publication), but seems to have only been listed and not more than that, so maybe the two co-authors (Gliddon should be mentioned together with Skelton) are indeed the first to actually write about the memorial in any proper sense.
• It may be useful to try and get hold of a copy of The Builder, Volume 122 (1922) as there is a feature on this memorial on page 906 with illustrations (this is at the time of the unveiling). It is available from the links here, but not outside the USA unfortunately. I did find some pictures in another contemporary architectural journal (Building News and Engineering Journal, volume 118, 1920) of the plans, though from before the actual construction took place (so the details differ). See here and here. The associated text is here. Also here (illustration on the right) and the associated text here. Those illustrations (and the designs they show) should be public domain. I may try and upload them at some point soon to Commons. If used, the image captions would need to make clear they were only showing proposed plans, not the actual plans eventually used. The other architectural journals don't seem to be available online for that period. (For more on how such journals are an important part of the historical record for architecture in their periods, see here).
  • I did manage to get access to volume 122 (a good friend lent me access to VPN) but was disappointed: the feature on page 906 is a full-page photo of the banqueting hall of Cardiff Castle; Spalding gets a short paragraph of prose on page 904.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Update: I've now uploaded the images and put them in a gallery on the article talk page for consideration: Talk:Spalding War Memorial#Gallery of memorial plans. That makes clearer what the original plans were by Lutyens, and how much the plans were modified by. Whether or not this was the 'unmodified plan' that was part of the vote, I don't know, but these images do show the War Stone at a different orientation, the presence of a Lutyens cross, the u-shaped cloister garth, and the lily pond. The final form of the memorial has the stone facing the canal and just a shelter, rather than a full-blown u-shaped cloister garth.
• Looking at those 1920 plans again, I am not sure that the following bits from the article are correct: "a plan for a grand memorial cloister sited in the middle of a circular pond" (lead section) and "Lutyens proposed a U-shaped cloister around a Stone of Remembrance with a cross, all mounted at the centre of a circular lily pool". At least in the 1920 proposals, the lily pond is a separate feature. Was there ever really a proposal to surround the entire memorial complex with a lily pond? That sounds... ambitious (but would be typical for Lutyens).
• The 1919 exhibition catalogue for the Royal Academy War Memorials Exhibition of 1919 is online here. I think the Spalding War Memorial plans are there... Actually, the numbers refer to the exhibition numbers. The catalogue is complete, but just a listing.

Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: To save space, I won't reply inline to each bullet point. I think I've actioned almost all of your suggestions, or I've replied inline with an explanation. I believe all that's left is to add a little more background about the state of war memorials in 1918, and to tidy up what's now the "impact" section and add some detail about the shelters in the CWGC cemeteries (sources permitting). I'd welcome your thoughts and those of Iridescent and Hchc2009 on the progress so far. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. Some additional comments/responses:

• The clock part of the proposal was also a carillon, and is described as a 'chiming clock'. The extensive account given on pages 48 to 57 of Lutyens and The Great War makes it very clear (it is identified as a carillon on page 54 in the account of Dr Farrow's address to the public meeting). The reason I am pressing on this point is that the article says that the option that won the public vote included the clock. This is why I feel something needs to be said about this, even if only in the form of a footnote or an external link to further reading. The clock and carillon clearly exist today. Just falling silent and saying nothing more about the further history here feels wrong.

• Fair enough, I've added a paragraph about it now.

• Personally, I'd include (as external links if necessary) the War Memorials Online page, the online copy of the Royal Academy exhibition catalogue (maybe better used as a primary source to accompany the secondary source), a link to a close-up photo of the memorial panels and stone flags, and a link to a photo of the Owl Tower. They would all be of interest to a reader of this article, and would therefore be suitable as external links, IMO.
• Do you intend to use the images I put on the article talk page? They would need an image review.

• I've now included three of them; thank you very much for those!

• Is it worth including the connections with Francis McLaren's childhood home of Bodnant Garden? The flowers laid by Barbara McLaren and her sons were from Bodnant Garden, and Skelton says on page 56 of Lutyens and The Great War that the setting is "very reminiscent of the well known view of Pin Mill" (see picture here).

• Yes, it's worth a brief mention.

• Should there not be a link somewhere to a list of the names of those on the memorial? There are several possibilities: 1, 2, 3. The first one is nice, the second one is full of details, the third one from the IWM should be authoritative, but in my experience they get spellings and names wrong far too often. They also miss out Francis McLaren (I checked, he is not on the IWM list for this memorial). I also have a horrible feeling that the figure of 224 currently given in the article for the number of names is not right. If you count the visible names, there are 250 (including McLaren but not including the names added in 2014). Where did you get the figure of 224 from? Most sources use that, so if it is wrong there is a bit of a problem. This source (the second one listed above) quotes from a 1923 account in Ayscoughfee and its History, stating that there are 250 names (but actually gives 252, the extra two names are Henry Beecham and Fred Freeman). I have no idea where the number of 224 came from and how it got established in the sources out there, but it is clearly wrong. I suspect the IWM register got the number wrong and everyone else has been following that ever since. If anyone wants to double-check, they can use this photo and this photo and compare with the list here. Further update: There are 26 names on the memorial that are not on the IWM list of 224 names: Francis McLaren and the 25 names at the end of the memorial list, from VINE, R. to YORKE, ALBERT P.

• I've included the South Holland Life page as an external link. It's a shame the IWM's records are so poor but that's probably due to bad OCR given the sheer number of names they endeavour to list. I got 224 from Historic England (who list the IWM among their sources), but given that now two sources seem to agree on the exact number I've removed it altogether and gone with "over 200".

• There are two additional inscriptions that are not mentioned yet in the article: (1) the stone mentioning Francis McLaren (visible at lower right here and at the bottom of this page) with the inscription "This stone commemorates Francis Walter Stafford McLaren Member of Parliament for the Spalding Division 1910-1917 when he fell in the service of his country at the age of 31." (this is difficult to source, Google it and only two websites have this); and (2) the inscription above the names: "Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon them." This can be sourced from several of the references you are already using. Whether you want to say where that comes from I don't know, but it should be included.

• And I've added these now as well.

Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

NB: this gives a total of around 270 names (which I think is after the modern additions). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carcharoth, Hchc2009, and Iridescent: Many apologies for the delay; I've been hard pressed for more than small snippets of time lately and didn't have as much time over Christmas as I expected. I believe I've addressed everything outstanding (with a lot of help from Carcharoth on the impact section) but it's possible I've missed something. If you could take a look to see if you have any more concerns, I'd be very much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All looks good to me. You will need another image review, and someone needs to review what I added, but I don't have any more concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, there was one thing I forgot to mention: the lead section doesn't say who the memorial was raised for - the infobox says it, but the lead section should say this as well. War memorials cover a wide range, so even though this is an example of the most common kind (the local village/town/parish memorials), it still needs to be explicitly stated. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Will look at this tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Coming back to this, was the additional review of the new images ever done? As I said, all looks good to me. I don't have any concerns, but am not sure if I should be explicitly supporting unless what I added has been reviewed. The edits I have made are here. The substantial edits are: [4], [5], [6], [7]. I don't think that disqualifies me from supporting, but am not sure. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Support per the response here to my query above, and with the caveat about the image review stated above. Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

It's changed a bit since I last read it through properly; will try to do a second run through this evening, HJ. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Th substance is mostly the same but some things have moved around or been expanded slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Carcharoth, what you added does not disqualify you from supporting. Also, Hchc2009 do you have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Nikki, would you be able to check images added since your initial review? Also a source reivew would be great if you have time... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Have read through again, some thoughts on the current text:

• "The memorial was designed by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens in a departure from the usual style of Lutyens' war memorials." Could we go for a pronoun for the second use of this name? I'm also not sure that "departure" in this context is right; when he designed it in 1917, he hadn't built the majority of his war memorials yet, so he couldn't really depart from anything. The cited source is written in the present tense, not the past, btw, and is about the memorial,not the act of designing, which I think is why it works in that context.
  • I've removed this; its significance among Lutyens' works is explained later in the lead.
• "After a public meeting in August 1919, followed three weeks later by a vote, a reduced-scale version of McLaren's proposal emerged as the preferred option, in conjunction with a clock on the town's corn exchange building." - in the lead, could we simplify this slightly? I was thinking "After a public meeting and a vote in 1919, a reduced-scale version of McLaren's proposal emerged as the preferred option, in conjunction with the construction of a clock on the town's corn exchange building." - I don't think the month or the time between that and the vote is critical, and it would make it easier for the reader.
  • Done.
• "Spalding War Memorial is today a grade I listed building, having been upgraded when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." - I wasn't sure you needed the "having been upgraded..." half of the sentence in the lead; it draws the reader away from this article, and you've already given the key fact in the first half of the sentence.
  • I think this is important; the memorial, like the article, is part of a series. Its significance is as part of Lutyens' work. There wouldn't be 2,000 works to write about a random war memorial in a Lincolnshire town.
• "Spalding was one of his first private war memorial commissions." - in 1917, how many public war memorial commissions had he actually had? It makes it sounds as though he had done many public war memorials by then, which surely isn't correct. (Could we just say "Spalding was one of his first war memorial commissions."?)
  • Done.
• "with the clock and carillon housed in a brick tower on the roof" - "rehoused" might sound more natural here
  • Done.
• "which on the east side are broken at regular intervals by iron gates which lead to a peace garden (added in 1994)" - the brackets here felt awkward - would a comma work just as well?
  • I can live with either, so done.
• There's a bit of duplication in "History and Design". In para one, we say "Further names were added in 2014." Para 3 then starts off, "The names of an additional 24 casualties from the First World War were added to the central panel of the memorial prior to Remembrance Sunday 2014." I think the problem remains here that you cut away from the historical sequence at the end of the "Commissioning" section to the modern day at the start of "History and Design", and then go back to 1922 for the second half of the section. If you, for example, took out the two design paragraphs and made that its own section at the end, you'd have the ability to tell the entire historical story from commissioning, opening and then impact, without repeating the information in a single section. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I've split out the design into its own section, which leaves the chronology mostly uninterrupted except for the trip to the Corn Exchange. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• • • Looks great - Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Crop_to_show_entrance_at_Anneux_British_Cemetery,_Cambrai,_France.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: thanks for the extra image review. The architect (Lutyens) died on 1 January 1944, so as far as I am aware, all his works and the copyright to those works became part of the public domain on 1 January 2015. Does that over-ride the freedom of panorama considerations? Commons:Freedom of panorama states: "old buildings and statues where the architect or artist died more than a certain number of years ago (depending on the country), are in the public domain". So I am thinking that the image needs a public domain tag to clarify the copyright status of the work shown in the image. I have used Template:PD-old-auto and a suitable US PD tag (see here). Are you happy with that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Technically, even UK pics showing a potentially copyrighted work need a freedom of panorama tag: see Template:FoP-UK. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    • So the URAA tag requires that the work be out of copyright in its source country by 1996, but your explanation would have it out of copyright only in 2015 - that suggests that URAA is not the correct tag. Is there another that would apply? Does "1920s" mean pre-1923? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Oops. You are right. The PD-US tags confuse me. Some of them have the wording 'published in the United States' so I never know whether they apply to works published outside the United States or not (clearly a building erected outside the USA has not been 'published' there). If there is some equivalent, I am not sure what it should be. The first CWGC cemeteries for WWI were constructed in 1920 and the majority of construction had been completed by 1927. Finding the exact dates for each cemetery can be difficult (the closest you might get could be when the cemetery registers were published - in this case the cemetery register was published in 1926). It would be nice to know the exact date of construction, but I am not optimistic. Do you get the (sinking) feeling that though it shouldn't really matter, it will? The image can clearly be used under a fair use rationale, but this sort of thing is why I hate the way the complexity of copyright laws ties people in knots (and it is a real motivation killer as well). I think these works are unpublished in the USA, so maybe Template:PD-US-unpublished applies? I suppose it depends on whether it was published in France or not. In some places on Commons, it says that "the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication", while in other places, it is clearly implied that the date of construction is the date of publication. I wish Commons would be clearer on how architectural copyright works. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Found what I had been looking for. Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says this: "Works not copyrightable in the United States are not affected by URAA restoration. For example, architectural works (i.e. buildings) constructed before December 1, 1990, are not copyrightable in the US.". I think this applies here. I will double-check this, as it is not 100% clear. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Turned out to be simple after all: [8], just using the tag Template:PD-US-architecture. For future reference, this was clarified here. @Nikkimaria: is that all OK now? Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
          • • Interesting, hadn't seen that tag before. But yes, that looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why include a publisher for one newspaper but not the other?
  • The Spalding and South Holland Voice is an independent publication so there is no publisher.
• Fn12: date shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeed not; thanks Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 12:41, 31 January 2017 [9].

---

Richard Feynman

Nominator(s): DVdm (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Richard Feynman, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist. But it's more than that; in terms of page views, he ranks above all other winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics except Albert Einstein and Marie Curie! He also ranks ahead of all the Manhattan Project people except Robert Oppenheimer. The article averages over 3,000 page views per diem, which works out to over one million per annum. It is a Level 4 Vital Article. Why? God knows.

This article has a chequered history. It was created by Larry Sanger back in September 2001, so it is also one of Wikipedia's oldest articles. It became a featured article in August 2004 and was featured on the front page in December 2004. But it was demoted in May 2006. In June 2006 it became a Good Article but was delisted in October 2008. I restored the article as part of my effort to improve the Manhattan Project People in August 2016. Now DVdm and I are co-nominating it for restoration of its long-lost feature status. The article has 697 watchers, so I'm hoping that maybe two or three of them will step up and review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - Some readers will inevitably have problems understanding the physics, but the links will help. I enjoyed reading the article immensely and found no contradictions with what I already knew about Feynman from my reading of Gleick (although this was some years ago). I have not fully checked the images - the Lead one might present a problem. My thanks to the nominators and all the other editors who have contributed to this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank for your review Graham. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: my concern was addressed. The article appears to satisfy the FA criteria. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: overall it looks good. The section I have some concerns about is "What Science is". Are the explanations under each of the bullets meant to be quotes from his address? I understand the intent, but believe the statements need to be placed in context. Praemonitus (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the points are not from his lecture. I am concerned about it too - enough to remove the section it and replace it with an external link to the actual text of the lecture. The section doesn't reflect what I recall from the lecture, which you can read here Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Same here. After my removal of the TEDxCALTECH section, I thought about removing this section too, but I decided to stay silent and see what happened. This happened just now. Fully agree. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg: suggest adding a data source

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:FeynmanAMNH.jpg. If we consider this to be a 2D work, the uploader holds no copyright; if we consider this to be a 3D work, we should include a licensing tag for the original monument

  I thought it fell below the threshold of originality - removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics.jpg: what is the licensing of the original work?

  Copyright © 1963, 2006, 2013 by the California Institute of Technology. I'd add a template:Non-free use rationale book cover template, but it's on Commons, so I can't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:Feymanlibrary.JPG: not sure we can ignore the cover copyrights here...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  It's a composite work, so the photographer has copyright of the image, but not of the book covers. Again, it's on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this as a DYK in August when it was a double hook with Matthew Sands. Feynmann has always been an interesting character to me. I can see there has been some fine tuning since August in the way of format, prose, citations. But it remains pretty much the article I reviewed in August. Nothing to quibble about. I'm glad to see this at FAC, and am happy to give my support. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The lead image (File:Richard Feynman Nobel.jpg) has tags that indicate that the file is PD in Sweden but may be copyrighted in the United States. What time it was PD? Is it appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The image was taken in 1965. It was first published in Sweden that year. Copyright there was 25 years at the time, so it expired in 1990 and the image entered the public domain in Sweden. It was in the public domain there in 1996, and it is therefore appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}, which I have added. The image should not be copied to Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The Sweden PD tag says "If the media is in the public domain in both Sweden and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons." So it can be transferred to Commons, since it's PD in the source country (Sweden) and the United States. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, why General Relativity is capitalized? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably an artifact. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Most refs have a date format January 1, 2017, but 104 and 179 do not, they have 1 January 2017. They should be consistent. HalfGig talk 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Corrected, along with three other instances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You may or may not want to mention this in 'popular legacy', just a suggestion, but character Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory is a huge Feynmann fan. This link here isn't the greatest source, but it'll give you an idea of Cooper's fandom: [10] HalfGig talk 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This should be an acceptable source for Cooper, if you care to include it. HalfGig talk 12:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Is that Wil Wheaton? Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Sheldon Cooper is played by Jim Parsons. Will Wheaton has a recurring minor role on the show though. HalfGig talk 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I get it. Sheldon is the one on the right in the green tee shirt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Will Wheaton is on the left with the United Federation of Planets flag and Sheldon is on the right in the green tee shirt. HalfGig talk 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Source Check - By this I mean I'm looking at quality of the reference sources. Most are impeccable: universities and academic journals. Some concerns:

• 1) is find a grave acceptable for wiki/FAs? I simply don't know

  It is acceptable as a WP:RS only for photographic evidence. But that's not the case here. Substituted a newspaper article for the source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• 2) what about ref 170? website i09. I am not sure about this one. Open to input on this

What about this one? HalfGig talk 12:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a professionally produced website with its own Wikipedia article, but there is no mention of it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Substituted an article from The Hollywood Reporter Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3) Ref 176 needs a source, the Bill Gates one

  Added the publisher. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• 4) Ref 167 is clearly unacceptable, this goes to a site in Chinese that looks like an ad for hand lotions or something. rtopera prob lapsed control of the site and some Chinese company hijacked it. UPDATE: compare http://www.realtimeopera.org/ to http://www.rtopera.org

  It's a common form of cyber-squatting. A firm pays for the provider's 404 rights. Unfortunately, it fools our external link checker and the archive bot. Well spotted btw. Corrected the address. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

HalfGig talk 03:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyvio Check Earwig's tool turns up one "possible violation". I'll look at it later. Others feel free to look too. HalfGig talk 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

It's picked up a quotation from James Gleick, which is attributed to him in the article. Nothing to worry about. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, the Caltech match is the block quote about science textbooks, and the nuclear secrecy is the one from the FBI report. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Concur. No issues here. HalfGig talk 23:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - per all my above comments. Kudos to those editors who worked so much to get this article to this point. I really enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. HalfGig talk 23:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 12:23, 31 January 2017 [11].

---

Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

What's not to like about this article? It is brilliantly written, beautifully illustrated and lavishly referenced. There is drama and controversy, triumph and heartbreak. Admittedly, no Paralympic article has even been promoted to Featured, but none had made it to A class before this one either. It has had two previous reviews, but no problems with the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I know nothing about basketball, so at least I have no preconceptions. Looks pretty good to me, but a few comments below, most of which you can ignore if you disagree

• from whom much was hoped—perhaps "expected" for last word?

  No, it was hope, not expectation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sure there is some logic to the 5-2-5 image layout, but there's nothing to say what it is. Also, can the images be centred? May not be feasible, so not a big deal

  All part of the magic of template:gallery. Fiddled with this, and I have fixed the problem. The layout adjusts to your screen width, so you should now see 5-5-2, but if you can get it a bit wider it will be 6-6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Canada had beaten them… the Netherlands had also beaten them… Canada would be hard to beat.—a bit repetitive?

  Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• watching video tapes.—Literally? By 2012 you'd expect DVD or internet downloads

  Yeah, literally. They were on VHS. Quality was crap too. I would add this, but I can't find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Merritt, in her British accent—to me, sounds as if she is making a choice, perhaps who had a British accent

  Done. Amber's British accent became more pronounced during the London games. Since then it has greatly softened. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• Netherlands based on defeating them—perhaps add in their head-to-head

  Done. The ramifications of that were considerable; the Netherlands had to face Germany, while the Gliders went up against the USA. The Netherlands' loss cost them a shot at gold; but they credit the Gliders' win with giving them the bronze medal, as the USA were morally crushed by their loss. And they had not forgotten this in Rio; this figured in their preparation for back-to-back bronze medals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• their shooting was worse than their rivals—possessive rivals' I think

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

All my issues have been addressed, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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

• "Stewart took the tap, and lost": What did they lose?

  Possession. Re-worded. Wikipedia uses "tip" instead of "tap"; changed the article to conform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "runaway break": I'm not familiar with the term.

  Occasionally our Australian basketball jargon is polluted with terms from football. Changed to "fast break", which is the term used on Wikipedia

• "The Gliders played Germany like they had played against and defeated the United States": nonparallel; "played" can take "against" or not, but not both in the same sentence.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Syek88. I was attracted to this article among those in the list of Featured Article candidates only because of the extreme length of the title. I confess no knowledge of the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to be a comprehensive article that cannot have been easy to write. I have made a string of copy-editing changes, simply because doing so was easier than listing them here. Please undo any of them with which you disagree. Some other things:

• The treatment of numbers seems inconsistent. Sometimes single-digit numbers are expressed in numeric form (8 points) while double-digit numbers are spelt out (twelve team members). It becomes noticeable to the reader because the article uses so many numbers.

  I've changed the words in the Background section to numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• What has Ms Merritt's British accent got to do with her comments about the Canada match?

  The irony of talking about "the Australian way" in a British accent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• The opening paragraph about the semifinal seems to descend into unnecessary play-by-play detail that the remainder of the article avoids.

  Trimmed the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• The final sentence about the semifinal says that the Gliders' win was controversial. The preceding sentences establish drama, but not controversy. For example, the article says nothing about dirty play (I understand deliberate fouling is common in basketball) or refereeing errors. Why was the win controversial?

  The article says: Spectators saw Hollermann's shot from the paint hit the ring with a second to go, but the shot clock was not reset. Team USA's Alana Nichols rebounded, and put the ball in the bucket, but not before time ran out and a shot clock violation was called. The spectators included myself. A Youtube video can be viewed in the external links (forward to 1:40 to view the incident), but at the time Olympic/Paralympic basketball had no provision for video review. This was changed for the 2016 Rio Olympics/Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't understand how the ranking system worked between Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Australia seems to have finished ahead of the Netherlands because of their head-to-head result, but wouldn't this mean Canada finished ahead of Australia? What has Canada's result against Great Britain got to do with it? The table in the article talks about "Tiebreaker 1" and "Tiebreaker 2", which again I don't understand. And Wheelchair basketball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Women tells me nothing either.

  Turning to the IWBF rules (pp. 73-77), we find that the first tiebreaker is on the basis of points differential in the games between them. The three games were CAN 59 –70 NED, AUS 50 – 57 CAN, and NED 49 – 58 AUS. So the point differentials were: CAN: -11 + 7 = -4; NED: 11 - 9 = +2; AUS: -7 + 9 = +2. Australia and the Netherlands were still tied, but Australia beat the Netherlands, and so claimed first place in the second tiebreaker. Should this be added to the article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Added it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• The summary of each match says "Referees:" but in each case there is only one referee.

  Yes. It's a feature of the template {{Basketballbox}}. At the Olympics there is one "referee" and two "umpires". The template is used by thousands of articles, so it would be tricky to change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Regards Syek88 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! The article was very difficult to write, and no Paralympic article has ever become featured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The explanation of the tiebreakers is difficult! My only remaining comment about that part is that "head-to-head match" is tautologous. And my apologies for missing the British accent joke! Syek88 (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The article contains several of these. My favourite is "Gauci, a two-point player, took a three-pointer" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• Consider linking Brazil, Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands to their respective teams.

  I hadn't done so because the pages did not exist; but someone has since created one for Canada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the last two of which had recently beaten them." - During the previous tournament?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Prior to 2012 ..." - This should be linked to the Paralympics article

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article. Given, the article is about the team's display at a particular tournament it could be a little more detailed. Viz., Squads, dates, prize money, et al.,

  Prize money? Oh no, there was no prize money. Had the Americans won a medal they would have received US$3,000 each, but the Gliders didn't get a brass razoo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  Ah, my bad. Got it! —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'Paralympic Games' -> Paralympic games

  No, Paralympic Games is capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  I see that —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the first para (Background) is a bit too short.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  Given its length, wouldn't it be better to note it earlier when we introduced her? —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• The second para seems fine, but it could do a bit more with information about the changes in the squad (if any) and the tournament.

  But I already said that there three new players. Melanie Domaschenz, Melanie Hall and Kathleen O'Kelly-Kennedy were not selected, and Liesl Tesch had retired since 2008. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• The quote should either be placed inside the quote box or at least quotes.

  Per MOS:QUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• "12 included 9 veterans" - twelve included nine veterans per WP:MOSNUM

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now. Will review the rest later. —Vensatry _(talk) 13:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

• Talking about the opening para of the 'Group stage', is there a special reason to highlight their encounter against Canada, while leaving out the rest of the teams?

  Expanded the quote to encompass the Netherlands. Despite this, the group was still better than Group B, where they would have been up against Germany and the USA. The quote contains an irony; despite what he says, the Gliders' shooting percentage did not improve. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• " ... at the Basketball Arena in Olympic Park in Stratford, London,[10] also known as "the Marshmallow"." - This gives an impression that the city of London is referred by the name. Also why include the inside quotes?

  Changed to 'a venue also known as "The Marshmallow"'. The "the" is in quotes because it was always referred to that way. Several of the venues were referred to by other than their official names. In the case of the Basketball Arena, that name could easily be confused with the North Greenwich Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  I've made a minor change. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  But we cannot talk about the Marshmallow in the present tense. It was demolished in 2013. There was some talk in 2012 about it being used again in Rio, but the Rio basketball was held at the Carioca Arena 1 and the nearby Rio Olympic Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pardon my ignorance, is 'affair' encyclopedic (when used in the context of the game)?

  Well it's a common sports idiom. [12] It's used here to try and avoid too much repetition of "match" and "game". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Who was the Great Britain coach?

  Gary Peel. He was sacked after London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• 9 - 7 = +2, 11 - 9 = +2, 7 - 11 = -4 - Should the arithmetic bits go inside a bracket?

  I don't know if that would be practical. The idea was to allow the reader to follow the arithmetic. The head of the IWBF, Maureen Orchid,m explained it to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• "He warned the media" - Really?

  Changed to "cautioned". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Merritt, who had a British accent" - Is it necessary?

  Per the above, it is another ironic reference. Another reviewer asked me to add it. Do you think it should be remove. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  The statement reads more like a press release. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• ""They will come back!" Triscari warned his players. "We've got to stop them!"[47]" The second quote is unattributed.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• This one is a personal preference: The statements issued by the coaches border WP:QUOTEFARM. You could try not to overuse them by trimming down a bit.

  Removed one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In Australia, Basketball Australia CEO ..." - This could simply do without "In Australia".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It was not to be." This sentence seems incomplete

  It's fine. It's a common idiom. 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  I see that. But this seems like a disconnect from the previous para. Also, the second quote (of the previous para is unattributed). —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  I thought it segued nicely. Kean says: "the plan is, next four years, Rio we go one more." And then we say: "It was no to be." This avoids a single sentence final paragraph, (and provides yet another irony). Unavoidably, the article ends on a jarring note. (Interestingly, everybody in London was talking about Rio, but no one is Rio was talking about Tokyo except the Japanese.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

Image and source reviews? Cheers, 11:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The book(let?) in FN3 does not include location, but the unnumbered one at the end of the section does - should be consistent
• FNs 21–23 look similar to me, but the titles vary in terms of content and format - is there a reason for that?
• FN58 doesn't match the formatting of the other refs
• Fn59 should use |publisher= rather than |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Yes, the Media Guide was an A5 booklet. Designed to be easy to carry and lays flat when opened. Add the publication location. It was the last printed media guide; they are online now. So is London; linked.
2. There was some inconsistency - the pages did not have title cards in the HTML. I have corrected tjhis so all the pages have consistent names. For each one there was a main page, a statistics page, and a play by play page. Unfortunately, archive.org did not correctly archive all the pages. Checked them all, and used archive.is to replace the three faulty ones.
3. FN 58 had a typo - fixed
4. FRN 59 - fixed.

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Vensatry do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll refrain from supporting the candidate as my knowledge about the topic is rather limited. But then, I feel the quotes could be trimmed down a bit. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to see a consensus for promotion. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I trimmed back one more quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:15, 28 January 2017 [13].

---

Red wattlebird

Nominator(s): Aa77zz (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a critter I commonly find in my garden. Aa77zz and I have buffed it quite a bit and it got a good going-over at GAN so I reckon it is at or nearly at FA standard. I promise to address issues promptly. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

All looks good, just a couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• sedentary (present year-round) — I don't like the parenthesis, perhaps year-round resident or permanent resident?
• A mainly sedentary resident — sedentary seems superfluous
• up to 1900 m above sea level —imperial conversion
• Your conversions to inches are inconsistent, some with fractions, others, such as the eggs, with decimals
• often parasitized —make clear or link to brood parasite

all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from MeegsC

Lead

• Is the "bright yellow patch towards the tail" on the dorsal or ventral side? It's not clear from the sentence.

Ventral - fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground. This reads a bit awkwardly. Do you mean that it spends most of the time in trees, but forages on the ground? Because that's how it reads.

Aah, I tried to rectify like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

*No information on breeding or status and threats in the lead? I'd expect to see at least a few sentences about each!

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

more coming soon!

ummm, @MeegsC:...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry - I'm in Guyana at the moment, with only intermittent veeeeeeeery sloooooooooow connectivity. Will check ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  Hi MeegsC, my feeling is that this has probably had sufficient commentary now but if you think you can return to it I could leave it open another day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  This is looking good; I'm happy to support it. MeegsC (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• I can't remember which script throws these out, and I am not certain how to fix this particular error, but I see four of these: "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" in your refs.

Not sure what the problem is here - but I've switch all author= to last=, first=. Does this fix it? Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

All except for the one I just fixed. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• What is the logic behind placing Jobling, James A. (2010) and Beruldsen, Gordon (2003) in the References section, but all other books in the Cited texts section?

Good point, I'm looking into this. Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the three books into Sources. I'm in two minds about this. For books which are only cited once there are advantages in keeping the full reference in the text. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Did you get a copy edit? This sentence is a bit clumsy; moreover, it seems to forget the frequency of Hawking (birds): "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See above, I changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

First, in the lead, "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" reads a bit odd. Second (I know I'm just adding on to the dogpiling on at this point), the sentence, "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground." reads weirdly. Also, before that, why did you link to just Western Australia and not all the other places? In the taxonomy section, why did you say, "The red wattlebird was first described as the wattled bee-eater by the Irish surgeon and naturalist John White in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790."? The original common name is in italics, which doesn't make much sense to me. For the description section and on, you seem to have inconsistency in the usage of to and the em dash and whether to use fractions or decimals. The final nitpick I have is the fact that you should probably make parasites a separate section, "Predators and Parasites". It may not be long enough to make into a separate section though, it would be great if somebody else could give their take on that. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Other Australian states now linked. Aa77zz (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" seems fine to me. Cas - are you happy with this? Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is fine grammatically but readers may find it odd. It could just be changed to "distinctive pinkish-red wattles on either side of the neck". It reads a lot better for me at least... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I realized I was scanning it and putting the 'on' in it mentally when it wasn't there. Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• wattled bee-eater - italics removed but see MOS:ITAL "Words as words". Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for linking me to that, I will read it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is tricky as italics delineate the scientific names from common names, yet if we use words-as-words then we italicize the common names when they are set out as such. There's no real right answer on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding parasites, I am in two minds as we have some brood parasites mentioned in the breeding section, but it strikes me as a bit odd to group cuckoos with birdlice and protozoa. But you're the second person to raise it so will do in a sec done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, all imperial units are in fractions and decimal units in decimals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Just realized something else—oxford commas are inconsistent. Otherwise, it looks good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

just adding now I think I got 'em all...(I should say I don't really like Oxford commas but they are very useful if one needs to add a ref after one..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. My nitpicks were all addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Source review sources are appropriate and consistently formatted. I checked refs 12, 19, 31 and 56, and subscription ref 23. Content is supported by sources, no close paraphrasing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks Jim Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Did two of the reviews stall? I'll start a review later today, if they don't continue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• "The taxonomic descriptions in White's book are believed to have been written by the English naturalist George Shaw." Which I guess is the reason why this article credits Shaw, but I see the IUCN has White as the author. So seems there is some disagreement on how to handle this? What do most sources do? Also, why isn't Latham credited with the name if he coined it? FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm responsible for this section:

• Salomonsen 1967 (ie Peters) has (White 1790) see here at the bottom of page
• HBW alive has (Shaw 1790) see here
• IOC has (Shaw 1790) see here
• Zoonomen has (Shaw 1790) here with the note "Usually attributed to White, but see Nelson EC. 1998. Archives of Nat. Hist. 25(2): 149-211. making the case that White is not the author of any of the taxa in this work." I've cited Nelson but (this is embarrassing) I cannot access the actual article to confirm the comment on the Zoonomen website (Zoonomen is by Alan P. Peterson).
• My understanding was that for an author to be credited with describing a species he/she has to provide a description and a binomial name but for the red wattlebird this doesn't appear to be the case. (This is perhaps OR on my part) Unlike other birds in White's book, a specific name is not provided for the red wattlebird only "Wattled Bee-eater or Merops, Female" . See page 240 in White.
• Latham certainly used the binomial name Merops carunculatus - see here at top of page and doesn't credit White.
• Salomonsen 1967 claims the White's book was published "before August" and Latham's (December). see here and the next page

How should I handle this? - Aa77zz (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

More

I find it very surprising that White/Shaw are listed as the authority but the specific epithet is due to Latham. I've searched White's book but cannot find the specific name. Our article on John Latham explains that Latham wasn't given credit for the birds he described in his A General Synopsis of Birds as he didn't provide binomial names. In Latham's description of the red wattlebird in his Index ornithologicus he cites "Phill Bot Bay t. p. 164" which is The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay published in 1789 - see Phillip's description and picture of the Wattled Bee-Eater here. Phillip doesn't provide a binomial name. Aa77zz (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems there are some secondary sources that discuss the issue? So at least the situation could be explained? I think some readers would be puzzled when they read the seemingly contradictory sequence of taxonomic events. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The consensus among published sources is that the author is Shaw - Australian government and IOC (above) are two most important authorities in this I think. I am placing a line in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I also can't access the Nelson article that explains this. Will see if I can get via interlibrary loan or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe try the resource request page?[14] I think it would be good with some explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looked in the Nelson material today - it mentions that Shaw wrote all the descriptions for White. Also, Salamonsen points out that White/Shaw was published before Latham, in which case whoever published first gets the Authority, even if they used the name that the other person coined. This is why Salamonsen highlights the months published. As far as authorship (White vs Shaw), we mention that Shaw did the writing and is credited with the Authority, so is anything more needed?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

NB: A famous case is Richard Anthony Salisbury and Robert Brown in 1809... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Onomatopoeic could be explained.

I added "(sounding like the calls they make)" - strikes me as a tad wordy but is more accessible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• No cladogram? Any suggestion for when the species split?

A large molecular phylogenetic study has just been published - see Marki et al 2017. For the wattlebirds (Anthochaera) the relationships are well resolved and agree with earlier publications. I've drawn a cladogram that I've inserted into the wattlebird article, I can add it here. The spiny-cheeked honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufogularis) in its own genus is a sister group to the wattlebirds but beyond that the relationships are murky. Marki et al. wrote: "We recovered a number of strongly supported clades within the Meliphagidae, however their interrelationships remain largely unsolved." Looking at the scale at the bottom of Fig 4, it appears that there was a sudden radiation about 10 million years ago. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think just saying "coverts" is too jargony, saying covert feathers the first time at least would be better.

I unabbreviated two of three Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Like you explain nape, lores could be explained too.

Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The wattle is kind of hard to see on the photos used, compared to say, this one[15]. Maybe there is a photo somewhere that could be added where this namesake feature is more visible?

Agree on the wattles...but the bird is in a funny posture in the picture. Will try and digest all the photos and come up with something have added the image. There are others but they have more obvious focus or exposure issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it is even the weird pose itself that makes the wattles so clear? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sclerophyll forest and dieback could be linked, I at least had to click to know what it was.

sclerophyll is really hard to explain succinctly - "sorta but not aways dry-adapted forest that is periodically burnt by bushfires" and dieback is commonly used in discussions in Australia. But I un-easter egged the link anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• "height of 5.9 ± 5.8 m" Conversion?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• The tongue is described in detail, but what colour is it?

no source I have details a colour,sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I've also failed to find a suitable source (the tongue is yellow - see here and here) Aa77zz (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• The intro says "At around 35 cm (14 in) in length". Why not give the 33-37 range in the article body?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• "it is one of the largest species of honeyeater" Only stated in intro.

tweaked and added to body now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• "cup-shaped nest" Article body says "bowl".

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - the article looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review and your support. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 22:12, 28 January 2017 [16].

---

Apus

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a small constellation. A few of us have been working on getting all constellation articles improved over the years. This is a small one and easy to digest. Will address issues pronto so have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

You could write these in your sleep by now, so no real problems, just a couple of niggles to show I've actually read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you can avoid repeating "feet" in para 1, but you should be able to avoid repeating "brightest star" in para 2

yep. first I can't see how but second now rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• The separate components can be resolved with binoculars, a telescope, or the naked eye.— if resolvable with the naked eye, aren't the optical instruments redundant here?

good point - rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• approximately 2059— in what sense is a 4-sig fig number approximate?

the source has that number. All of these are estimates for very distant objects...which gives me an idea.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Overall it looks good, and appears to satisfy the FA criteria. However, it looks like the statement about the younger age of IC 4499 has been shown to be incorrect. Walker et al (2011) give an age of 12±1 Gyr.[17] Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

aha interesting. debate to that level of detail probably not notable enough for the parent article so removed the young age statement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Recusing as coordinator for this one. Up to the usual standard, and just a few nit-picks from me, none of which affect my support at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Bayer called it Apis Indica while Johannes Kepler and his son-in-law Jacob Baertsch called it Apus or Avis Indica.": This is the only time we mention Kepler; famous as he is, I think we need a word to say why he matters here. Also, there is no context for where they called it this. Bayer did so in an Atlas, so I assume Kepler and Baertsch didn't only do so over the dinner table! I also wonder if "while " is the best word here as it could imply at the same time in this context.

tricky - they were all notable German astronomers - so I added "fellow astronomers" to emphasise this was part of their business (mapping and naming the sky) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Apus later lost some of its tail when Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille used those stars to establish Octans in the 1750s": Coming straight after the section on the Bird of Paradise having its feet taken off, this is a little distracting, and I had to re-read to realise we had returned to the constellation.

Aaww, I thought it was quite cute. Anyway, does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "visible to observers south of 7°N": Which would be where?

Brilliant! been here over ten years and never twigged we had these - so fixed like this, as source doesn't say what places these parallels these align with and wouldn't want to do OR.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Can we link or explain "main sequence"?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It spent much of its life as a blue-white (B-type) main sequence star before expanding, cooling and brightening as it used up its core hydrogen,[14] now having swollen to 48 times the Sun's diameter,[15] and shining with a luminosity approximately 928 times that of the Sun, with a surface temperature of 4312 K.": Could this sentence be broken up a bit? There's quite a lot going on.

split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Nearby Zeta is Iota Apodis": Nearby confused me at first, as I thought "Nearby Zeta" was the subject of this sentence. Would "near" work, as I think that would avoid the problem.

duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I often wonder do non-science people realise what ± means? I'm not sure there is an easy way to explain it, unless there is a link. (And I'm not suggesting removing the symbol, just wondering aloud)

I used to say "around" but the margins of error make it more precise. I agree it is hard to link or explain. I tend to think it is common enough now for people to understand what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "has turned out to be a brown dwarf": Turned out is slightly unencyclopedic, especially in an article like this.

tweaked - trying to use plain english Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "a predicted mass": Can we expand this just a touch so that the lay reader doesn't think that this is just a wild guess.

changed to "calculated" - it's rather complex how this is done and might be a bit wordy for this article. Need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That works perfectly for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do we need to say when it became a "modern constellation"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought that by reading the article it becomes clear that it was 1922/30 that the constellations were set in stone....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, missed that, sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Apus IAU.svg: Free image on Commons used to illustrate the constellation, a good usage. License supported by source website.
• File:BayerUran1661apuschamtri.jpg: Free image on Commons, used to show the old portrayal of the constellation. Changed the license templates a little to use a broader and more precise one, but unquestionably PD for age.
• File:Constellation Apus.jpg: Free image on Commons. Used to show how the constellation appears in the sky. Source website appears to imply a noncommercial license, though - is a free license specified somewhere? It also says own work.

Till Credner added this one himself. I am not fussed either way and if in doubt (as now) I am happy to leave it out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Potw1431a.jpg: Free image on Commons, illustrating a stellar object discussed in the article. Seems like a legit free license as well.

Might want to use ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

alt text added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

Just the regular source review needed now I think -- I know it's listed at WT:FAC, just for benefit of those stopping by here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources of an appropriate quality. The only issue I notice is that we are not consistent with print sources: we give a publisher for some but not all (e.g. Houk and Cowley; although the publisher is pretty obvious, I think it should be there for consistency, unless I'm missing something) and a location for some but not all. Also, is there a reason why journals are cited without "p." or "pp.", but books include this? (I assume it's a template thing) Otherwise, sources are fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

locations added to book publishers now. journal page ranges don't add the p's for some reason Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment

Cas, I removed a few duplinks and while doing so noticed that you use orange giant, which redirects to giant star, but also pipe orange giant (and yellow giant) to giant star -- perhaps should consistently go one way or t'other, will leave to you after I promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:50, 28 January 2017 [18].

---

God of War: Ascension

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I have tried to edit and model this off of God of War III, which is an FA, though of course there are differences. Albeit with the new God of War announced this past summer, this is the only article of a God of War video game that has not been promoted to FA. It has been over a year since I last nominated this article for FAC. I feel comfortable in nominating this article and feel that any issues that reviewers may bring up can be easily resolved. I am quick to respond and make corrections. Thanks for reviewing. JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

Impressive work in the article. However, there are some things that I'd like to point out.

The third paragraph from the lead is too detailed. How about:

"God of War: Ascension received generally favorable reception from critics, who praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series. Some reviewers said the story was not as compelling as previous installments. The game's multiplayer element received a mixed response. Although reviewers said the gameplay translated well into the multiplayer element, they criticized the balance and depth of combat.

The first sentence of plot "Gameplay begins with Kratos, who is imprisoned, chained, and tormented by the Furies for breaking his blood oath to Ares. Megaera" Explain who Magaera is. It could be easily written as The Fury Magaera.

In development whenever there is a quote reference it instantly.

Why is "Rise of the Warrior" in past tense? Did the novel completely disappear? Not even an archive could have it?

Other than that, the article is well-written and could easily become FA. Just do a "ping" like this @Tintor2: when you want talk to me. By the way, do you know how to do source reviews. I'd need that to my FAC. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tintor2:

• Shortened the third paragraph some, while retaining the last couple of sentences regarding its nominations.
• In response to the Plot issue, the "Character" section that precedes "Plot" says that Megarea is a Fury and explains the Furies. Did change it to "The Fury Megaera" etc.
• That "rule" is kind of annoying, especially if the seceding sentences/quotes all come from the same source. Nonetheless, done.
• Annoyingly, yes, it has disappeared from their website. I mistakenly did not archive them when I should have, or maybe I did try to archive them then, but because the website has an age verification, it screws with archiving. I don't remember exactly. I also did not expect them to completely remove it from their website, considering that was the only place to access it. I did find it elsewhere, and although those are the actual images of the graphic novel from Santa Monica's website back then, that is a fan wiki.
• Thanks for the comments, and if no one else gets on the source review for you, I'll do it tomorrow. --JDC808 ♫ 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• • I'll give it a support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake

I've had a look through the article, and I can't see anything that will stop me from giving this article a Support. Well done, JDC808. I hope it actually passes this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from GamerPro64

• Looking through the sources most of them seem to be all right. The only source that is rather questionable is the PlayStation LifeStyle sources. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus of its reliability, indicated by the most recent discussion. GamerPro64 21:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @GamerPro64: I used those because the site was not marked as unreliable at the time of using the sources and there were not any previous discussions at the time. Basing it on that and having read over the sources, they seemed to check out okay when I used them for this article. It looks as if the only person who thinks that PlayStation LifeStyle is unreliable is czar in both discussions on the matter. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Allright. Personally I'm fine with the usage of PSLS. But I want to also mention citation 31, which is GameTrailers. Since the website is dead and got redirected to YouTube, I think there should be an attempt to find a working link to the video or replace the source. GamerPro64 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can find a replacement. --JDC808 ♫ 00:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• @GamerPro64: I was able to just remove the GameTrailers source as other sources already there covered its info. --JDC808 ♫ 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Jaguar

I've just finished reading through the article and I couldn't find any issues to raise, so I'll be glad to lend my support here. One minor thing I want to mention is to be careful about personifying publications – in the reception section for example I'm seeing "Edge said the multiplayer element is an "evolutionary step"". But feel free to ignore that. This is a great article! JAGUAR  17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thank you, and the reason for that is because no author's name was given for the Edge review, just "Edge Staff". I changed the wording slightly, with that particularly instance, for example, "The review from Edge magazine said..." --JDC808 ♫ 17:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that! The online version of Edge don't usually leave the authors' names, so as a rule of thumb I usually write "A reviewer from Edge" etc. JAGUAR  23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

The prose is a little uneven in places. I'll note a few examples, along with a couple of other points I saw as I scanned the article. It's not all that far off FA quality, but I think a copyedit is needed.

• "the new World Weapons mechanic": I've no idea what "mechanic" means here; I assume it's a standard video game term. Can it be linked to something?
  • Linked. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• "A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes launched as Rise of the Warrior prior to the game's release": I don't know what "prequel to the single and multiplayer modes" means, and "launched as" is a bit jargony.
  • It means just as it says. Prequel means the events that are set before the current events. The single-player/multiplayer modes are the current events in terms of this game's narrative. I'm not sure what to replace "launched" with. I don't want to put "released" because the sentence ends with that. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I sat on this overnight and reworded as seen here. --JDC808 ♫ 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

    That's clearer -- I hadn't realized till you rewrote that sentence that the graphic novel was only available online, and only temporarily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "received generally favorable reception": you don't receive reception, you receive reviews or comments.
  • changed "reception" to "reviews". --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series": wordy; just "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle as true to the series" would do.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• "but accidentally facilitates his freedom": "facilitates" is too vague; can we either be more specific, or just say "accidentally lets him go"? Or "he escapes"?
  • It's not quite that simple. I was gonna try to explain it, but it would be easier for you to just see: event occurs from 6:00 to 7:00. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

    I see what you mean. He catches her claw in the chain; tricking/forcing her into breaking that chain, and from then on it's a fight. "Facilitates his freedom" isn't wrong, but it's a little more polysyllabic than I think we need. How about "but he manages to break his chains"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Reworded to "but he manages to break free". --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "in a preceding week": why "a week"? Is each turn a week?
  • As the "Setting" section outlines, the narrative takes place over a period of 4 weeks, and shifts between the present and the past. The game begins in the present, then shifts to the past (3 weeks before the present). Just to note, this isn't a "turn based" type of game. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thought over this one today as well. Reworded as "which the Furies had confiscated from him when he was imprisoned". --JDC808 ♫ 02:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The decision to add multiplayer came about from curiosity": I don't think this adds much to the quotes that follow; I'd cut this or the quotes, perhaps with a slight rephrase since "came about from curiosity" is a bit vague.
  • Made this change. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

    I think that's much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Although the original idea for multiplayer was exclusively co-op, as development progressed, the team realized it was not what they wanted. Before the first press show, the team found the experience they wanted": repetitive.
  • I was stumped on this one. This whole paragraph was copy-edited by a GOCE copy-editor (the whole article has at least once), and I made little adjustments as it looked good and no one else saw any issues with it. I changed the second sentence to: "Before the first press show, the team found their ideal multiplayer experience". --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

    I read the source; it looks like "The Road to Multiplayer Was Longer than Expected" is the source for these sentences and the one or two above them. It's tough because the source is vague, but I would guess someone who's played the game would know exactly what is meant. For example, "the heart of what would become our final multiplayer game" means something to someone who's played multiplayer, but it doesn't mean much to me. I think what's bothering me now is mostly the repetition of "it was not what they wanted...the experience they wanted", plus the fact that I don't know what it means. I'll think some more about this and see if I can suggest a way to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

    • • This got addressed in a rewrite later in the review. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Christopher Shy was the artist of the graphic novel" seems an odd way to say it. If he's considered the author, I'd start that paragraph with "Rise of the Warrior was a graphic novel by Christopher Shy"; if he simply produced the art for it then something like "with art by Christopher Shy" would work.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Because of their focus on preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, single-player received less attention. When single-player was reemphasized, its production was accelerated, resulting in less focus on multiplayer. Development focus shifted between single-player and multiplayer throughout its entire course": also repetitive.
  • Can you elaborate, because I am not sure how to address this without losing clarity in what's being described here. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

    Yes, I see it'll be hard. I'll try to come up with something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

    • • This got addressed in a rewrite later in the review. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• A separate point on that paragraph: I think it would make more sense to start by saying it's a graphic novel, and giving the information related to that, and then following up with the information on the social experience. Or was the novel not published till after the social experience was completed?
  • The 20 chapters were released from October 2012 to March 2013, and the social experience happened simultaneously. Made this change. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The demo showcased that Kratos would": "showcase" as a verb is jargon; make it something like "An encounter [...] was included in the demo, but was cut from the final game".
  • Changed to "At E3 2012, a single-player demo was shown, featuring new gameplay mechanics and combat systems." Also added about the one part being cut. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I misread here. I didn't realize until just now that you had jumped backwards in the article to the Development section. I thought you were still in the Release section. Reworded this spot with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• "who have each done voice work": should be "had each done".
  • Are you sure on that? --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

    I think so. Past perfect tense is used when you're talking about an event that is in the past of another event being described in the simple past tense. Here we have (simplifying): "West, Barbeau, and Freeman, who have each worked on previous installments, voiced characters". If we were hiring them to work on the game right now, and were talking about their previous experience, we'd say "they have worked on previous installments", but since they voiced this game a few years ago, we'd say "had worked" when referring to the past of that time. I wouldn't oppose if you really want to keep it as is; I think it's wrong, but it's pretty minor. Perhaps you could get another opinion from another copyeditor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Changed. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

-- I haven't read the whole article; these are just some examples. I'll revisit after a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed and/or responded to all above points. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The above points are mostly dealt with; I'll do another pass and leave any additional notes below. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

• I'd suggest cutting the parenthetical "elephantaur" since it's unlinked and it's not clear what it means. Perhaps move it to a footnote, where you could explain it?
  • Cut. It was just the name they had used when they showed the first demo, but changed in the final game. Not actually sure why they changed it as elephantaur makes more since because they are elephants that are like Minotaurs. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Many of the monsters also appear in the multiplayer": should this be "multiplayer mode", not just "multiplayer"?
  • Done. Was using shorthand there. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Another new addition": redundant; if it's an addition it's new. Perhaps "new feature", or "new mechanic", if I understand the usage of "mechanic"?
  • Changed to mechanic. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• "When certain foes, such as a cyclops or a juggernaut, have been sufficiently weakened, the player may jump on its back and briefly force it to attack other foes": this starts with foes in the plural ("have been"), but then you have "its"; I think it could be recast to be singular or plural, but it's inconsistent as it stands.
  • Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• "a first and only for the series": "first" is redundant with only. How about "God of War: Ascension is the only game in the series to offers an online multiplayer feature. Up to eight players can take part. The main objective..." I don't think you need "a small story element"; it's covered by the rest of the paragraph.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• I copyedited that paragraph to get rid of an apparent inconsistency between singular "player" and plural "players"; please check I didn't screw up the intended meaning.
  • Looks good. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, which takes place before Chains of Olympus (2008) and ten years before the original God of War (2005)." I'm not clear what "which" refers to -- the game events, or Kratos killing his family? If the latter, are the game events before or after Chains of Olympus?
  • It's referring to both. The game's narrative begins 6 months after Kratos had killed his family. Timeline: Ares tricked Kratos into killing his family, then six months later, Ascension, then after that, Chains of Olympus; CoO takes place sometime in the 10-year gap between Ascension and the original God of War. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

    The way you explain it is clearer than in the article; the fact that CoO can't be given an exact time is what makes it hard. How about "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, and ten years before the original God of War (2005); Chains of Olympus (2008) takes place before some time between Ascension and God of War."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Yeah, that's the only thing annoying about CoO. All that we were told is that it takes place during Kratos' 10 years of service to the gods, which is that 10-year gap. Changed with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• The plot paragraph starting "A week later" seems to have inconsistent tenses; if it's "Kratos is ambushed", should it be "who confiscate" in the same sentence? And "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes" is a past tense between two sentences in present tense.
  • Fixed the first tense issue. The other one, "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes", is past tense because because it's not occurring in the present. At that part, Orkos is telling Kratos what happened to the Oracle, and revealing that the Eyes of Truth that he's seeking are actually the Oracle's eyes. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors were either not interested, feeling that God of War was a single-player-only experience, or, in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during development": I copyedited this a little but I got stuck on something I don't have enough context to feel confident of rewriting accurately. You have "game directors were either...or...it was cut...". If you have "game directors were either A or B", both A and B have to fit after "game directors were", which is not the case here.
  • Reworded as "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors felt that God of War was a single-player-only experience; in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during its development." --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

    OK; I tweaked it to "during development" which feels more concise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'For Ascension, the development team decided to seriously consider multiplayer and questioned whether or not it could be done, and if it would be fun. Multiplayer was first tested using Kratos, and Lead Combat Designer Jason McDonald said the game testers had "a lot of fun". Seeing their reaction made the team feel that multiplayer was worth investing in.' I think this is a bit wordy. How about 'For Ascension, the development team made the decision to invest in multiplayer after a simple version, tested using two players, each with [or "each playing"?] Kratos, turned out to be "a lot of fun" for the game testers.'
  • Done, but trimmed down the middle part to just say "tested using two Kratoses". --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Recent points addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  All but one struck. Should be able to do more of the review this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

• I've been trying to copyedit the third development paragraph, but I'm stuck because when they say "they found their ideal multiplayer experience", and it's not co-op, I can't be sure what they mean. I assume they mean that they felt two players was not enough; the eight-person experience was better, in their eyes. The source isn't specific enough for me to be comfortable saying that, unless you have other sources that would support it. Assuming that's not the case, here's a suggested rewrite:

  The development team faced a number of challenges in adding multiplayer to an established single-player franchise. Other established franchises had been criticized for sub-par multiplayer implementations, so Santa Monica felt they had to prove to critics that their multiplayer mode would not be "tacked on". Since multiplayer was new to the team, new staff were hired who specialized in multiplayer engineering and design, but Santa Monica didn't realize the amount of work required for the experience they had envisioned. Development was delayed because multiplayer mode required several rewrites. The player navigation code had to be changed for online play, which was initially designed for co-op; the team eventually decided this was unsatisfactory, and the changed approach cost significant development time. Local co-op was also explored, but the team decided to keep multiplayer online-only. The team finally "found the heart of [the] final multiplayer game" shortly before the first press show. Development focus switched back and forth between single player and multiplayer; single-player received less attention while the team were preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, but when single-player mode was reemphasized prior to its public debut at E3, multiplayer mode suffered.

This is more than just a trivial copyedit, so a couple of reasons might be in order:

• Since "the heart of ... final multiplayer game" isn't made explicit, I think it's best to quote it rather than rephrase.
• I cut "difficult task"; it's clearly implied by the rest of the paragraph.
• I connected the hiring to "didn't realize the work required"; I think it flows better, and I think the sources support it.
• I got rid of "what they wanted", which I think is just too vague; I know it's in the sources but it jars.
• I moved up the "local co-op" note to fit in with the other comments about how multiplayer mode would work.
• I added the mention of E3 to justify the reemphasis on single-player.
• I put the information about development switching back and forth into a single sentence to avoid it sounding repetitive.

If you don't like this version, that's fine, but I think it fixes some issues that would need to be fixed in some other way.

• • I implemented your rewrite. I agree that it flows better and it trims it down a little bit too. I don't remember any of the other sources getting anymore specific on "their ideal multiplayer experience." --JDC808 ♫ 02:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "He said a cooperative mode" places "would be cool" after another quote, but the source really has that refer to the cooperative mode itself. I'd make this "He liked the idea of a cooperative mode, and added "I'd love to see player one be Kratos...".
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'd also give the date of the interview with Jaffe, to make it clear Jaffe's opinions were given prior to the single-player demo. Was it also prior to the multiplayer press show?
  • Changes. I wanted to say after, but had to go back and check. The first interview was before, the second was after. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

More:

• "The testing allowed the developers to validate that their system would hold up to the criticism and abundance of players once the game launched": suggest "The beta allowed the developers to make sure that the game design would meet with the approval of existing fans of the series, and that the system could cope with high usage", or perhaps "cope with a high volume of players".
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Because multiplayer was new, the beta allowed the team to prepare for the final game." Suggest cutting this; it doesn't really add any information.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Can we get a link for "PAL regions"?
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• "In the first challenge, the teams competed to earn their army a week of exclusive, early access to the multiplayer beta test that began on December 12, and 30 days of PlayStation Plus, which was won by the Spartans; the Trojans received access on December 17": what does "and 30 days of PlayStation Plus" mean? From the sources I think this means that the winning team also gained access to the PlayStation Plus version earlier, but it's not clear.
  • Earlier in the article, there's a mention of "PlayStation Plus subscribers" with it linked. PlayStation Plus is a premium version of PlayStation's online gaming service. In the case here, it means they got a 30-day trial. Reworded slightly to say "one-month subscription to PlayStation Plus". --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Suggest cutting "also referred to as the champion or the redeemed warrior" for concision; it doesn't seem to be referred to subsequently.
  • Cut. In the actual graphic novel, he was also referred to as those. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'd have expected the Rise of the Warrior story to be narrated in historic present, rather than past tense. Are you using past tense because it's in the past of the Ascension story? I'm not sure that's a good enough reason.
  • The reason for the past tense is because it's not available anymore (without going to a fan site anyways). It can be changed to present tense if the issue of its availability doesn't matter for what we're trying to present? --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

    I'd say leave it; I've struck the point. That's an unusual situation. Do you think they'll ever make it available again? Seems odd to have material that people might pay for it and simply keep it locked away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's a weird, and a bit annoying, situation. I'm not sure why they didn't keep it when they redesigned their website. I tried emailing a guy at Santa Monica (who had responded to a couple of my emails when this was releasing), but he never responded back. This was about a year ago, though it is possible that he left Santa Monica by that point. I actually just went to Santa Monica's main website and found their email, so I sent them an email to see if I can get some kind of answer in regards to this. They could easily add it back to their website or even just make it a free downloadable zipfile accessed from their website (it was free to view on their website to begin with). This is currently the only place to see it online (Gallery at bottom), but it's a fan wiki, and fan wikis are unreliable. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Other DLC, such as XP boosters, are available": surely "is available"; the relevant noun is "content", right?
  • You're right. I was looking at the plural "boosters" in that case. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Rafe Pearlman and Ciscandra Nostalghia helped Bates and contributed their voices to the score; Pearlman provided thematic voices and Nostalghia created the voice of the Furies": a bit wordy. What are "thematic voices"? And what does "created" mean here? Sang? Or came up with the idea for the sound of?
  • They both sang and are credited as "Solo Male Voice" and "Solo Female Voice", respectively. For Rafe Pearlman, it just says that he provided thematic vocal work. It doesn't get anymore specific than that. In regards to Ciscandra Nostalghia, to quote the booklet exactly, it says she "unleashed the devil inside to create the creepy atmospheric sound of the Furies." --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

    I think this is more than we need; I'd suggest cutting this to just say they were the two (or the two main) singers or voice artists. I also just noticed "top musicians and vocalists" which I think should go as it's sourced to the booklet, which isn't reliable for that sort of comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Done. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• The webcitation for Emily McMillan's review doesn't seem to contain the text.
  • When you open it, is there a large black area below the picture? If so, you have to highlight that area to see the text (not sure why it's like that). --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

    Weird. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'He praised the magic system, stating that since magic attacks are unlocked at a later time, "It's a positive step" because players cannot rely on them as much as they may have done in previous installments, and it encourages players "to think wisely about where to allocate experience points rather than being the ultimate badass from the outset".' Suggest rewording to 'Simmons felt the magic system was a "positive step", since magic attacks are unlocked at a later time and hence players cannot rely on them as much as they may have done in previous installments, which encourages players "to think wisely about where to allocate experience points rather than being the ultimate badass from the outset".'
  • With some slight adjustment, added your rewording. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not clear what the theme of each paragraph in the reception section is -- can you clarify how you've structured it? It looks like praise/gameplay/story/graphics/multiplayer; is that correct? I'll assume that's correct for copyediting and any remaining comments. Don't feel you have to adopt these rewrites or I'll oppose; if you don't like anything I've done let's discuss it. I haven't given the detailed reasons as I did above but can do so if necessary.
  • That is correct on its structuring. So far, I've liked the changes you've suggested. I may tweak them a little, but your changes flow well and makes it more concise while still understandable. Sometimes I have the issue of wanting to make something more concise, but I can't seem to find a way without losing clarity. Having someone completely unfamiliar with this helps. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Suggested rewrite of the gameplay paragraph: 'Combat and the new gameplay mechanics were well-received, with Dale North of Destructoid saying "God of War has never looked or played better than this", and Xav de Matos of Joystiq commenting that the combat is simpler than in God of War III, and rarely required much adjustment. Opinions on difficulty varied; Simmons felt that most of the gameplay was balanced, and that Ascension "is probably the easiest" in the series, but both Simmons and Hollander Cooper of GamesRadar commented that some sections were too difficult. Simmons felt that in some sections the large number of enemies made dying feel "cheap and frustrating", and in Cooper's opinion, at some points the game "[tests] your patience, rather than your skills—including one that's easily the most difficult section in any God of War game to date, for all the wrong reasons".'
  • Implemented with slight tweaks. Readded the Trials of Archimedes though because that was a common complaint, especially amongst fans. This section was also the reason for why the Trials is mentioned in the Plot section, otherwise, its mention there would be unnecessary. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Story para: 'Both Simmons and Matos criticized the story; Simmons felt that although the narrative is "meticulously delivered", it "felt a bit incidental"., and said that in comparison to Zeus and Ares, "the Furies don't quite cut it". Matos was critical of the plot framing and the narrative structure as "just too chaotic"; he argued that "the narrative fabric woven throughout the franchise has begun to split", and Ascension does little to enhance its characters "in any meaningful way". However, he did praise the game for providing the "distinct God of War flair".'
  • Added just a little to the ending from what was previously there. If that little bit feels unnecessary, let me know. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Graphics para: 'Cooper praised the enhanced graphics engine as "not only the best the franchise has seen, but some of the most impressive on the Playstation 3", and was impressed by Kratos's foes; North agreed, saying "there's a shine and polish that runs throughout the game that makes it a perfect send-off for the PS3. Edge magazine also positively reviewed the graphics, but had some frustrations with the visual approach, such as some camera angles.'
  • With slight adjustments, added. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Multiplayer para: 'Matos was broadly critical of the game's multiplayer mode, though he singled out some elements, such as the maps, as well-designed. He disliked the connection to single-player mode, and was concerned that although the gameplay translates well into the multiplayer element, "the entire experience may be too chaotic to enrapture a large audience...[multiplayer mode] doesn't feel deep enough to command much more than a furiously dedicated fan following". Simmons was more positive, saying that the multiplayer mode is "a genuinely fresh addition ... that successfully carries over many of the hallmarks of the much-loved single-player [game]". Simmons singled out Team Favor of the Gods as his favorite multiplayer mode, but did not feel that the combat offered enough depth to make multiplayer "a truly engaging experience", describing it instead as "a curiosity that provides a few hours of enjoyment rather than being an essential addition". The review from Edge magazine described multiplayer mode as "chaotic at first", with overwhelming options, but said that it becomes easier as players learn the levels. The Edge review identified the fixed camera system as an asset because "you can always see exactly what’s going on and fight your opponents instead of the viewpoint", and also praised the color-coding system, which "effectively lets you know when you have an opening and when to run".'

The multiplayer para drops a few things, mostly to trim, but I'll just mention "He also worried that balance may be an issue over time" which I dropped because I don't know what it means.

• Implemented. Readded Matos' quote, "a weird narrative tie-in", basically to give the why for why he disliked the connection. Also cut out a couple of instances of "multiplayer" for less repetition of it and since it's implied since the whole paragraph is about it.

Done, finally. I'll go back later and strike the points you've addressed; I have a couple of other FAC reviews I need to go look at now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie:, all above points have been addressed or responded to. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  Just the one point about the voice artists left now. Once that's addressed I'll read through again to see if there are any more nitpicks before supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Voice artists point addressed. Also a response about Rise of the Warrior. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. I think the prose is now good enough for FA, and the article is comprehensive and thorough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Your comments and copy-editing have really helped improve this article. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: I see we have a source reliability review, but I don't see a source formatting review, which we still need. We also need an image review, unless I've missed it somewhere. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Source formatting

• Appears internally consistent. One typo fixed, no more seen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking and thanks for the fix. --JDC808 ♫ 04:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

• File:God_of_War_Ascension.jpg - fair-use cover for identification. OK.
• File:GOWAscension_MP.jpg - fair-use illustration of multiplayer gameplay. OK (see note).

This image is OK as gameplay sceenshot (with a bit of leeway), but the fair-use rationale could be strengthened if it would illustrate improvements or features of the enhanced graphics engine. Any chance, this image could be linked to specific noteworthy graphical features?

• @GermanJoe: I'm a bit stumped on this one. Do you by chance have an example of what you're looking for here? --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's a bit difficult to explain (don't have an example right now). The article includes a detailed paragraph about the game's enhanced graphics (in "Post-E3 2012"), as well as praise of the graphics engine (in "Reception"). Yet, none of the images points out any specifics of these improvements. My suggestion was to strengthen the generic "gameplay screenshot" rationale with some detail about graphical improvements. However, this was just an optional suggestion to improve the rationale a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:GoWAscension_Kratos_vs_Manticore_QTE_tethering.png - fair-use image of game mechanics. OK.
• File:GoWAscension_Kratos_vs_Charybdis.jpg - this one was the most difficult to assess. Not OK. "Fair-use" requires, that an image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and that this information can't be adequately conveyed by text. Currently both of these criteria are not met: The cut scene itself is only mentioned in passing in the article body, and it is easily described as text (the image caption does exactly that). Just to give you some theoretical examples of valid "fair-use" rationales for this image: it would be "fair-use" if the graphical style of this scene influenced other scenes in the actual game, or if the scene was a good example of the game's concept art in general, or if this specific concept art was in itself noteworthy for some artistic reason. Of course any of these theoretical connections would need coverage in the article and a source. Hope this thoughts are helpful ==> the image's rationale needs to be improved, or the image should be removed/replaced. GermanJoe (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Removed concept art image. --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you - it was a nice image, but without a clear rationale WP:NFCC is quite restrictive in such cases. I have updated the status above (the remaining point is only a suggestion) - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 21:35, 28 January 2017 [19].

---

Burning Rangers

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Behold, one of the least respected video games of the 1990s. What makes this article different—at least for me anyway—is the fact that it relies on mostly offline sources, which were all accessible! It was something of a minor miracle that I was able to squeeze as much information out of this incredibly rare product. I believe that this article meets both the 1b and 1c aspect of the FA criteria as it is comprehensive for the subject matter. A couple of scans have missing urls because they are only accessible through sites like Sega Retro and the like. If you want access to a particular source for spot-checking, just let me know. I learned from my past mistake on Nights into Dreams... that having at least one Japanese source for a Japanese game in necessity for FAC, so I've added some snippets from the Sega Saturn Magazine's review of this game. As if that wasn't enough, I have access to a couple more issues, but implementing Japanese sources is a slow process.

Burning Rangers was released at the very end of the Sega Saturn's life span (it was among the final five games released in America). But what makes it so sad is the fact that it demonstrated that the Saturn was a more powerful machine than its rival, the PlayStation. Still though, it faded into obscurity and thus I'm trying to promote this to FA status in hopes that some people would appreciate it. Despite the broadness of the article, I have never played this game. Please don't hold it against me as last time I checked it was something like £200 on eBay! JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
Aoba47, Tintor2, Gamingforfun365, JDC808, Mike Christie
Comments/No vote yet
Odie5533, Hahnchen, Mike Christie	Oppose

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved

I would recommend adding ALT descriptions to all of the images in the article. Added. JAGUAR  16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Shouldn't it "most of which are" rather than "most of which is" since you are referring to "tasks"? Good catch, fixed. JAGUAR  16:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC) This is more of a clarification question, but do you think the article needs a "Plot" section, similar to the one used in the Nights into Dreams... article? This may not be necessary as the game may not have a narrative (which is why I am assuming you do not have this kind of section in this article), but I just want double-check that this assumption is correct. I don't think there is any kind of narrative in this game. Before I came to this article there was a small plot section, but I found expanding it to be impossible, and WP:VG/GL recommends merging some aspects of the plot into the gameplay section if there is nothing to expand upon. Hopefully the reader can surmise that the game revolves around a group of rangers putting out fires and rescuing people, as that is the only thing it is. If anything is unclear please let me know and I'll try and clarify it. JAGUAR  19:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Makes sense to me. The "Gameplay" section makes it clear that the game is about a group of rangers. I just wanted to double-check to make sure that there was not a major narrative in the game requiring a separate section. Merging it into the "Gameplay" section was definitely the right decision. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC) The sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section reads somewhat awkwardly to me. It runs rather long and may benefit by splitting into multiple sentences. I am also wondering if a reader unfamiliar with the Sonic the Hedgehog games (as I am sure there are still some out there) would understand the concept. I would suggest revising this part to make it a little clearer and stronger. I thought that the latter half of the sentence (marked by the semi-colon) describes the similarities with the crystals and rings, but I see your point. I've split and reworked the sentence to explain the crystals' function in more detail. JAGUAR  21:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you, and I think your revision made that part much stronger. Your original wording was good, but I think it is important to be as clear as possible when it comes to one of the central gameplay mechanics. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section sounds somewhat odd to me. When listing the locations, you mention burning buildings and a few other places. However, I would imagine that all of the locations are burning considering that it is a firefighter game. It might be better to state what type of building if possible rather than describing it as burning, as the presenting wording could make it seem like the "burning" part is unique to the building stage if that makes any sense. I understand what you mean. I've removed the "burning" part and further elaborated that the game also takes place in apartment blocks and factories too. JAGUAR  21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you, and the revision looks good. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Did the development team provide any reasons for why they believed "the element of fire was the most appropriate way to create fear and tension"? This is more of a clarification question and I understand if this is all the information given in the source, but I just want to double-check. I double-checked the source and it doesn't give a reason a why, as it just says "it seemed that fire was the most appropriate way to cause fear and tension", along with the 'rescue game' element. It's always good to check these things over though! JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you! I just wanted to make sure about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC) In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the "Conceptualisation and planning" subsection, you use the term "targeted" twice in a close proximity and I would suggest revising for variation. Good catch, rephrased. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I do not believe the "interesting things" quote is really necessary. It might be stronger to simply say "in hopes that they would find inspiration for designing the game's stages". I am only suggesting this as I have received a note in the past about only using quotes when absolutely necessary, so I think this part would benefit from your own words. That's much better, thanks! I try my best to cut down on quotes but sometimes it's difficult to paraphrase. It didn't seem to be the case here, though. I'll go over the development section once again and see if I can paraphrase anything else. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC) I definitely know that feeling all too well. You are much better at paraphrasing than I am. The section looks great! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @Jaguar: Great job with the article. It is a very interesting read! I found relatively few areas for improvement. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I will support this once all of my comments are addressed. @Aoba47: thank you for the review! It looks like I owe you another one. I think I've addressed all of the above; even though I would have done it a lot quicker but I found myself going in and out of sleep last night. This was a nice little article to write, and I'm glad that it's going smoothly. JAGUAR  11:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC) @Jaguar: No worries. Sleep is definitely more important so no need to apologize for that. I really enjoyed reading through this article. I never heard of this game before, so it was cool to learn about it. I would love to play it (if only it wasn't so expensive lol). If you have time in the future, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. I did the review for this article primarily because I was really interested in the subject (maybe one day in the future I will work on more video game-related articles) so don't feel pressured to owe me a review or anything like that. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks, Aoba47! Don't worry, I'll leave some comments at your FAC soon. I'll probably read through it tonight and will leave some comments tomorrow, if that's OK. I make sure to always keep my promises. To be honest I hadn't heard of this game until a couple of years ago, but I became interested in this because it showed that the Saturn was a more powerful console than the PlayStation, and this arguably had better graphics than anything else. It's unfortunate that this costs so much as my writing of this article would have been more articulate had I owned it! JAGUAR  18:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you. I know my article is not particularly in your field of interest so I greatly appreciate your help. And the history about the Saturn is very interesting. You did a wonderful job on the article, especially since you never actually owned the game or played it. That is very impressive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support: There isn't a single issues I could find. I hope it's promoted. Also, I wonder if you have free time, could you review my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tidus/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tintor2! I'll be happy to review your FAC. JAGUAR  16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Odie5533

Comments "Burning Rangers interview and review" says it is issue 10, but the link is to issue 31. The Archive.org link goes to search results. Change the url to [20] to go to the selected page instead. Is Soft Bank SoftBank Group? If so, you could link to it. Hobby Consolas link could also be changed to [21] to not jump to search results. If I'm looking at the magazine right, it looks like the review is from 104-106, not 104-107. The GMR magazine citation is to page 103, but the review appears on page 102 (see page number in corner of the page). GamePro magazine citation says page 109, but the magazine shows page 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Could Hobby Consolas be linked in the references? I am not sure what the MoS says, but I prefer more source links so people don't have to look around for them. In Citations you use e.g. "p. 54, 55". But in the Bibliography you use "54–55". Also you use p. instead of pp. even when you are referring to multiple pages. But I could not find anything about this in the MoS, so I have no idea what proper usage is. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC) @Odie5533: thanks for the source review! I have addressed all of your concerns. I've used the double "pp" for all of the harvrefs that covers two pages, and I also put in the dash instead of the comma. Thanks for finding the issue error. I don't know why but archived scans always gives out the pages one more than what they should be (for example 109 instead of 108), but they're all fixed now. JAGUAR  17:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Looks good. Someone else will need to do a real "source review" because I've never done one for FAC and I'm unfamiliar with the criteria. Other comments: For the Weigand review in GamePro, you have two Citations for it, one to page 108 and one to page 109, but the review is only 1 page on 108. Also you have it in the Bibliography, but it's only one page. Same with the GMR review. Already seems to be like that, I think? JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)  Note: Do a search for "Weigand 1998, p. 109." on the page. There's one for p. 108 too, but the article is only on page 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC) You also have a citations for Brookes p. 68, p. 69, p. 70, but the Bibliography only shows pp. 68-69. Just checked the issue again and it is indeed pages 68-69, so fixed. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Citation #15 for Nutter still has p. 51, 52. Fixed and added 'pp'. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Citation #32 references p. 107, but Bibliography now only goes to 106. There is something off here because you reference Herranz p. 104, p. 105, p. 106, p. 107, but the magazine article is only 3 pages, so even with the Archive.org numbering being off by one, still shouldn't have 4 pages of refs. Good catch. I mistakenly allocated the bit where she couldn't understand the dialogue to page 107, where that's clearly an advert. I've corrected it to page 106. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Sega Saturn Magazine staff in the Bibliography shows pp. 58-61, but you have refs spanning from 61-63. I could only access the Japanese issues through Sega Retro, and their organisation of the issues weren't great. I recall having multiple tabs open at once so I must have got confused. I went back to issue in question and can confirm that the feature spans 58 to 61, so the citations are now corrected. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) The Nutter interview starts on page 50 in the magazine. You don't reference page 50 though. I'm not sure the protocol on citing pages you don't use in the bibliography, but as it's an article I personally would cite the whole article even if I skipped some pages. Also, the content from the mag ends on page 59, not 61. Fixed. I have no idea why it says it starts on page 49 in the address bar and when I was in the original search mode it said page 51. To make it worse the Sega Saturn Magazine didn't number their pages (or perhaps they're cropped in the scans). Anyway, I've changed it to page 51 to 61. You're right, it's best to list the pages of all the relevant content, even if it's not used in the article. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) You have a citation for Smith 2003, p. 102., but p. 102 is unrelated content. You probably mean p. 103. Internet archive playing up with the extra page number again. Fixed. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) For the GameSpot review, Ryan Mac Donald spells his last name with a space. He does so on his profile, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook too. Fixed. Thanks for checking JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) I fixed this, but the AllGame citation had the wrong Archive Date. Thanks. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Sorry to be a pain. I hope I'm not nitpicking either. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Odie5533! Once again I've addressed everything. It's confusing because the scans either gives out the wrong number - it's either one ahead or one behind. But I've got it all sorted now. Thanks for checking. I owe you one. Please let me know if there's anything else. JAGUAR  22:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Glad to help. I don't nominate stuff often, so you should probably pay it forward. Looked over two files as well: File:Burning Rangers cover.jpg - too large for a WP:NFCC 3b. Scale it down to around 500-550 on the longer dimension. And the one of Yuji Naka might do with a crop of just him from the chest up, is how I'd do it at least. That leaves off his bandage, some other person's foot, and someone's bag. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC) @Odie5533: thanks again. I've shrunk File:Burning Rangers cover.jpg by 80% (hope that looks OK). Regarding cropping the photo of Naka; Indopug actually uploaded a cropped version but I admit that I removed it as I wasn't sure if it obstructed the photo too much. I agree that the current image of him does look awkward, so I've cropped it again and added it to the article. JAGUAR  12:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Looks good. There is still a reference to Weigand p. 109 when that page is an ad. I think it should be p. 108. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC) @Odie5533: oops, fixed. Thanks. The issue was actually 109, to make it even more confusing. JAGUAR  21:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi, I realise this nomination seems a bit short (in comparison to most others, anyway), but I think I've addressed all comments reviews regarding prose, sources, and images. Odie's review consisted of both a source and image check, so I'd just like to make sure if there's anything else I need? JAGUAR  15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Note to contributors that I did not do any fact-checking of the article. Someone should perhaps do so. And I have never done a source review before, so it might be worth having someone give it a once over. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I don't think this is ready to be considered for promotion yet, and will need additional review/feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for the replies. I agree – just wanted to make sure that it wasn't over yet. I'll request for a source spotcheck. JAGUAR  22:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • You don't seem to have visited WP:VG/RL and so your coverage may not be comprehensive. I have a 5 page Burning Rangers article/interview with Takao Miyoshi from GamesTM which is not referenced in the article.
    • If you have access to it please may I have it? I would like to expand expand this as much as possible. I'll skim through WP:VG/GL to see if there are any offline sources I have missed. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
      • WP:VG/RL, not GL. In addition to the GamesTM feature, GameFan has a preview, Next Generation Magazine has a preview, and Edge has a review (rated it 8/10). There are WPVG users listed in the ref library as having copies of them, or you could ask on WPVG. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Thanks! I can't find access to the Edge review (I did see the score though). The 'GL' was a typo. I've asked for Saturn scans before, so I'll see what people have in store. I'll start looking at the Next Generation preview now. JAGUAR  18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Here's the Next Generation preview. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The game's four stages take place in varying locations from factories, flats, underwater habitats, and space stations in zero gravity." - Do they take place in varying locations such as these, or these exact four locations?
    • Just the four specific locations. Rephrased to make it sound clearer. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "can be repeated at any time by pressing the "Z" button on the Saturn controller" - what about the jump button? The extinguisher button? Why is this relevant?
    • I see your point. Removed the "by pressing the "Z" button..." line. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "the size of what Naka considered a regular project" - There's very little context to what a "regular project" means. Regular for Sonic Team, or Sega, or game development as a whole? Nowadays, teams regularly have 100s of people, so maybe you've included that phrase to give an indication of typical dev team sizes in the late 90s, if that is the case, make it explicit.
    • The source states "the Burning Rangers team is the size of a regular project-there are bigger teams within Sega", so I think he was alluding to Sega itself rather than Sonic Team. The interview was conducted in 1998, so I don't see any reason to compare it to development team sizes today. I've rephrased this to "regular project for Sega", if that's OK. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "Ohshima claimed that during development of Nights... ...all Sonic Team games" is fluff that can be cut.
    • Cut, and merged the remainder with the last paragraph. JAGUAR  18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The release subsection is pointless, and the small paragraph should just be incorporated in the design subsection above.
    • Done. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Gamerankings adds no value. You already have more scores, and more diverse sources than Gamerankings.
    • I thought including review aggregators was a mandatory thing with VG articles? JAGUAR  17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "he expressed concern with occasional clipping and glitching" and "criticised the occasional clipping" - clipping happens all the time so that areas not visible are not rendered. What you may mean is collision detection, which is sometimes used interchangeably with the term clipping in the VG space - Clipping_(computer_graphics)#Importance_of_clipping_in_video_games. You should make this clear.
    • Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. The reviewers explicitly say "clipping", but they more than likely mean poor collision detection, so I've replaced all instances of "clipping" with that. Hope I'm right in linking this to Collision_detection#Video_games. JAGUAR  18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider the split in the reception. You spend half of it talking about the graphics, a third on the sound, and the tiny remainder on the gameplay. This feels wrong. Surprised that none of the reviewers mentioned how short the game was.
    • I usually organise reception sections by principle (eg. critics enjoyed a game's visuals, critics were disappointed with sound) rather than by author, since see this form as easier to read. The third paragraph was initially about the control scheme, but I suppose it makes sense to expand it to cover the whole of the gameplay. JAGUAR  18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
    • hahnchen 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: thanks for the review, I really appreciate it. Do you have access to the GamesTM feature? I'd be eager to get hold of it as I would like to expand the article's coverage as much as possible. I'll also check through WP:VG/RL and will ask for access to any other scans I might have missed. Anyway, I should have everything addressed, except the inclusion of GameRankings. I thought it was a mandatory thing to mention the game's aggregate score, regardless of its content value. Thanks again! JAGUAR  18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Email me for the article. - hahnchen 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Here is the GamesTM article. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Hahnchen: thanks, I've used the scan to expand and flesh out the development and gameplay sections. Is there anything else you think is incomplete? JAGUAR  17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've addressed all of the concerns so far and have requested a scan of GameFan to implement in this article. JAGUAR  21:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• The lead states that it was one of the last five Sega Saturn games to be released in North America, but the body states that it was one of the five final Sega Saturn games to be released in just America, and the source states that it was one of the five final such games to be released in America. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Gamingforfun365: thanks. It was originally "North America" in both instances, but another editor changed it to simply "America" in the body. I suppose it's more accurate that way but I prefer using the former as it refers to the region, and not the more ambiguous "America". Anyway, fixed. Did you find anything else? I'll leave some comments on one of your peer reviews soon. JAGUAR  21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, I am not getting your pings. Anyway, "3125 different routes" would be better off being "3125 unique routes. I have just noticed that this article is written in British English (hence the dates), so I guess that I am going to have to scan the article for any Americanisms. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you not think that the information on the release dates in the lead (other than in the infobox) is a little tedious for the average reader to read? I believe that it should just be "It was first released in Japan, in North America, and then in Europe in 1998.". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, this source may prove to be useful for the last-given source in the Bibliography section. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

And finally, I wonder whether the other non-URL-linked sources in the section can be linked to the corresponding magazine issues. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've changed it to "3125 unique routes", sounds better that way. I think that keeping the release dates in the lead gives the reader more information and also balances out the paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. If I condense the dates then I'll have trouble keeping the three paragraphs an equal length and would be forced to merge it into two paragraphs, which would interfere with organisation, if that makes sense. Thanks for the link to the manual, I've made use of it in the gameplay section. It seems that the North American manual is a little different, so I've adjusted the page numbers accordingly. Finally, sources with missing URLs in them are left that way because the only accessible links are copyvios. I'll link them here if you want to check them: Edge interview, GameFan 1 and GameFan 2. Thanks again! JAGUAR  11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. I trust these sources as truthful, although I would like it if someone were to check the quotes to see whether they are accurate. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed the very last sentence in the Design section, which said that many Saturn magazines were discontinued and that the console lot third-party support, as it seemed irrelevant to the article's subject. Should it be put back up there? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! You're right about that. I saw it in the source and wanted to emphasise that all Saturn support had diminished by the time this game was released, but it doesn't seem too relevant, so it was best to remove it. JAGUAR  20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: just making sure if there's anything else needed here? I got more input since the last time, and Gamingforfun365 done an additional source spotcheck. JAGUAR  23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I know what I said about my supporting the FAC, but my complaint is that I had to use alternative text for the in-game screenshot to find out what on Sonic Earth is going on. I could not tell that the playable character was fighting a fire. Either the caption can tell us that the player-character is fighting a fire, or a less ambiguous screenshot can be used. Still in favor of support, though. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was very clear that the player-character was standing in front of a giant fireball in that screenshot. I've rephrased the caption slightly as I couldn't find another decent screenshot anywhere. JAGUAR  18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: And finally, do note that I had extremely hardly done any fact-checking, so someone else may want to do it. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What? That's what I asked you to do and you said you did it? JAGUAR  10:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind; I'm sure the FAC coordinators will check the prior reviews and see if they've been thorough enough. I believe Odie and Tintor did source review spotchecks and would have said anything had something been amiss. It's just that I got confused because I asked you at WT:VG if you'd be willing to go through the sources and fact check this, in other words I said to you The last thing it needs is a fact checking checking review (going through all of the article's sources and making sure it accurately backs up what's mentioned in the article). It's just a bit confusing that I asked you to do that and now you say you "extremely hardly done any fact-checking". I'm just a bit confused. But really, don't worry about it. JAGUAR  11:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I must have forgotten that I have also read that part and think that if I did not forget, I did not take it quite seriously. Apologies. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Support: I made a couple of minor copy-edits. Aside from that, I see no issues that would keep this article from being promoted. If you have some time, I have God of War: Ascension up for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Will do. JAGUAR  13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I haven't done a full prose review yet, but reading through the reception section I think it suffers from the "A said B" problem. You might find this essay useful (it's easier to link to that than repeat those suggestions here). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Some notes as I go through the article; I'm copyediting as I go, so please revert anything I make a mess of.

• In the lead, how about making it "... is a 3D action video game developed ..." and then starting the second paragraph "Most of the tasks the players complete are centred around ..."?

• I'm not too sure about this. I think the reader would understand that most games of this period were in 3D, and adding in the '3D action game' part in the lead's first sentence would render the gameplay paragraph's opening sentence "The game is presented in 3D and has players completing various tasks" useless, unless you felt that sentence could be removed? JAGUAR  18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• After second thoughts, I've went with your suggestion. I think I was initially worried that cutting a sentence might make the second paragraph appear too short, but it should be fine! JAGUAR  18:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  Struck; one of things I was trying to get away from was "has players completing various tasks", which is a bit vague; I just moved "3D" up in order to more easily rephrase that sentence. If you think "3D" doesn't need to be there, we could remove it, but I certainly didn't know that it was 3D till I read that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd change the em dash in the third paragraph to a comma; dashes are breaks in thought, which is not what's going on here.

• Done. JAGUAR  13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Is "teleportation" really the right target for the link from "transport"? Seems a bit of an Easter egg.

• All of the sources attribute it to "transporting" rather than "teleporting", however, they do actually teleport in-game (literally 'beamed up', so to speak), so I used the word that is used prominently in the sources and linked it to the correct article, if that makes sense? JAGUAR  13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  OK, that makes sense. I think it might actually be best just to unlink it, though you might want to get other opinions on this. (I certainly wouldn't oppose over this.) A reader who is familiar with this sort of thing in videogames doesn't need the link; a reader who is unfamiliar might think that the method of transportation is somehow important, when it's really just a standard piece of game structure. Up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  It might seem ambiguous to leave it that way, as I'm some people may not know that "transporting" is the same as "teleporting". Since it is an important mechanic for the game, I've unlinked "teleporting" and left it be. If anybody objects, I'd be open to renaming all uses of "transport" for clarity. JAGUAR  18:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Sonic Team had a staff of around 50 people, who had made the Burning Rangers team the size of what Naka considered a regular project for Sega": not sure what this means. There were 31 people on the Burning Rangers team. How is this connected to the 50 total staff at Sonic Team? And did Naka consider a regular Sega project to require 31 or 50 people?

• Naka considered the size of the team who worked on Burning Rangers to be that of a "regular project" for Sega. The source states "the Burning Rangers team is the size of a regular project-there are bigger teams within Sega", so he thought it was the size of the team made it average, and he knew that there were other teams within Sega which were bigger than Sonic Team. I reckon he thought that 31 people were a regular project, so I've rephrased it slightly and added although he acknowledged that there were larger development studios. Hope this is OK. JAGUAR  13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for quoting the source; that makes it clearer. I guess I'm not clear whether the reader needs to know all the information you're providing here. The team size and team make-up is fine; the size of Sonic Team is fine. If we think Naka is a reliable source for the size of a Sega team, we could do this: "The development team of 31 people (out of Sonic Team's staff of about 50) consisted of three game planners, six programmers, twenty designers, and two sound producers – almost all of whom had worked on Nights into Dreams...." If you feel it's worth mentioning that 31 is about the size of most Sega projects, I'd add a footnote saying "A team of 31 was about the usual size for a Sega project" and cite that to Naka. I don't think we need to say there were larger development studios; that's straying quite a bit from the article topic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  I've never thought about that before. I do sometimes have a tendency to somewhat stray away from the article's topic without realising it; a couple of weeks ago I was asked to cut half a paragraph from the development section for this reason. I agree, perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned at all in the article's body and would be better off as a footnote, as it was Naka's opinion after all. JAGUAR  18:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  Currently the footnote says "At the time, Sonic Team had a staff of around 50 people, which had made the Burning Rangers team the size of what Naka considered a "regular project" for Sega, although he acknowledged that there were larger development studios". Much of this is in the body of the article, and I don't think you need to give Naka's name in the footnote (just cite him) or mention the larger teams. I'd make the footnote text "A team of 31 was about the usual size for a Sega project". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  I went ahead and made this change as I'm in the middle of a copyedit pass; let me know if you disagree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Furthermore, Naka elaborated that the team wanted to make a game specifically with a rescue theme as he thought there were few games based on that concept": I'd shorten this to "The team wanted to make a game specifically with a rescue theme as Naka thought there were few games based on that concept", but can you confirm this corresponds to the source? What seems odd is that it's Naka whose opinion of rescue themes is given, but that it's the team that wants to make the game because of that opinion. Is that accurate?

• Thanks! I've changed it to your suggestion. Here is the source, Naka said "We wanted to make a game with a rescue theme – there are very few games based on this concept". I think the 'we' alludes that it was the whole team's decision to make it a rescue-orientated game, and I think the latter half of the sentence is his opinion. I'm not sure how else it could be looked at, but please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it accordingly. JAGUAR  13:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think that's fine; it does match what the source says, so no worries. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd rephrase at least one of "Takeo Miyoshi reflected...Naka stated" to vary the rhythm. Perhaps make the first one "According to Takeo Miyoshi", and cut "Naka stated" completely.

• Done all, I've chucked in some synonyms here and there for variety. JAGUAR  18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• "To create an effective in-game universe, the developers took liberties to design...": I don't know what is meant by "effective" and "took liberties" here.

• I think the word I was looking for was "idealistic" instead of "effective", as the source states the developers wanted to creative an environment where everything is "clean" and "children can play happily" etc. I've removed the "took liberties" and just cut it down to "the developers wanted to design". JAGUAR  18:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's certainly better, but now I understand what you meant I think we can trim it a bit. The "clean and beautiful" future = the idealistic in-game universe, so I'd just cut the first clause completely: "The developers wanted to design a..." I don't think we get any new information from "idealistic". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  Removed "To create an idealistic in-game universe". JAGUAR  20:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  OK; I tweaked the sentence a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'the "burning" image had a "go for it!" connotation in Japanese': the image, or the word? Saying "connotation" makes it sound like we're talking about the title of the game, so "image" seems wrong.

• The "burning image" was mentioned directly in the source, so I changed it to "burning conception". I hope that matches "connotation"? I'm not really sure how to alter this. JAGUAR  22:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  I thought it might be something like the English phrase "a burning desire" or "burning issues", which connote urgency; that's why I thought it might be the word "burning" rather than the image of something burning. It sounds like Naka was definitely talking about the image, not the word, though. What's the wording in the original source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  The source says: "I don't know about Western audiences, but to us Japanese, that "burning" meaning has a great "Go for it!" image. It seemed to fit the disaster-rescue nature of the game perfectly". I'm really not sure if he was thinking of "burning" as an image, or a word, which is why I'm unsure on how to rephrase it. I'm really not sure if it's the other way around! Should I rephrase it to something like Naka thought the idea of something burning connoted a "go for it!" feeling in Japanese? JAGUAR  20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

  After thinking about this some more I've edited it to read 'Naka felt that "burning" had a "go for it!" connotation in Japanese'. I don't think we need "conception" or "idea"; just putting "burning" in quotes is enough to make it clear to the reader we're referring to the idea. Does that work for you? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'The team emphasised that a "ranger" could match itself into a Power Rangers-like image, and after confirming the name with some foreigners, the final name became Burning Rangers': several things here. I don't think "emphasised" is the right word; I'm not sure what is meant, but "emphasised" implies that the statement is clearly true and agreed-on, and the team is stressing the point. That's not what appears to be intended. What does "match itself into" mean? I think you mean that the team decided that "ranger" also brought to mind "Power Rangers", and those connotations were felt to be suitable for the game. Finally, I don't think you mean "confirming with some foreigners"; surely you mean they tried the name out with some native English-speakers?

• I see what you mean here. Perhaps "emphasised" was the wrong word to use here, so I changed it to simply "thought" and rephrased the latter half of the sentence to also brought to mind the Power Rangers franchise. I went with "some foreigners" because it was mentioned directly in the source, but I agree that "native English speakers" sounds more accurate here. JAGUAR  22:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  We have "confirming the name" closely followed by "the final name"; it would be nice to avoid using "name" twice in close succession. Also I'd prefer to rephrase "confirming"; the English speakers presumably didn't confirm the name -- they confirmed that it had the associations that Naka wanted. How about "...and after confirming with native-English speakers that this was the case, the final name..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks, I went with that! JAGUAR  20:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to stop reviewing at this point as I see quite a few prose issues; I've copyedited some but enough remain to make me lean oppose on prose grounds. I glanced down the design section and see a couple more points; the reception section I commented on above. I have the article watchlisted and will come back to review again once the points above are dealt with, but please copyedit the design section too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and helpful copyedits. I'll get to addressing your concerns shortly. JAGUAR  13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: thanks for the review so far! I've made some copyedits to the reception section, with your helpful essay at hand. If there's anything you feel like I've missed please do let me know. JAGUAR  19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll read through again today or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes from this pass:

• "Other key members of the development team consisted of Naoto Ohshima and Takao Miyoshi, director and designer, respectively": This strikes me as a bit wordy -- it's fairly obvious that the director and designer would be key members. One solution would be to simplify the sentence to something like "Naoto Ohshima was the director, and Takao Miyoshi was the designer", but that's a bit dull. I assume Miyoshi is actually something like "lead designer", since the previous sentence says there were twenty designers on the team; am I right? If so, how about merging this information with the previous sentence: "Naka's development team of 31 people (out of Sonic Team's staff of about 50) was led by Naoto Ohshima, the director, and Takao Miyoshi, the lead designer; the team consisted of three game planners, six programmers, twenty designers, and two sound producers, almost all of whom had worked on Nights into Dreams...."? Though how do we reconcile the 31-person breakdown with Ohshima and Miyoshi -- is Ohshima included in that list of game planners/programmers/designers/sound producers?

• I've just checked the manual, and Miyoshi is indeed listed as the game's lead designer. Ohshima was the game's director, as well as one of the graphic artists and the sole character designer, so really he took three roles! How about Naka's development team of 31 people (out of Sonic Team's staff of about 50) was led by Naoto Ohshima, the director, and Takao Miyoshi, the lead designer. The rest of the team consisted of three game planners, six programmers, twenty designers, and two sound producers, almost all of whom had worked on Nights into Dreams....? I think this way it separates Naka, Ohshima, and Miyoshi's prominence. But since they were both designers, would it be fair to subtract two from twenty and write it as The rest of the team consisted of three game planners, six programmers, eighteen designers? Or would that crossing a line as the number of designers wouldn't match the source? JAGUAR  22:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm halfway through the copyedit and have been looking more specifically at the sources, and I'm a bit concerned that you're not sticking very closely to just what the sources say. I can forgive you for the "English-speakers" one that I just fixed, because that was my suggestion, but I was quite wrong to suggest it -- the source makes it clear Naka is talking about multiple languages. I just found another one: the article has "During the early stages of development, some members of Sonic Team visited Hong Kong shortly before the transfer of British sovereignty, hoping to find inspiration for designing the game's stages". The source says "Some of the Sonic Team members went to Hong Kong for some enjoyment and while there they thought that they might find some interesting things. This was right during the starting phase of development. We wanted to go over before Hong Kong reverted back to China." The wording in the article implies they went specifically in order to get inspiration. Before I copyedited it, it read "in hopes that they would find inspiration", which is quite unambiguous and really isn't supported by the source. Since Naka doesn't say what, if anything, they learned from the trip, I'd suggest just cutting the whole sentence, but if you keep it it needs to say only what the source says. Another example: I changed " Naka reflected that if they had made the game seem "too real" then there would have been an exaggerated gap between reality and fiction" to "Naka reflected that if they had made any of game elements highly realistic, the contrast between those elements and the clearly fictional elements would have been exaggerated"; I looked at the source because I couldn't understand the sentence as it stood, and it's clear that Naka is talking about making individual elements realistic, not about making the game "too real".

• The sentence originally read "in hopes that they would see "interesting things" to gain ideas for designing the game's stages", but I changed it after a recommendation (I was never fond of it either way). It originally did follow the source a bit better than it does now, but I have to be careful about relying on quotes too much. I would prefer to keep the Hong Kong sentence, as the source asserts they knew they might find interesting things, despite it not specifically stating that they went to Hong Kong for development purposes. Would in hopes of finding things of interest that would help them in designing the game's stages sound OK? I think that reflects the source better. Thank you for your other copyedits! JAGUAR  22:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Here's another problem sentence.

  Article: Naka reflected that Sonic Team had only started to program for the Sega Saturn when they developed Nights into Dreams..., and proclaimed that the engine they produced in Burning Rangers was considerably faster and featured graphical enhancements.

  Source: When we created NiGHTS we had only just started to program for the Sega Saturn. If you take another look at every part of the engine, you'll see that the speed has been increased considerably. We also managed to accurately portray the fires as well. We've been able to increase the number of things that are now possible over what was possible in NiGHTS.

Several issues here. I don't think you need to attribute all this to Naka inline; he's a reliable source for this sort of thing, and cutting the attribution makes it less wordy. I think the first part is too closely paraphrased: "had only just started to program for the Sega Saturn" -> "had only started to program for the Sega Saturn". And "featured graphical enhancements" is a bit vague and doesn't tell the reader much, though I admitNaka's pretty vague here too, so there's not much to be done about it. I'd suggest:

When Sonic Team developed Nights into Dreams..., they were new to programming for the Sega Saturn, and when the engine was re-used for Burning Rangers they were able to make it much faster and more capable."

Thanks, I've changed it to your suggestion with a little alteration. I've also done a bit of copyediting and paraphrasing in the design section. JAGUAR  12:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. I've been pondering this article over the last day, and I think there are still too many problems with the prose. Note to the coordinators: I am aware that FAs get promoted with reception sections structured as this one is -- see Lightning_(Final_Fantasy)#Reception for an example -- but I don't think this is featured quality; I think paragraphs that are lists of "A said B" are almost never necessary. The reception section should be written so that it tells the reader what the reception was, using quotes to supply background colour and details, and only attributing the source where it's necessary to do so. I could understand someone arguing that this is not explicitly a WP:FACR-based argument; to me it's a 1a oppose, but others might disagree. I've no objection to this oppose being disregarded if it's thought to go beyond what 1a requires. A separate point: I found several cases where the sources weren't precisely in sync with the article text. It seems clear there was no misrepresentation going on, just some vagueness in the writing, but I would recommend some additional spotchecking before promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: thanks again for your comments. I don't want to sound dense, but I've read your essay on how to write reception sections and I don't understand. I organise them by principle; for example critics enjoyed a game's music, critics were unimpressed with visuals, rather than by author, since I see this form as easier to read. I don't know the "A said B" problem is, do you think it should be better paraphrased or organised differently? Other than being busy over the last few days, this is why I seemed to have held back on copyediting as I don't know what other alternative I can use other than "A said B". Like for example should I have merged a couple of sentences where more than one reviewer agreed on the same thing? All in all though, thank you for your help here. JAGUAR  16:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You do organize the material by topic, I agree. It's the presentation of the material that I think is weak: listing each relevant comment in turn, with each critic attributed in turn, is what I'm arguing is bad writing. You've avoided the worst form of A said B, because you've made a reasonable attempt to paraphrase. However, your first reception paragraph has eight consecutive sentences that start with the name of the critic whose opinion is given in the rest of the sentence. That makes the paragraph feel like a list in paragraph form. It should read like prose.

Take a look at Rare Replay, which I think does a pretty good job of the reception section. The paragraph starting "Reviewers felt" has the following structure, indented to clarify:

• Summary sentence giving the paragraph topic -- the extras (and note the comment tags in the wikitext identifying this)
  • Sub-summary of one set of negative opinions
    • Two sentences describing one negative reaction
    • Two sentences describing a related negative reaction
  • New sub-summary re the historical content
    • Two views described
    • Another reviewers opinion
    • Two sentences about another reviewer
  • Final sentence giving a couple of related points not covered above

Now look at a paragraph from Burning Rangers (the one starting "The graphics were"):

• Summary sentence giving the paragraph topic -- the graphics
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion
  • One reviewer's opinion

Does this make clearer what I'm trying to say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get it now. So the reception section should be a cohesive summary of the reviewed aspects of the game, rather than an arbitrary list of reviewers themselves. I have an image of what to do now. I'll get to work on it. JAGUAR  19:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes! That's exactly it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Haven't had a chance to read the whole thing but wanted to leave a few thoughts. (1) I generally agree with Mike that FA "brilliant" prose should be more synthetic than the bar of "A said B, C said D". I don't view it as a requirement per se, especially given how few FAs (including some of my own) actually do it, but as FAC is the best of Wikipedia in its most aspirational sense, I know Jag can combine refs and vary the sentence structure to make the section shine. Only major comment I'd add here is to be precise so as to not leave readers asking "who?" The game's audio and sound effects received praise, with its main soundtrack earning acclaim. If the effect is "reviewers liked it", the refs can be combined and this can be simply said in the first paragraph, but if the effect is that the soundtrack was a special element, use the sources to say what that exactly is. Perhaps reviewers highlighted the soundtrack among the game's best elements. X magazine's reviewer said it was his favorite on the console. Etc. (What is "acclaim"? If it's an award or more likely just kudos from a specific author, say so. If that makes it less important, don't include it at all. Acclaim from whom?) Also agreed that you can take more liberties in killing the quotation marks. Only really need that when it's important to preserve the words as their own, and that should be infrequent given that the emphasis should be on paraphrasing. More in passing: (2) footnote the Japanese name unless it's crucial to understanding the topic, (3) GameRankings isn't doing much for the Reception section—I'd kill it. Five reviews isn't much of a metascore, and only four are reliable. It also skews downwards as the average of the scores listed is something like five points lower. Also GR doesn't give a qualitative comparison so "75%" won't mean much to the reader apropos of nothing. (4) Why isn't the bibliography in alphabetical order? (5) {{sfn}} supports italics, so use GamesTM staff, etc. (6) This is a little more preference, but I'd drop the |publisher= for websites when |work= is sufficiently clear. It's not like knowing that CBS owns GameRankings adds anything but clutter (and same for the other mags—the publisher param is best for books, when they help establish edition). I'd also recommend making the ref sections into Notes and References, because technically the short footnotes are notes on where to read more about the topic. The bibliography is a bibliography so Notes and Bibliography sections would work too, just non-standard. (7) Avoid "comma gerund" constructions, which tend to become a literary tick/trap ("soundtrack, stating", despite stating, despite showing, despite noting—vary these—"configuration, labelling", " tracks, affirming", and so on). Ping me if you need another set of eyes later czar 11:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: thank you for the feedback, I really appreciate it! I have never tried anything like this before, so reworking the reception section took some time—think I've done it now. I hope I've got rid of the "A said B" problem as I've attempted to paraphrase more and reshuffle the paragraphs into cohesive prose rather than keeping it as an arbitrary list in prose. I looked at Sabre Wulf to get an idea of what to do. I went ahead with your recommendations and culled GameRankings, made the ref sections into Notes and References, italicised publications in sfn templates, alphabetised bibliography, and took care to avoid comma gerund constructions (though I kept one at the end of the design section as it's before a direct quote). I took liberties to expand upon what critics thought of a particular element and left the other points in a sub-summary sentence. @Mike Christie: it may have taken a little longer than expected, but I've taken a shot at redesigning the reception section. Do you think it's still a bit too 'listy' in the latter half of the second paragraph? I took care to avoid it, but I can't figure out a way to get around it as I think the critics are elaborating on judging certain aspects of the game (for example you could look at them as three sentences describing their opinions). Thanks again for your helpful and in-depth look at this article! JAGUAR  15:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lee Nutter from the British Sega Saturn Magazine enjoyed the detailed characters and labelled the lighting effects as excellent, despite saying that the visuals overall was a "hit and miss" due to the hardware limitations of the Saturn. IGN's Levi Buchanan thought that the game was among the better-looking Saturn titles and praised the fire effects, although he too noted the visuals had minor problems.

  If reviewers don't go further than vaguely claiming graphical issues, use the same weight. Say that reviewers mentioned minor graphical issues and slap a bunch of refs on it rather than breaking it out into separate sentences. (Try to group concerns rather than repeating claims that may overlap.) czar 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to Lee Nutter of the British Sega Saturn Magazine enjoyed the detailed characters and described the lighting effects as excellent, although he, along with IGN's Levi Buchanan, noticed that the visuals had minor problems. I hope that sounds OK, though I'm not too keen on merging anything further... JAGUAR  18:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I see another editor has gone through and copyedited, and has added a couple of tags that need resolution; can you take care of those? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't understand why a clarification tag was placed in the development section: article says "Ohshima said that many of the things a firefighter does were "the very essence of a Sonic Team game"", source says Rescuing people, and many of the other things a firefighter does, are in fact the very essence of a Sonic Team game. I've added "along with rescuing people" to try and make it clearer, but I thought it followed the source quite well there. JAGUAR  12:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the reception section is much improved. I did a bit of copyediting; please check that the right refs are still with the text I moved. One more point:

• "Weigand criticised the lack of a custom configuration and described the controls as "squirrelly", even with the analogue controller, though a reviewer from the Japanese Sega Saturn Magazine felt the game was more comfortable with an analogue pad as opposed to the default Saturn controller. Buchanan cited the use of the Saturn 3D controller as intuitive, and Williamson felt the control scheme was "great", especially with an analogue pad." -- seems like this is two against the 3D controller, and two for it -- could this be restructured around that in order to improve the flow?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, although was it not three in favour of the 3D controller and only one against it? I got rid of "Buchanan cited the use of the Saturn 3D controller as intuitive" as it broke the flow. Thanks again. JAGUAR  16:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for sticking with me through this review; I think we're there now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I wanted to thank you so much for your patience with reviewing this, and for teaching me the better ways of writing reception sections! From now on I'll have to change my strategy for writing them. JAGUAR  19:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:42, 28 January 2017 [22].

---

Viking metal

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Viking metal, a style of heavy metal music based primarily on lyrical themes of the Vikings, the Viking age, and Norse paganism. I first started working on this article back in 2011, and, over time, became fascinated with the subject, came to enjoy the style of music, and delved into the scholarly research about Viking metal. My own interest and research seems to have paralleled with that of academia: Prior to 2010, far fewer sources discussion Viking metal existed, so the past six years have seen a sizeable increase in academic interest in the subject. Over the course of the past five years, myself and other editors have vastly improved this article. There was an conflict two years ago over the definitions and origins of Viking metal between myself and an anonymous editor, but we were able to arrive at a compromise that best summarized the existing literature. The article has subsequently become a good article and has undergone peer review. It adheres to basic policy regarding BLPs and copy-righted material. It adequately summarizes the topic, and covers all key aspects with the needed detail. It follows a consistent layout and reference style. I believe that this article is ready to be a featured article candidate. This is the second FA nomination for this article. The first one was rejected only due to inactivity. It did get one editor's review, and I addressed the problems that they highlighted.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support as the one who helped at PR. If there wasn't really much of anything wrong with it then, there definitely can't be now. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• Okay, one problem. The Stylus Magazine reference for Amon Amarth has been dead since June (after my PR).

Fixed. Apparently, apart from the homepage, the entire site for Stylus has been taken down.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

According to a Google search they've been defunct since October 2007. They seem to have just kept archives there until last June. My full support has been restored. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment as author: I had solicited for a review from User:Lewismaster, who unfortunately is unable to give a full review. However, they did say that they found the article somewhat arcane. If any editors notice this, I would welcome criticism and advice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
• support with a few added commentary--malconfort (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

"typical black metal death growls" shrieks are typical to black metal, while death growls is mostly a death metal thing.

No, death growls are plenty present in black metal, it's just that they're combined with shrieks (with shrieks being favored over growls a little bit). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Malconfort is right. While black metal does use growling and death growls, it's more common in death metal. The source actually says "typical black metal screams and growls," which is more accurate. I've corrected this, thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

the section sonic traits must covers the characteristics of viking metal as a whole not only of a few artists. this or you must change the text to a more broaden perspective.

I thought I did? The last two paragraphs I added later, after the two paragraphs were written. I admit that it might be a bit jarring to go from broad examples to specifics. I'll look into how I can rectify this. I might move those paragraphs into the history section, though I don't currently have a section on Týr, and I think I would need to include other examples if I created a section on that band. Mulvany also deals a lot with particular examples of Viking metal song structure, so an alternative possibility is bringing in a few of those, though this would expand the already massive "characteristics" section further (is it my fault that so much has been written on in the way of examples?)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

"the exultation of violence and virility through weapons and battlefields" it's a metal thing basically, not only of a black and/or death metal standpoint. from what i remember, viking metal has close ties to traditional heavy metal...

Where'd you get the close ties idea? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I checked the source, and I've reworded it as "Viking metal combines the symbology favored by many black and death metal bands..." It is true that heavy metal in general celebrates war and battle, but I also need to make sure that this summarizes what the source says, not my own opinions. I think the sourced statement, which I've more closely followed in my new revision, is a bit more nuanced than what I had before. It implies that war is more common a theme among death and black metal bands, but not exclusive. I think that could be debated, but in this instance I'm just following the source. As an aside, yes, I think Viking metal is closer to traditional metal than its extreme origins would suggest.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorhin, the Swedish black metal band? wasn't aware they are associate with the viking metal style. what about create an article for them?

That is not the job of the nominator... dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an article on that band. Mulvany seems to be the only source that identifies the band as Viking metal, at least that I can find so far, and even his commentary suggests that it primarily is a folk-influenced black metal band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

link "megaliths"

Done by DannyMusicEditor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

it seems the band týr is like the black sheep of the viking metal article. i have the impression they just don't fit.

They fit in the article, they just aren't full on true viking metal. Ironic that you'd say they're "black sheep" because they're not black at all. But seriously they are important. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the list of Viking metal bands, there are other oddballs in there (like the rock band Glittertind!). There was also some serious heat on this article and the list over the inclusion of Amon Amarth. That's one reason why I have the quote from Ashby and Schofield on how Viking metal "has diversified (at least in aural terms), and now covers a range of styles that run the gamut between black metal and what one might justifiably term classic rock."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

link "pantheon of Norse gods"

Done by DannyMusicEditor.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

link the terms "Conan the Barbarian as it does to history, saga, or Edda"

Done, except saga, which is linked to in a previous section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Malconfort, that was very helpful.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - wonderfully detailed characteristics section with supporting images that pretty much seals the deal. In regards to the comment made about the article appearing as arcane... I would assume weirder articles have been featured. RHedmi (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to have your support - I think what Lewismaster meant by "arcane" was that they found the content difficult to understand for someone unfamiliar with the topic - a topic can be weird, yet written in an accessible manner.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Well written article with well-articulated sections. The supporting media is also used extensively; the very detailed history section is also impressive on its own. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Read most of this during the week - highly researched and informed, excellent background and context, tightly written for the most part, good use of sources, restrained and well judged use of images, and put together in an engaging and often pacey style. Note, I began my wiki career editing black metal articles, so would be familiar with the sub-genre. Ceoil (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator Note: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source and image review. Also, I think this would be your first FA so we need a spot-check of the sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. You can request these at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Leaning oppose, on prose grounds. I've copyedited a bit; please revert anything I've screwed up.

• The "Sonic traits" section starts with ten consecutive sentences of the form "A said B". If nothing else, this needs some variation in the presentation, but I think it would be much better to drop most of the inline attribution, perhaps paraphrase more, and use the material to assemble a narrative description of the traits. The third paragraph of the section seems much better, though I think the first sentence, crediting Piotrowska, is unnecessary. I see quite a bit more inline attribution further down in the article, so to avoid repetition I'll just say that I think it should be saved for when it makes a difference to the reader -- e.g. when a minor band unexpectedly gets a review from a major outlet, or an academic paper caused a controversy and other critical opinions are to be understood as a response to the paper, or when there is some question about the reliability or neutrality of the source of which the reader needs to be aware. Otherwise they clutter the reading experience without adding anything that can't be found in the citations. Attributions also tend to force the inclusion of more and more synonyms for "said": "He elaborated that"; "he stated that"; and so on.
• "While retaining the noise and chaos of previous recordings, the band took a more sorrowful and melodic approach, working in ballads based on Germanic and Norse folklore, shanty-like melodies and folk music elements such as bourdon sounds, Jew's harps, and fifes were introduced": the syntax breaks down in the middle; given that "folk music elements" is the last noun phrase in the list, it's the object of "based on" and can't be the subject of "were introduced".
• "Bathory's song structure typically of this era featured multi-sectional formal structures, and usually followed a pattern of three instrumental sections – introduction, bridge, and finale – and two vocal sections – stanza and refrain." Two problems here: "structure" is repeated, and "Bathory's song structure typically of this era featured" is a pretty awkward sentence start. It would also be nice to find a wording that allows us to avoid having both "typically" and "usually", since they mean the same thing. I tried copyediting and got as far as "In this era Bathory's song structure typically featured multi-sectional", but I think it needs a bit more thought.
• "Enslaved, a formative band in the style, performs primarily a black metal style, but one that over time became more progressive": repetition of "style", and I think "has become" would work better than "became".
• The paragraph on Týr has "typical" and "typically" in consecutive sentences.
• "especially the exultation of violence and virility": I suspect this is intended to be "exaltation".
• "Viking metal ... shares an interest in ancestral roots": what is meant by "shares" here? Shares with ...?
• In a couple of places the article uses "sonic" or "sonically" where I'd expect to see "music" or "musically" -- e.g. "bands such as Sorhin keep the Satanic elements of black metal but sonically are influenced". Is this standard in the sources? To me "sonic" is more of an engineering term; the frequency response of a loudspeaker is a sonic characteristic rather than a musical one.
• "Many artists claim affiliation to Ásatrú": Given that "Ásatrú" isn't easily visible in the target link (to Germanic neopaganism), this is a bit of an Easter egg link. If it's generally true that every artist says "Ásatrú" rather than using other names for the religion, then a parenthetical explanation would be useful; otherwise I'd suggest using "neopaganism" instead.
• "Trafford and Pluskowski state that some members of the scene were motivated to act, citing the church burnings by black metal musician Varg Vikernes as an example": it's not clear what is meant by "act" until the second half of the sentence, so I'd rephrase (and drop the attribution): perhaps something like "Black metal musician Varg Vikernes, who has burnt churches, is one of the Viking metal artists who has gone beyond music to taking action in support of these anti-Christian views". You might also link to Early Norwegian black metal scene here; you link to it later but here seems a reasonable option too. And if there are multiple examples of these anti-Christian actions, you might mention others beyond Vikernes at this point.
• This isn't something you have to change for FAC, but I'm curious: why doesn't the article start with the history?
• I'm not keen on the use of File:Barco vikingo.jpg, since there are no sources to indicate that it is either historically accurate or accurately represents the images used in Viking metal. If nothing else is available I think a fair use image demonstrating the use of a ship in a Viking metal album cover would be better, if one exists.
• 'They stipulate that "Presumably ...': what follows is not really a stipulation -- it's an assertion, or a suggestion.
• "but stated about the first track on the album that": clumsy phrasing.

  Looking at this again the difficulty is in enforcing the reference to the first track. Is this necessary? Is it the case that the "this vision should not be seen..." comment really doesn't apply to the rest of the album? It's a bit confusing as it stands because the initial comment ("incorporated themes...") is about the album, not just the first track. Should the first comment be also restricted to the first track? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

It's only the first track - I made this explicit, and I'm not sure why I was so nebulous before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

That's definitely clearer. How about 'For example, the Austrian black metal band Abigor incorporated Viking themes and Germanic paganism on "Unleashed Axe-Age", the first track on its 1994 album Nachthymnen, but said it "should not be seen as a part of the upcoming Viking trend".'? (Incidentally, to me it should be "on their album" not "on its album", but I assume that's standard in AmEng.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. And you are right about "its" vs. "their" being American English. As an American, I personally use "their" and "them," but the standard apparently is "its" and "it" (unless the band name is plural - Eagles, the Beatles, etc.), which is something that I've brought up as an FA reviewer before.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Struck; I made one more tweak. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• 'Enslaved, from Norway, formed in 1991, is cited as another of the first Viking metal bands. Mulvany cites as "probably the first truly 'Viking' metal band".' You have "cited" and "cite" in quick succession, and it looks like there's a word missing from the second sentence.
• The sentence following "They further opine that" has a fairly complicated structure -- the verb doesn't show up till "it is notable"; putting "They further opine that" in front makes it really hard to parse.
• The last three sentences of the "Burzum" section seem unnecessarily wordy; if the sources allow it, can we cut it to "The first burning, that of Fantoft Church on June 6, 1992, was thought by many to be related to Satanism, since the burning occurred on the sixth day of the week, on day six of the sixth month and was thus a reference to the number of the beast. Vikernes contends that the date June 6 was really picked because the first recorded Viking raid (upon Lindesfarne), occurred, according to Vikernes, on June 6, 793."
• 'Robert Müller considers the song "Galder", the final track from Helheim's 1995 debut album Jormundgand, the death blow to Viking metal emerging as a concrete genre, since the ambitious track even went beyond compatibility with heavy metal.' I don't follow this; what is Müller asserting?
• "combine songs about ancestors and Norse gods with electrifying, to power-driven, arrangements": something seems wrong here -- is "to" in the source?
• "Amon Amarth and Unleashed's music could be described as death metal but incorporates Viking lyrical themes and thus are considered": the music is the subject of "incorporates" and also of "are considered", so the two verbs need to agree on singular vs. plural. I suspect it should be "thus the bands are considered".
• "as, similar to Bathory's rejection of common black metal imagery, the band do not employ the common death metal themes": needs to be reworded -- the band are not similar to Bathory's rejection of black metal imagery.

  The wording is a bit better now, but it's still a complicated sentence structure. Re-reading it, I'm not sure we need the back-reference to Bathory. Bathory's rejection of black metal imagery isn't mentioned in the earlier paragraph about them, so how about simplifying this to: "Unleashed set a precedent for many of the coming black metal bands by avoiding the usual death metal thems and instead focusing on pre-Christian Swedish heathenism, particularly the Viking Age and old Norse religion"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

One last nit-pick on this: if we have "themes", we need more than one theme listed, and we just have "gore". If the themes are all related to gore, can we rephrase to "gory themes" or something like that to avoid the misreading? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Death metal also has death, horror, war, Satanism, anti-Christianity, and, sometimes, philosophy and social commentary as common themes, so I'll turn "themes" here into a singular.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Some members of the Viking metal scene believe that it is impossible for someone to be a Viking unless they themselves are of northern European descent. However, the scene also spread to other parts of Northern Europe in areas united by a common Germanic heritage, such as Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands." These are from two separate sources, and the second sentence refers to the music scene, not to the claim of Viking heritage. Are these really connected? And does the first sentence add anything to the article? It seems a pretty unexceptionable statement as it stands and the opinion is not held only by Viking metal artists and fans.

  I see you removed the "however", which is an improvement. Do we need the first sentence, though? It seems to be saying little more than "you can't be descended from Vikings unless you're descended from Vikings". Or do members of the Viking metal scene feel that you shouldn't be a Viking metal artist (or fan) unless you are of northern European descent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I re-ordered the sentences in the paragraph, opening with the statement that some Viking metal musicians believe that only those with northern European heritage should make Viking metal music. That should provide context for the regional focus that follows.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a link for Baltic war metal? If not, would a redlink be justified?
• The article has a couple of mentions of the question of racism in Viking metal. Can you confirm that these references are appropriate weight for the sources? White supremacism and related racist views seem like a plausible pairing for some of these bands, but there's not much in the article about it. For example, are Nordic white supremacists often fans of Viking metal? Or is Vikernes an anomaly? If you don't have sources on this, of course there's nothing to be done.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mike Christie, this gives me a lot to work on, and articulates issues with the prose, which is something that I was wondering about. I will work on this. I will respond to a few points that you brought up:

-I think maybe it's just peeve that I personally have, but I used "sonic" or "sonically" as opposed to "musical" because I consider lyrics an aspect of music, particularly in a genre like this where the only truly defining feature is the lyrics. However, you bring up a good point about the difference between "sonic" and "musical," so I'll happily change this.

-I'll put in a note of some kind that Ásatrú is basically synonymous with Germanic neopaganism.

-I put "Characteristics" before "history" because that is how the heavy metal music featured-quality article is organized.

-Good point about the potential original synthesis - I'll consult the sources on this.

-There is more about the racist undercurrent behind some black metal and Viking metal - unfortunately, much of this is in sources that I cannot access. I'll see what I can find.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I replaced the image, and worked on a lot of the prose suggestions. I still need to re-work most of the source attribution sentences, and I will have to do some research address the Nordic heritage and racism aspects of the topic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I reworked the attribution and quotes - I tried to list the names of authors only if it is particularly relevant - some direct quotes, or specific scholarship that might be contentious to put in Wikipedia voice, or else might be a minority viewpoint. Mike Christie, does the prose look okay now? I will do some research for the Nordic heritage and racism discussions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

These sentences - "Some members of the Viking metal scene believe that it is impossible for someone to be a Viking unless they themselves are of northern European descent. However, the scene also spread to other parts of Northern Europe in areas united by a common Germanic heritage, such as Austria, Germany, and the Netherlands." - which you contested as original synthesis, are from the same source, which links the musicians and scenes together. The "However" qualification is mine - I will remove that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I did some research regarding Vikernes, and racism and white nationalism within Viking metal more generally, and implemented a few changes. I couldn't access all the sources, but those which I could access were adequate. On the whole, with these new edits, I think the article represents the scholarship. There can be more detail put in here and there, and Catherine Hoad has a whole article on the topic of white ethno-nationalism, which was already listed in the further reading section, but I think what is in the Wikipedia article now is fairly neutral, with adequate weight given toward different views within the scholarship.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've struck most points above and have a couple of responses above. Generally it looks much improved. I'll reread for overall prose and the first bullet point above; might not get that done this morning depending on how long the rest of the household stays asleep. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've re-read the first few paragraphs and struck the first bullet above. I'll go through the whole article again for prose, either this evening or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've caught up on everything above; everything I pointed out is fixed. I'll do another read through; I have house guests so can't be sure when I'll have time but will try to do it no latter than tomorrow evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Reading through again. As before, please revert my copyedits as needed. I've struck my "leaning oppose" above.

• "Viking metal emerged during the late-1980s through the mid-1990s, as a rejection of Satanism and the occult, instead embracing the Vikings and paganism as the leaders of opposition to Christianity": what does "leaders" mean here? At this point in the lead the reader doesn't yet know that black metal often includes Satanic and occult themes, but I don't know if it's only black metal that is seen as the precursor to Viking metal. How about something like "Viking metal emerged from black metal during the late 80s/early 90s, sharing with black metal an opposition to Christianity, but rejecting Satanism and occult themes in favor of the Vikings and paganism"?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "It is similar to folk metal, and is sometimes categorized as such, but it uses folk instruments less extensively than that genre": "that genre" is a bit awkward, but I can see you were trying to avoid repetition. How about "It is sometimes categorized as folk metal, but it uses folk instruments less extensively, though there are similarities between the two genres"?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'the band has changed its sound "significantly with every record."' doesn't seem like it needs to be a direct quote. How about "The band's sound has evolved with each album since Mardraum – Beyond the Within (2000)"?
• I'm not sure we need the long description of "Yggdrasil" by Mulvany; do we learn anything about Viking metal from it?

I've taken that out. I put it in as part of a larger effort to address User:Malconfort's concerns that the characteristics section focused on two artists exclusively. I agree that that particular sentence did not really add anything to the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In an attempt to replicate these uneven signatures, Týr often places the accent on the weak beat of the bar. In songs based on old Faroese ballads, Týr will try to play in harmonic or melodic minor scale or else in mixolydian mode." I'm not clear what is meant by "attempt" and "try" here; do they fail or succeed?

"Attempt" is in the original text - they attempt to replicate Faroese music time signatures in a rock music style. I changed "try" to "usually." I know that this now means we have "typically," "often," and "usually" in rapid succession, but it matches the source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Other Finnish bands, such as Ensiferum, Turisas, and Korpiklaani, focus on Sami traditions and shamanism, further stretching the definition of Viking metal": so this is regarded as Viking metal, and not pagan metal?

  In short, those bands are labeled as both Viking metal and pagan metal. This particular source, which discusses both genres, considers them Viking metal. Here is a quote from the paragraph that I summarized in the article: "More recently, the [Viking metal] scene has seen considerable growth, with the success of bands such as Sweden's Amon Amarth (whose videos feature images of Viking longships and warriors, while their album Twilight of the Thunder God was paired with a short, Norse-myth themed graphic novel), and Finnish bands such as Ensiferum, Turisas, and Korpiklaani, who are particularly notable for their distinctive focus on Saami tradition and shamanism, calling into question again the validity and usefulness of the 'Viking Metal' label."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  Fair enough; what you have does reflect the source accurately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "and thus, apart from its lyrical content and heavily folk-influenced music, the band is virtually indistinguishable from other heavy metal bands": could this be simplified to "and only their folk-influenced music and lyrical themes distinguish them from other heavy metal bands"?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'Mulvany says that while much of the thematic history of heavy metal uses parodies of the occult in an incongruous fashion, Viking metal bands use "a very specific mythology which controls not only textual choices, but also the imagery used on albums and frequently the kind of music composed". Deena Weinstein notes that despite a whole pantheon of Norse gods to choose from, Viking metal bands typically focus on Odin, the god of war, and Thor, "whose hammer, 'the hammer of the gods', defended the Pagans against the Christians".' I think you might be able to cut, or at least shorten, the first sentence; the comment from Weinstein plus the first paragraph of the section seem to give the same information. And do we need to attribute Weinstein's quote? How about: 'Despite a whole pantheon of Norse gods to choose from, Viking metal bands typically focus on Odin, the god of war, and on Thor and his hammer, which he wielded against the Christians'?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'In 2013, The Wall Street Journal published an article which examined how heavy metal fans around the world learn languages such as Norwegian or Finnish in order to understand the lyrics of their favorite bands. It reported, "A band of young metal heads – spanning Romania to Singapore – have taken up a Northern European language in order to better appreciate or even mimic their favorite metal bands."' I don't think the source is important here, so I would suggest shortening this to something like: "Heavy metal fans around the world sometimes learn languages such as Norwegian or Finnish in order to understand the lyrics of their favorite bands and improve their appreciation of the music".

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think you need the "sign" parameter on the Mulvany blockquote; you already attribute it above the quote. Similarly for Quorthon's quote. This is personal preference, not an FA requirement; I just think it's wasteful to give the attribution twice.

I've never liked it either, I just thought it was required for blockquotes. Very happy to remove.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like you have at least a couple of spaced em-dashes, which is frowned on; you might want to do a pass through looking for them.

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The roots of Viking metal proper are generally cited to be later in the Scandinavian metal scene, particularly the death and black metal scenes of the late 1980s": I assume "later" refers to the previous paragraph, but since it's titled "Precursors" I don't think you need the reference. I'd make this just "The roots of Viking metal proper are generally considered to be the death and black metal scenes of the late 1980s".

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The band's fourth album Blood Fire Death, released in 1988, includes two early examples of Viking metal – the songs "A Fine Day to Die" and "Blood Fire Death", and thus is possibly the first genuine example of Viking metal": you don't need both "two early examples" and "possibly the first genuine example". I think you could cut everything from "and thus" to the end of the sentence without losing any meaning.

I guess so. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Laut.de attributed inline? Seems like those sentences could be substantially compressed unless there's some reason to let the reader know the source.

When I was going through this article before, it seemed that it was important to specify these claims, but now I don't think so. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• On the other hand, the mention of Metal Hammer seems reasonable, since it sounds as though that's not a universally-held opinion, but shouldn't we attribute the opinion to the article writer and not to the magazine as a whole? And if we can make it clearer that this is a minority view I think that would be good.

I don't know how much of a minority opinion it is, and I want to try to avoid original synthesis. I'm not what I can do to indicate that his opinion regarding Viking metal as a genre isn't shared by everyone, when I haven't seen another source that talks about Müller specifically.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

How does this look?

"Robert Müller of Metal Hammer Germany argues that Viking metal never solidified as a genre, and attributes this to Jormundgand, Helheim's 1995 debut album. Jormundgand included an ambitious track - "Galder" - but that song was considered incompatible with metal, and audiences, looking for a specific musical style, merged with the pagan metal scene, which had no particular "Viking" identity."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 06:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "but yet goes largely without comment from the scene regarding its authenticity": how about "but is rarely criticized as inauthentic by the scene'?

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Conterminous to the rise of Viking metal": do you really mean "conterminous", or did you intend to say "contemporaneous"?

Yes, I picked that word intentionally, as in "sharing a boundary" along similar ideological lines - but I realize now that this could mean that they arose in the same area, so contemporaneous is better.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall this is much improved, and I expect to support once the above points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on these.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for being patient with my nit-picking. I think the article now fully deserves FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. No, this is the kind of review that I wanted.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lewismaster

I finally found some time to read again your article and write some comments. I'm sorry that my small initial observation stirred reactions about this subject being arcane. I think that the article prose is much improved since last time that I read it and the then overwhelming quantity of quotations has been reduced to a more acceptable number. I am not willing and probably not capable of doing a review about the prose, but some doubts remain regarding form, structure and accessibility. Feel free to ignore my ramblings and to take them as a subjective vision of how a Wikipedia article should be, considering that the promotion of the article as it is should not be in discussion.

In my opinion, Wikipedia articles should be accessible to the casual reader, meaning that the structure and form of the article should provide to anybody the keys to at least understand what the article is about. Your article is extremely well-researched and complete, but it still appears to be aimed at a restricted circle who already knows much about extreme metal genres and subgenres, about folk music and Scandinavian history. Some background information is dispersed within the article, but I think that it would be better if those snippets were gathered and focused upon in a proper background section at the beginning of the article. This section, which is now missing, could provide the reader the info necessary to enjoy the rest of the article without the need to wander around Wikipedia to learn about the more technical details in other miles-long articles. In the Background section I would add synthetic paragraphs about:

• Vikings, their history and beliefs - they gave the name to the music genre and a hint to who they were behind the shallow oleograph is in order.
• Scandinavian folk music - you cite folk influences a lot, but Nordic folk music has peculiarities that probably need some explanation.
• Scandinavian black metal - because Viking metal originated from this black metal scene a brief description of its origin and characteristics would be useful.

Moreover, I would move the paragraph about Viking metal precursors here. Led Zeppelin, Manowar and Heavy Load belong in a Background section, instead of the History one. The second paragraph of the "Paganism and opposition to Christianity" subsection could also be easily adapted for the Background section. It could be a lot work, but the result would certainly enhance the article.

About sea shanties, if they are considered so important for the genre, shouldn't most or all the text about them be included in the Music traits section?

On a more technical note, citation 93 is missing the reference in the reference list. There is no Laut.de in the list.

The only non-free image in the article, the cover of Blodhemn, is missing the rationale for this article. Lewismaster (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, this was very helpful, and something that I considered before. I will work on that. Regarding the Blodhemn album cover, I added a rationale to the file information.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: @Lewismaster: and @3family6:, how are we progressing with these comments? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent first Background section. The two technical problems were fixed. Keep up the good work! Lewismaster (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I need to get going and finish up the next two sections. The Nordic folk music article wasn't that useful for digging up sources, so I basically am having to write everything from scratch.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lewismaster: I added a Nordic folk music section, and re-ordered some sections. I just need to add the black metal overview.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Very good! We see the end of the tunnel! Just one more section to go... Lewismaster (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I fixed and formatted the references. I hope you don't mind. Lewismaster (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we really need to wrap this up now. The comments from Lewismaster were left 3 weeks ago, and if a lot has changed, we might need to ping the other reviewers to check they are still happy. (I don't know how much has changed; if we have just added some short sections, that would be OK) Given the length of time this has been open, I might have to archive if the nominator is not working on the article any more. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I should have this done by the end of the week - I'm working on the final requested section in my sandbox. I apologize for the length of time involved here, I'm also working on graduate school applications and thus I am trying to fight off burn-out. Once this article is done I'll pull back off Wikipedia for a bit.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have put such a burden on your shoulders. I didn't realize that there was a deadline for the FAC. Maybe Sarastro1 can give us a little more time in consideration of the great improvements applied to the article in the last weeks. Lewismaster (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no deadline, but it helps if things are happening. This FAC has been open since the end of October, which is unusually long. With so many supports, and the considerable work that has gone into this, there is no danger of archiving as long as we start moving again. I was just concerned that nothing seemed to have happened for 3 weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Sarastro1, what you did was give me a good kick in the pants to get me moving again. I hadn't been expecting to add so much content to the article, but I still should've been quicker at implementing the proposed changes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lewismaster: How does it look now? Needs some clean-up, but the content is there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I did some editing on the last section and removed some wikilinks. Feel free to revise what I did. The book for the "Voegtlin & Lee 2006" reference is missing in the list of references. Lewismaster (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, along with some other content tweaking. Thanks for helping clean up things. I had to rush off to work, or I would have cleaned up myself. Anything else?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Christie and Ceoil (and any other previous commentators): A few sections have been added since you supported. Before this is promoted, are we happy with the additions? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has been on my watchlist; and have followed. Happy from my side. Ceoil (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Just read through and did a very minor copyedit; my support still stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: OK, I think we are good to go now. This has been open a long time, and has had a lot of eyes on it. If there are other points from Lewismaster or anyone else, they can be taken up on the talk page. If possible, the image in the "Vikings" section could be tweaked; having two different sized images together like that looks a little strange to me. After promotion, I'd be grateful if someone could check duplicate links. A few show up, but they are arguably necessary as the linked terms are some distance apart in the article. Also, while it makes sense, "Nordic folk music refers to folk music traditions from the Nordic countries" lacks a certain elegance, and could stand with rewording somehow to avoid the word repetition. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Full support - I arrive too late to give my support for the long and great work done. I think that the article has a more logical flow and is more accessible now. Bravo! Lewismaster (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:20, 28 January 2017 [23].

---

Operation Paravane

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article covers the final, and most successful, of the air attacks on the German battleship Tirpitz which were conducted while she was based at Kaafjord, Norway in 1944. The raid was among the most complex British aerial operations of World War II, and involved both of the Royal Air Force's elite heavy bomber units (including the famous "Dambusters" squadron) armed with huge Tallboy bombs and some ineffectual mines. Staging through a bed-bug ridden base in a remote area of northern Russia, the bombers only managed a single hit on the battleship. However, the damage caused by the Tallboy bomb was enough to damage Tirpitz beyond repair. In addition to covering the raid (which over very quickly), the article also describes the dramatic flights conducted by the British bombers, and the contribution made by Norwegian secret agents - with User:Manxruler providing very considerable input on this topic.

The article is a follow up to the three on Royal Navy air attacks on Tirpitz which I've developed to FA class over recent years (Operation Tungsten, Operation Mascot and Operation Goodwood) and I'm hopeful that it can also go the distance. It passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in early November, and has since been improved and copyedited. Thank you in advance for your time and comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• This article is in fine shape. I made a few minor copy edit tweaks, but it reads really well, covers everything you would expect, is well footnoted and the references all appear reliable.
  • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Support. Just a few queries but nothing major:

• I know only the lead so you don't want to get bogged down in details but what does "no longer practical for the Germans to sail her to a major port" mean?
  • I've changed this to "possible", which is more accurate Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is it worth mentioning that Norway was under Nazi occupation at the time, and wasn't harbouring the Tirpitz in its waters voluntarily?
  • Good idea: done Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Why was the Tirpitz in (more or less) one place for such a long time?
  • Because it was a well defended anchorage in a location where she she could menace the Allied convoys. I've added a bit more on this. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Which bases did the bombers leave from? For obvious reasons, there were a lot of RAF bases along the east coast of Britain during WWII. If there's a long list it's probably not worth including, I'm just curious.
  • Added Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I didn't get to review at MilHist ACR so have read top to bottom here, copyediting as I went; great work as always, Nick, specifics follow...

• Fine with prose but pls check I haven't misinterpreted anything as I tweaked the wording.
• Structure is straightforward and logical.
• I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
• Detailed, but not excessively so.
• Source-wise, all look reliable and I only found one formatting error that I fixed. I guess my only query -- and it echoes what I said at another of these that was at A-Class -- is that while I don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth with the non-English (i.e. Norwegian) sources, these do throw into sharp relief what appears to be a lack of German and, for that matter, Russian sources. This was a multi-national operation with at least some involvement from British, US, Australian, Norwegian, Soviet and, on the receiving end, German forces, but unless I missed something the last two are not represented in the sources, and this might be an opportunity to provide something from all perspectives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those changes Ian. The sources which I used on the previous articles in this series had lots of details on German perspectives, but these are noticeably much scarcer for the final three heavy bomber raids which eventually destroyed the battleship - possibly (and horribly) because most of her crew was killed. I'll check some extra books which might provide further detail on Soviet perspectives, but am not sure if I'll turn up much - I've tried to include everything of significance on the Soviet experience of the operation which I've turned up, and I think that this provides useful coverage (on the high handed British treatment of the Soviet military, the hospitality shown to the air crews, the harsh conditions on their bases, etc). Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ian Rose: I checked all four books on UK-USSR relations and military cooperation at a major university library (as these seem to be the most likely sources of information on Soviet perspectives on this topic), but they had no information on it. Likewise, a detailed book on wartime intelligence sharing between the UK and USSR turned up blank, noting only that the operation had occurred and there'd been cooperation. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay tks for checking further, Nick -- I guess the preponderance of Norwegian accounts comes from it being a bigger event in Norway's war than in Russia's... Happy to offer full support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ian. I'll keep my eye out for sources providing more detailed German and Soviet perspectives on this operation as well. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Sure. Don't get me wrong, I think you've covered all sides of the operation very well, I was just interested in whether there were unused, useful sources from all sides -- if not, well, we can only use what's there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 10:49, 28 January 2017 [24].

---

Aitraaz

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a film which features Priyanka Chopra's first brilliant performance. A highly entertaining film, which was noted for its bold subject of Sexual harassment, a first for Bollywood. This is my first solo FAC and I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 20:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

If I have any comments I'll post here, but I'll take care of any c/e related material. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede

* As per WP:LEADCITE, there are no sources and that makes the lead section look clean. The same content in the lead section is sourced in the body of the article. * Any production details worth including in this section?

I am not sure what can be added. Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

* the film received ten nominations at the 6th IIFA Awards, winning three - what were they? If they were technical categories you need not mention, but major ones (producing, directing, acting and writing) must be mentioned.

The film won in three technical categories, so.Krish | Talk 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Production

• I see that Abbas-Mustan are two people. Mention this, otherwise they'll be mistaken for one man with a double-barrelled name.
• Change "action star" to "action hero".
• According to Kumar, Raj is realistic and could be described as a "new-age metrosexual" man" - try to maintain one tense (past/present, whatever) throughout the sentence.
• In an interview with Tribune India, Kapoor remarked that "every Indian woman could identify with her character" of Priya - but the original quote reads, "Indian women will identify with my character". We usually substitute quoted words with parentheses, e.g.: "This is my life" becomes "This is [his] life".
• She said her character is extremely supportive of her husband; she stands by him, as any Indian woman would - again, try to maintain one tense throughout (preferably past tense).
• Any info on when filming ended? Or what was the last scene filmed? If I can't find much info on a film's completion, I try to include info on its final length in feet (using info from the CBFC certificate).

Not a single source is present about the filming schedule, you know how Indian media works.Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No information is available about its length in feet or last day filming.Krish | Talk 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "steadycam" redirects to "Steadicam" which is a brand name and must be capitalised.

Soundtrack

* There is overlinking here which must be dealt with. * The tracklist must be sourced, and the tracks must be arranged as they are in the source.

I am not sure about the first note, since there are no sources about the discontinuation of that award. Filmfare doesn't even have its own award site.Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

Although somewhat brief, I find this article very much FAC worthy as all the essential info is covered in detail. The references could be archived to avoid link rotting (using Checklinks, you could replace the links with their archives). Also, both the footnotes may require sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kailash29792 Done. Krish | Talk 19:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

:::Why is there a category called "Techno-thriller films"? A techno-thriller is usually considered science fiction. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kailash29792 Removed that category and replaced sources with the archived ones.Krish | Talk 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Good work Krish. I hope this passes FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

...actually, no. After seeing Numerounovedant's comments (most of which I agree with), I see the article can be improved further. Once his comments are addressed, I'll reinstate my support for this FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Now it is in much better shape, and it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

The article is in really good shape but there are some minor flaws that kinda bother me:

• Is it possible to add sales from the home media release of the film?
• Same with cast. I know it's okay be unsourced, but did any of the actors said something that might fit there?

Other than that, I'll support. My concerns are minor. If you have free time could you take a look at my own FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tidus/archive1? Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Tintor2 Well, DVD sales of Indian movies are not reported in the media. If you look at other Indian film FAs, they don't really include this information. Coming to your second point, well, there are few quotes about cast' respective characters in the "Production" section. Thanks for your response.Krish | Talk 14:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive-by comment the fact the film resembles the plot of the film Disclosure should be noted in the article. They both feature a woman who, when refused sex, accuses her employee/colleague of sexual harassment. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

FrB.TG Thank you for pointing that out. Actually, I was having a discussion with Ssven2 on the same on my talk page. Initially I was apprehensive earlier but thanks, anyway.Krish | Talk 17:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• I am not sure how 'Indiaglitz' is a RS to be used in a FA.
• Same goes for 'Indya' and 'Planet Bollywood'.
• Instead of writing "The BBC noted the film's bold theme", you can write its author's name with it.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done: Yashthepunisher Replaced the first one with a Hindustan Times source. Indya was the official site of Star Network back then and Planet Bollywood source has been used in other FAs like Mother India.Krish | Talk 08:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please confirm the point about 'Indya', also you can't rely on WP:OSE in a FAC. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The film has been noted for its bold subject of sexual harassment, a first in Indian cinema." Any source for this? Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Done: Cited the last point, and removed "Indya" source.Krish | Talk 11:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. After reading the article last night, i found it comprehensive enough for a 2004 Indian film and am of the opinion that it meets the criteria after going through the resolved comments provided above by other reviewers. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Numerounovedant

Leaning Oppose

• The prose quality is sub-par :

The phrase "According to the director" in close proximity in the first paragraph of the production section.

"film was scrrened"

"It also praised other aspects of the film, describing it as" - reference made to a person by "it"?

"originality in Bollywood" - odd choice of words

"and complimenting the directors' opting for "a theme that has been untouched on the Indian screen so far" and the film's "dramatic moments"" - no punctuation

"drew the hatred of the audience" - not sure if that's the best choice of words.

"Aitraaz made its Indian television premiere 30 October 2005"

"directors several hours to remind her she was only playing a character" - odd phrasing, why not simply say "to console her"

"found it challenging to play such an "extremely negative character"" - repetition of superlatives

"damage her career" - really strong implications considering that they are not in direct quotes, how could a role have damaged an entire career.

"About the film's unusual title" - quotes needed for "unusual", there is no other way of justifying the unusual nature other than a direct quote

• You want me to add this "And what best pleased us is that when we went to register the name, it hadn't ever been used!"?Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent punctuation throughout the article.

These comments aren't exhaustive, and I haven't even been through the plot section, and nit-picking is rather undesirable.

• Tweaked most of the points.Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• The production section is not at all comprehensive, not a single mention of the crew? The producers? The production and distribution house? (The article seems to mention distribution rights of the televised premiere, so why not here?) No details of the post production work. The filming schedule doesn't find any mention either. To me the whole section is cluttered with quotes, and has little substance.

• Well the above reviewers have already said about this. It's very hard to find sources for old Indian movies. Indian media is more concerned about the gossip rather than the production news.Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!:This sections feels incomplete, even more so after the second time that I went through it. Most of the information in the info-box is not substantiated in the section. The mention of writers, cinematographer, film editors, and the corresponding refs are all missing. You can substantiate all of these using Bollywood Hungama. This would not only work in favour of the unsubstantiated claims, but also add to the weight if the section. NumerounovedantTalk 05:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Added information about writers, cinematographer, film editors, and costume designers. I hope you are fine with it.Krish | Talk 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: You can still include the following details: 1. The action director for the film. 2. The Central Film Censor Board trouble that the film had. (Ref: here) 3. Interviews 1, 2, and 3 all talk about filming experiences of the three leads. See if you can find any noteworthy details there 4. Kumar also talks about the completion status of the film towards the end of his interview which would greatly help in putting up some sort of schedule onto the filming and production work. Also, the case of Kobe Bryant is identical to the film's plot, so I am not sure how the director duo explored the "reverse" side. I know that's what the reference says, but it does not make any sense, and should be removed. NumerounovedantTalk 10:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Sadly these sources have nothing regarding the production. I had seen all these sources earlier, infact some of them are used in the article. Thanks for your input though.Krish | Talk 16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: Well that's unfortunate, but you can still include the director of action and the censor board trouble. Aldo, do look into the Kobe Bryant issue. Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Well considering this is not an action film, how action director is neccessary here? You should note that in Indian films, action directors are credited even if there is no use of them. Coming back to Bryant, I had already removed that line, in case you didn't saw the updated version of the article. I hope everything is fine. now.Krish | Talk 10:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• The reception section has major neutrality concerns. I don't see a single complete mixed/negative review. (I am certain that there are a several, atleast a couple already being used.) The reviews have been moulded rather inconspicuously to make them look more appreciative than they actually are. To cite an example, how does "good timepass" account for a positive review? Also, the rediff review is negative in general, it only acknowledges audience response, not creative quality. Kamanth criticised major parts of the film and not just the second half as is claimed. This section needs a thorough cleaning and check for neutrality issues.

• Well these are the only notable reviews available. It would have been great if you had read the cited reviews. The "good timepass" review is only a four line review, Kamath's review is more like a gossip report and Reddif's review is, well, read it you will understand what I mean.Krish | Talk 19:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!:I would like to offer a minor c.e. for the reception section, if that's alright with you. NumerounovedantTalk 04:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Numerounovedant Sure.Krish | Talk 08:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by the fact that the article is well short of FA standard. NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved all your points. Thanks.Krish | Talk 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have offered a copy-edit, but as Kailash rightly pointed out the opening argument remains rather unsubstantiated. Feel free to work around my changes, although I think the article carries more weight now with all the additions, and I can now offer Weak Support. Ping me after the source review, Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 11:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS

• File:Aitraaz.jpg has a generally appropriate fair-use rationale, though it would help to have a URL for where you got this image. Was it by any chance this?

Yes, but I've added a more credible source to the file.

Thank you for that :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how File:Aitraaz cast.jpg is free under creative commons. Either way, it would be nice to include a location in its caption.

Done: Krish (seemingly) forgot to add {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}} to the licensing section of the file, but I've done it.

Let me know when it's been reviewed (whether approved or rejected), and its caption still could use detail on where the image took place Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Priyanka nikon camera.jpg is perfectly fine to use.

I might come back to review other aspects later on. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, did you still want to add something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely still would like a confirmation whether the File:Aitraaz cast.jpg is properly licensed. As for other aspects, I would like to see a budget figure (it's otherwise hard to determine whether the earnings made it a financial success), and the cast list needs to be sourced (WP:FILMCAST doesn't provide exemptions for such sections). Looking through this, it doesn't support the assertion that "Aitraaz received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its direction, music and performances, particularly Chopra's." Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: Isn't the "particular praise for Chopra" verified by the the following reviews? Same for "Aitraaz received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its direction, music and performances." And, in case you don't know the BOI source credits the film as a success and do you think the budget of a 2004 film can be found? The media don't even properly cover the production details now, it was worse back then. Krish | Talk 06:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding reviews, see WP:SYNTH; we can't form a conclusion solely based on several samples. I mention budget because it is a major component of films as it shows how much was invested and whether this was a financial loss. In other words, a film is financially successful when it grosses the total of its budget or higher, and is a financial failure when its earnings total up to less than the budget's worth. It might take some searching, but I've definitely seen budget figures before for films that came out prior to the 21st century, so finding something for a 2004 film isn't entirely out of the question. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: Added the budget, cited the cast list by the Box Office India source and provided sources for the review conclusion and "particular praise". I hope everything is fine now.Krish | Talk 08:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I support as soon as the image I mentioned before passes its review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: The image has passed its review.Krish | Talk 20:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Very good :). I can now more officially give my full support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @SNUGGUMS: The picture has been nominated for deletion so I had to remove from the article. Hope the article is fine now.Krish | Talk 05:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• I feel you should remove Taran Adarsh's review of the film as he has been suspected of getting paid for his reviews.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

While I don't deny your point of view, declaring a source unreliable based on your own thoughts and without presenting conclusive evidence is like gaming the system. Even if Adarsh's review were to be removed, I think it could still be used to source the characters to comply with WP:FILMCAST. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: That's good.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: I think the review is fine. Plus, there is no evidence of him getting paid. If you ask me I would say majority of Indian publications write paid reviews, so it is impossible to remove every review.Krish | Talk 16:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Otherwise, the article looks good. You have my support.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• No dead links. That's good.
• Ref no. 28. — Couldn't you find a better source than "Indian Television"?

@Ssven2: "Indian Television" is a very reliable source. In case you don't know, Indian Telly Awards is presented by the same publication.Krish | Talk 12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Change the references with authors to "first, last" instead of comma — Example: "|author=Tuteja, Joginder" to "|last=Tuteja|first=Joginder".

Other than that, the sources are reliable to use.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Krish | Talk 12:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment/copyedit from Ian Rose

I was looking over this with my FAC coord hat on but felt that the prose needed more attention and decided to have a go myself -- given the extent of the resultant ce I think I'd best recuse from closing. As long as the nominator is fine with it I'm fairly happy with it now -- I don't know that I'll go so far as to support outright but prose-wise wouldn't have any serious objection to promotion. One thing though, re. the film's "unusual title", is there nothing that actually explains what the word means; did I miss something there? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Thank you for the copy-editing. Well there is not much about the film's "unusual title" in the cited source. I think the interviewer was trying to ask the significance of the name.Krish | Talk 15:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Mmm, bit frustrating because I think it's probably a good idea to say what you can about the title, but it still leaves us hanging as to its actual meaning. Well, you can only go by the sources so, fair enough, just leave as is until/unless a reliable source does explain it... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: I think we have a consensus to promote, even if a few reservations remain here and there. If there are a few remaining prose issues, I would encourage the nominator to work on them after promotion on the article talk page. There is nothing glaring enough to delay promotion, I don't think. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 10:18, 28 January 2017 [25].

---

Interstate 94 in Michigan

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the last of Michigan's primary Interstate Highways to be nominated here, and the next one in the series to bring the GT up to FT level. There's some notable national firsts involved here, and it should be a good read. Imzadi 1979 → 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR and determined all the images are properly licensed and the captions are fine. Dough4872 22:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 94 in Michigan. Source review was also done. --Rschen7754 02:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support and comments. Happy to support, but a couple of minor oncerns, both in the lead.

• To me at least, the 1987 a plane crash sits oddly where it is, perhaps better at the end after the road details?
• Various segments have been dedicated to various people and places.— surely one of the variouses could be replaced?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak:, thanks for catching that duplicate word. As for the other, I added a little more summary of the post-completion history; hopefully that places it in the historical context a little better. Let me know if you have a different idea there, and thank you for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

All Ok now, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comments by Nick-D

The "Since completion" section isn't of FA standard at present given that it consists of a series of single sentence paragraphs. It also seems to be incomplete. For instance:

• "The interchange with the Southfield Freeway (M-39) was closed entirely in 1985 to replace the original exit design, which included on-ramps that sharply merged into the left lanes of I-94." - what did the replacement consist of?
  • This was recently added by TenPoundHammer on January 3; unless he can supply additional details similar to what we have on the US 24 interchange, I'm going to remove it as insignificant to the history of I-94. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I added a little more info. If you can find any more by entering various search terms into "site:newspapers.com", then give me the links and I'll see if I can add any other refs found this way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "On August 16, 1987, Northwest Airlines Flight 255 crashed after attempting to take off from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, killing all but one passenger upon exploding at an overpass at Middlebelt Road" - the photo shows what looks to be very extensive debris across the highway, as well as it being the scene of a tragedy which would require a formal investigation. How long was the road closed for, and was a memorial or similar installed?
  • Memorial yes. The photo is of Middlebelt Road, not I-94, which is carried by the pair of overpasses in that photo. A search of various newspaper databases does show that I-94 was closed at least until the next day, however the Detroit Free Press article with that information is locked behind a pricy subscription level at newspapers.com. More to come on this search soon. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And found the answer: I-94 reopened on August 18, 1987. Imzadi 1979 → 08:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The new wording here could still be improved: "According to the crash report from the National Transportation Safety Board, that overpass above Middlebelt Road was not damaged in the crash." - why specify that this is from the crash report (is it a problematic or disputed source), and repeating "overpass above Middlebelt Road" in two sentences could be avoided. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• "In July 1997, the second span of the Blue Water Bridge opened between Port Huron and Point Edward, Ontario" - when did construction start?
  • Added some details here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The lane configuration changes have confused drivers in the area" - current tense seems inappropriate for something which occured over three years ago: presumably this confusion is no longer an issue.
  • Updated. Imzadi 1979 → 07:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "and cost $76 million (equivalent to $80.6 million in 2015" - there's no need to adjust figures for inflation over only two years
  • It's a matter of future proofing though, and consistency. This way no one has to remember to add the inflation adjustments in whatever arbitrary year we would otherwise decide they would need to be inserted. It also means we have all dollar values listed with values for the same year, and in a few weeks, they'll all be listed in 2016 values when the next round of inflation numbers are released. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is a 2017 FAC though, and it looks odd. I'd suggest adding this in ten years or so when it becomes meaningful/useful to readers. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
      • And yet we're supposed to be consistent, Nick-D, and now someone tells me to be inconsistent. In this case, all dollar values that aren't from 2015 or later have inflationary equivalents present. All of them. In short, if there's a dollar value, I always include the adjusted value just so that no one has to remember at some arbitrary date to go back to add them, and no one can complain that they can't make a comparison. As I noted, the values will be updating to 2016 inflation values in just a few weeks, furthering the gap between the year between original value and adjusted value more, temporally and monetarily. Imzadi 1979 → 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Journalists and historians don't adjust currency values across such short periods or so recently except in cases of hyper inflation, and neither should we. This is not FA quality prose, it's not at all useful for readers, and there's no reason to stick with odd looking material for any reason. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Even though it is only a few years, it is still a $4 million difference (about 5%) and is still significant IMO. Also concerned about being consistent. --Rschen7754 08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch out also for imprecise wording and purple prose in the "Memorial highway names" section, such as:

• "Some initial support surfaced" - from whom, and how did this "surface"? (can you say something "groups such as ... suggested naming it..." to avoid this construction?)
  • Barnett does not specify which groups, so sadly I can't quite use your suggestion. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "The plants at Willow Run produced B-24 Liberator bombers by Ford Motor Company " - "for Ford Motor Company" perhaps?
  • Done. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "the honor was included in a budget bill passed in 1997" - which legislature passed this bill?
  • The Michigan Legislature, as named in the first sentence of the paragraph. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• "the Legislature thought it only fitting to name the section of highway for the unit" - like other institutions, legislatures can't think for themselves. This was the reason the change was made though, so you could say something like the coincidence(?) in the numbers being the reason the change was made and passed. Also, which legislature is being referred to here?
  • Wording revised. The body in question is the Michigan Legislature, which also named earlier in the specific paragraph. There's only the one in the state, and our federal-level analog is named the United States Congress, and the county-level bodies are "county commissions", meaning the term without the state name is not ambiguous. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, does the Exit list section need to be referenced? Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The exit list is referenced to the mapping source used to derive the mileposts. That's been sufficient for the dozens of other FAs on highways. Thanks for the review, Nick-D. Imzadi 1979 → 07:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: will you be coming back to this review at all? Imzadi 1979 → 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Just notices my typo,so restating the ping. Imzadi 1979 → 17:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Those sections look good. I've left a couple of minor suggestions for further improvements above for your consideration. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Mostly grammatical comments from Pepper (this is my first time commenting on a FAC, so I'd also appreciate feedback on whether the suggestions I make are helpful or not) "Pepper" @ 04:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's a weird hyphen dash going on in #Early conversions to freeways, perhaps concentrate it to "for a more direct Detroit–Chicago freeway routing"?
• "The completion of I-69 in the 1980s, and the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, increased traffic at the Blue Water Bridge." - Are the commas necessary here?
• "an international task force determined that traffic on the existing structure exceeded capacity in 1992" - Did they determine it in 1992 or did it exceed capacity in 1992 (or both)?
• "allowing for dedicated lanes for local traffic and for bridge traffic" - change to "allowing for dedicated local traffic and bridge traffic lanes" to be more concise and avoid for for for.
• "The name honors the US Army's 94th Infantry Division which was activated" - comma necessary before which (should I be making simple changes like this myself or is it better form to provide the suggestion to the FAC nominator?)
• "In this year Michigan became the first state to complete a border-to-border toll-free Interstate within their state, running for 205 miles (330 km) from Detroit toward New Buffalo, the longest toll-free freeway in the country at the time." - comma after year, and it would probably be good to reword this as it currently sounds like New Buffalo is the longest toll-free freeway.
• "East of Benton Harbor, I-94 meets the Napier Avenue interchange where US 31 merges onto the freeway" - comma before where
• "Continuing eastward I-94 traverses rural land on the north side of Marshall" - comma after eastward
• "it runs generally due east" - oxymoron
• "across the state from Benton Harbor–St. Joseph area east to the Ann Arbor area" - add "the" before Benton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepper (talk • contribs)
  • To reply to the above, Pepper, you certainly can make minor fixes to the article while reviewing it. Another practice that helps nominators is to keep your comments in the same order as the article text or reference section names. You started with comments on the History section, and then went to the Memorial names before jumping back to the History and at the end jumped to the Route description and then back to the History... let's just say that it took me a few moments to find where we were going.

    That said, everything above has been changed except your second point where the commas are needed since both reasons contributed to the traffic increase. I'm also unsure about your comment about an oxymoron in the text, so I have left that alone for the moment. Imzadi 1979 → 21:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Will definitely be more orderly in the future! The changes look good to me. The oxymoron is the incompatibility between due east, which implies exactly east, and generally east, which implies not exactly east. It's a similar construction to "I'm almost completely sure" - I don't think it's an issue if you are against modifying the sentence as it reads fine and I understood it to mean running in a very easterly direction without being completely straight. Overall I'm happy to support this well put together article. "Pepper" @ 21:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Hi Pepper and welcome to FAC. If I could just ask one favour for future reference, please add a signature after your comments as well as your opening statement. It just makes it easier to keep track of everything for the nominator and the coordinators. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly will do in the future, thanks. "Pepper" @ 00:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I alphabetized the categories at the bottom of the article. It looks fantastic to me! Carbrera (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Just a couple of queries. Can we confirm that the sources and images are the same as they were when the reviews were completed? And Nick-D I'd just like to check that you are happy now, as you were concerned that a section was not at FA standard. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The section is up to standard now Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: This diff shows all of the edits made to the article since the end of the ACR. The images have remained unchanged since then. As for sources, I copies the respective reference lists now and then and pasted them into the tool at https://text-compare.com to compare the changes made to the rendered citations since the ACR. Other than a few minor capitalization fixes, the net changes are as follows. Note 5 had its dates updated (corresponding to an update in the text), notes, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 85 were added, and note 81 was shifted up in the sequence (but because of other additions, remained note 81). Imzadi 1979 → 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm going to promote this now, but this needs to be checked for duplinks. I'm not sure if there is some system I am missing, but we have a LOT of duplicate links. However, it's not worth delaying promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 04:21, 25 January 2017 [26].

---

Dark Angel (TV series)

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the short-lived cyberpunk TV series that launched Jessica Alba's career. Article is GA, has received a peer review and two copy edits from the Guild of Copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

  Comment: I did a read through and it seems pretty good. I enjoyed many of the interesting details it presented, and it looks comprehensive. There are just a few minor nits I noticed. Otherwise it looks close to FA worthy.

  • "The creators of the comic series Cybersix filed a lawsuit accusing Cameron and Fox of plagiarizing their story which was later dropped": I know what you mean here, but the final clause still seems ambiguous.
  • "...secret government institution...": a secret U.S. government institution?
  • I think its relevant to mention in the Plot section that Logan Cale is physically handicapped. That was a key element in some episodes.

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments. I've reworded the intro to give indication of why the lawsuit was dropped, and i've added that it was 'US' government institution. I've given some explanation in the plot to how Logan becomes a paraplegic; it's a bit complicated. Let me know if you have any further concerns, or if you think it could be worded better. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved

At the end of the second paragraph of the lead, I would recommend combining or revising some of the sentences. The sentences about the second season and cancellation are short and choppy and could be run together better. I would combine the criticism for the new plot elements with the sentence about the second season and the part about the ratings drop with the cancellation bit to make it flow better. Reworded. Let me know if you think it still needs work. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Looks great to me, thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Add a comma after the phrase "Over the season" in the "Season two" subsection. I would clarify that Cameron was initially not impressed with Alba's audition tape, as he did feel something from the tape that was strong enough for him to keep going back to it. If possible, could you expand on why Fox "just barely" renewed the series? Was it due to ratings? The budget? If you cannot find more specific information, it is fine as it currently stands. The source doesn't really say, other than that Fox 'appeared to lose interest' in the show. Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC) I thought as much, but just wanted to make sure. It is good as it is. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC) I would suggest combining the two paragraphs in the "Cancelled season" section. I would suggest using "Unproduced season" rather than cancelled season. A similar thing was done on the page for the television show Firefly. This is a more stylistic choice so it is up to you on this one. You repeat mythology twice in close proximity so I would suggest revising to avoid this. You use the phrase "Writing in X" a few times in the "Themes" section so I would add more variety and revise this. I would split the Butkus sentence, with Max's identity as a feminist warrior was one sentence and the part about Original Cindy as another. Also add a comma after "For example" in the next sentence. You use the word "nominated' a lot in the "Accolades". I would highly recommend that you add more variety to avoid this. I understand why you did it this way as it is the easiest verb to go to for an award section. To try and break it up a bit i've done some very minor rewording, replacing two instances of "was nominated" with "received a nomination", but I just can't think of any other way to reword this. If you have any suggestions let me know. Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC) Breaking it up with minor rewording made it a lot better. It is difficult to reword it for an award section, but your edit added enough variety in my opinion Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Just to clarify, but do the two sources (12 and 77) cover all of the information given about the novels. Just want to make sure this is clarified, otherwise more references would be needed for the "Related media" section. No, sources 12 and 77 only back up the sentence they are used in. I assumed the plots of the novels would not require sources, for the same reason the plot of the series (or any TV series or film for that matter) doesn't require a source - the medium itself is the source. I am happy to add the novels as inline citations to support themselves if that is the appropriate thing to do. Freikorp (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC) That makes sense to me. I completely forgot about using the medium as the source itself so I see no issue with this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC) @Freikorp: Great job with the article! Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks so much for your review. I've put a strikethrough on all the stuff that was easy to address and have replied to anything that might need reviewing. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Awesome work with this article. I now support this article's nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• Since the Unproduced season section isn't about the actual show, I'd recommend trimming away maybe half of it.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it was too long. I trimmed away a quarter of it. Thanks for your copy edits yet again; it's always appreciated. Freikorp (talk) 07:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Although I will nitpick the reference in the first sentence of the lead. Everything else seems quite well done. I hope it becomes promoted. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally added that inline citation as another editor challenged the genre, but I think the issue is resolved so happy to remove it now. Freikorp (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I find the lead to be a bit disorganized and lacking considering the depth of the article. The first para is a brief plot summary plus a sentence about location; the second para is about reception and airing; and the third para is an odd mixture of adaptations, themes, and the lawsuit clumsily tacked on at the end. Needs work for cohesiveness.
• Your comma usage throughout is... thorough. Many sentences suffer from choppiness because of all the comma-separated clauses. I bet you could lose 30% of the commas in the prose and have a smoother read.

• Example: "In 2009, a genetically enhanced, nine-year-old female supersoldier designated as X5-452 (Geneva Locke) escapes, along with eleven others, from a secret U.S. government institution, codenamed Manticore, where they were born, raised, and trained to be soldiers and assassins." There are eight commas in that sentence.
• Better: "In 2009, a genetically enhanced nine-year-old female supersoldier designated as X5-452 (Geneva Locke) escapes along with eleven others from a secret U.S. government institution codenamed Manticore where they were born, raised, and trained to be soldiers and assassins."

• I'm not convinced the "Alleged plagiarism" section needs to be here, and may be undue weight. The only two working secondary sources in this section at to Argentine sites publishing direct interviews with Trillo and Meglia, who I am sure were eager to push the subject and national news sites probably loved writing about an American mega-director possibly ripping off an Argentine. I'm not sure that either source even meets WP:RS.

Not bad overall but I think it needs some copyediting for chopiness, evaluation of the lead and Plagiarism sections, and a source review for reliability. --Laser brain (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Laser_brain. Once you pointed out the amount of commas in the plot section I must say I was a bit embarrassed. I didn't write that particular sentence you mention (here is the article before my first edit [27]), but not only did I not pick up on that neither did either of the two reviews by the Guild of Copyeditors. In any case I have now removed 20 odd commas and I think it reads much better.
• I think you're right about the plagiarism section; I just left it in there after overhauling the article but now that you mention it I can attest that after spending considerable time searching for sources on all aspects of Dark Angel no coverage of this alleged plagiarism was found outside of the two sources already used in the article, one of which was dead and had to be archived. I have now removed that section and accordingly the sentence about it in the lead.
• I've expanded the lead somewhat; let me know what you think.
• I am eagerly awaiting a source review. Freikorp (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The changes look good! I am going another read-through today as well as a source review. Comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Laser_brain. Are you still able to do a source review? No worries if you don't have the time, I only ask as I think it's the only thing this review needs to be promoted now. Freikorp (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am so sorry for the delay, Freikorp! I will update my review hopefully today. --Laser brain (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Laser brain

• Fn 6, page ranges should be unspaced en dashes
• Fn 58, it looks like part of the URL got linked in a strange way?
• Fn 76, what makes this a reliable source? I understand GamePro is a notable publication, but this review by "Miss Spell" looks like it might be user-submitted. I'd rather have a bit better coverage and sourcing to the game's reception. If we can't find any notable reviews of the game, I'm not sure it's worth writing about other than to say a game was made.

No other issues noted. --Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Laser_brain, and thanks also for fixing Fn 6. I've fixed Fn 58 and have replaced Fn 76 with a more reliable source which also has more relevant comments for this article. Freikorp (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

• I saw Aoba's query re. the referencing for the novels. Although it's true that plot info doesn't require citations in WP, I would've expected referencing for anything beyond the plot, such as authorship and publishing dates. In a related vein, re. Cast and characters, though I understand not citing info on the characters that's gleaned from the shows themselves, casting info and anything on the development of the characters (real world stuff, as opposed to in-universe stuff) should ordinarily be cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose, and thanks for your comments. Just clarifying, can I keep the plot summaries of the 'related media' books if I only add a citation to the books themselves? Or is that too much detail using just a primary source? In the meantime I've removed the plot summaries and have just cited the two of the four books that don't appear to have any secondary coverage themselves to say they exist (see changes here: ([28]) though I do think the plot summaries added something of value to the article so I'd like to reinstate it if I can. I'd much rather see the article promoted though so I won't contest axing all of it if that's what you think is appropriate.

I must be missing something. What in the 'Cast and characters' section pertains to the real world and should be referenced? Is it the mention of certain characters that don't appear in the second season? I've found a source for one and will try to find sources for the other two if that's what your referring to. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I now have citations for all the characters that cease appearing in the series. Freikorp (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, tks for your prompt response. I wasn't suggesting that the titles and plot outlines of the books needed excision, just as long as the publication details (titles, authors, dates) were cited -- of course one might argue that the place for book plot summaries is in articles on the books rather than articles on the TV show, but if the books don't seem to justify their own article(s) then I guess no harm in putting them here.

I think things may have been confused because you have a Cast and characters section and then you have a Casting and filming subsection later. If everything about who played who and the comings and goings of cast members in the Cast and characters section is covered (and cited) in the Casting subsection then I guess no harm leaving it uncited in the first section -- you get me? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian Rose. So I've added the plot outlines back but now with citations to the material themselves.

The 'Casting and filming' sub section only contains information on Alba's casting, because she is the only cast member I could find detailed casting information on. It doesn't contain information on other cast comings and goings, as I could only find sources confirming that cast members came and left, without giving any real explanation as to why. Accordingly I thought if I mentioned comings and goings there I would just be repeating myself. Anyway I've now found sources for everything in the 'Cast and characters' section. Let me know if there are any outstanding issues with this article. Freikorp (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Tks, I think we're fine to promote now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 01:20, 23 January 2017 [29].

---

Russell family (Passions)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a fictional family from the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. The characters initially received negative feedback for their representation of an African-American family. They also received mixed feedback from cast members, with some praising their roles for expanding the image of African-American characters on television, while others felt they were not used to their full potential. The Russell family also garnered media and critical attention for its storylines involving various LGBT topics: Even though critical response was mixed to negative, the actors and show received several awards and nominations for the Russell family. I have worked on this article a lot over the past year, and I believe that it is comprehensive and covers all the aspects of the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

Support – as the GA reviewer. I'll also be glancing over the article and making any changes to it I find necessary (if that's alright with you). Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC).

Thank you! And of course, feel free to make any changes that you feel will improve the article (and this extends to everyone who comments on this). Hope you are having a wonderful start to your year. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Is there anything in the Passions novel that could be of use in this article? Carbrera (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Very good question. Too the best of my knowledge, the novel contains some very useful information on some of the specific family members (namely Eve Russell, T. C. Russell, and Vincent Clarkson. It can also be considered to have information about Liz Sanbourne if you consider the fact that she was absent in the show's original vision of Eve's family and later added in). I feel that this information is more appropriate for the pages on those specific characters and I want to try and keep a majority of the background and reception bits on things dealing with the family as a whole. The novel really does not go into any detail about the Russell family or the Johnson family (which is Eve's side of this family) that I feel would benefit the article much. Hopefully this response makes some sense, and thank you for the question. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I agree with your rationale but perhaps it could be mentioned in the "In other media and merchandise" section? Carbrera (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Thank you for the suggestion! I never thought about adding it there for some reason, and now it is super obvious lol. I have added a short paragraph to the section. Let me know what you think. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

Support — Couldn't find any major flaws with it. You can try to expand the critical reception section (find more reviews on it). Also, try to find more reviews after the initial reviews. Otherwise, the article looks quite solid to me.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thank you for the support and your suggestion. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find further reviews beyond the initial responses to the show from around the time it first premiered. Any of the reviews that I have found from a later time period either do not reference the Russell family or give them a passing mention. I will keeping looking for further information and will add anything if I can track more references down. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Anytime. Even if the review is about individual characters and not the family as a whole, it is alright to include such reviews.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: I am not sure if reviews on individual characters would be appropriate for this page. I would believe that those reviews would fit better on the articles devoted to the particular characters. I have included a little bit of information regarding the reception of the individual characters in the body of the article under their respective sections. I wanted to reserve the "Reception" section to the reception of the family as a whole if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good work on the article.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you again for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak

Lead appeared on the American television → "the" is overfluous here Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) core families in Harmony; they are characterized → better flow: core families in Harmony, being characterized Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Eve's vengeful, adoptive sister Liz Sanbourne; Eve's child with Julian Crane, Vincent Clarkson; Whitney's husband and Liz's son, Chad Harris-Crane; and Eve's aunt Irma Johnson. → This is not how semicolons are used; write like this: "Eve's vengeful, adoptive sister Liz Sanbourne, Eve's child with Julian Crane Vincent Clarkson, Whitney's husband and Liz's son Chad Harris-Crane, and Eve's aunt Irma Johnson. Revised. Not sure how that got there. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) in the series finale → in the final series I am not entirely certain what you mean here. "Series finale" is the correct term as I am referencing the final episode of the series. Also, remember that this show is an American show so the term "series" does mean the same thing as in the context of Australian, British, and a number of others countries. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) They also received mixed feedback from cast members → They also faced mixed responses from cast members (alternation) I have adjusted this my own way. I'm not a fan of the verb "faced" as it sounds just a little odd to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) announcement for Black History Month in 2003 → here you need a "the" It is not necessary for this. Black History Month does not need "the" in front of it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Chad Harris-Crane's affair with Vincent and subsequent confusion about his sexual orientation; Simone's coming out as lesbian to her family; and the revelation that Vincent was intersex. → all semicolons to normal commas Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Creation and development Amelia Marshall said the creation of seven African-American → use "confessed" here for alternation Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) in the series finale → same as above See above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Core family members and a respected doctor at Harmony Hospital → you need a "the" here The name of the hospital is literally "Harmony Hospital" (not that original lol) so "the" is not necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) In 2003, actresses Amanda Maiden and Kimberly Kevon Williams played Eve → use "portrayed" here for alternation Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Rodney Van Johnson from July 5, 1999, to June 19, 2007 → no comma here Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) saying that "I was used well" as Trey → better flow: saying that "[he] was used well" as Trey. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) forefront as "a new supercouple in Harmony" → unlink as aforementioned before Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) the first African-American, lesbian character → no comma here Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) is ... I can assure you we're not going to make light → ... to [...] Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Whitney Russell is the eldest daughter → isn't "eldest" a very old word? You may use "oldest" here if you want to I am not sure what you mean by this. I feel that "eldest" is still a good word and I feel that it is the most appropriate for this context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) he is later revealed to be the blackmailer, and serial rapist, of the show's 2007 → no commas here Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) who had been a Playboy Playmate ,one of the most successful → comma is not inserted correctly Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Valerie in thirty-four episodes of Passions → "thirty-four" to "34" Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) ninety-five episodes of → same as above Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Extended family Divins (the principal actor to play Chad during the storylines focusing on the character's sexuality) made a cameo → replace () here with two — approached with the role: "... there were → approached with the role, "[...] there were Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Image > costume → plural Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) sister of the late Warren Johnson → remove "the" here I think the "the" is necessary. Whenever I have seen this sentence construction, I have always seen "the" being used. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Eve and Irma did not speak for nearly twenty years. Eve paid for Irma to live → Eve and Irma did not speak for nearly 20 years, with Even paying for the latter to live Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) In other media and merchandise I think it would be better to name this section "Usage in other media...", but you can leave it as it is if you find that better Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) the achievements of African Americans → ... African-Americans Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) in commemoration of Black History Month → you need a "the" here See above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) and T. C. Russell in the series finale → same as aforementioned in the lead section See above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Reception Sheraton Kalouria said: "quite frankly, many of them → : to , Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Wow, GREAT article ;) Please ping me when you've solved my comments... Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your review! I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

With my comments being resolved, I support this nomination. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RussellsPassions.jpg: Non-free image, used to identify the topic of the article. That seems like correct use and licensing to me. I see that all points of NFCC are addressed by the use rationale.
• File:LizIrmaFamilyPhoto.png: Non-free image, used to illustrate some characters that aren't shown by the above image. That seems like a legit case of NFCC#8, but I wonder if one image could be used to replace the two currently in use, per NFCC#3. All other points of NFCC are met.

Good ALT text also present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review! Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: As a possible suggestion/answer to your comment on the second image, do you think that it would be best to replace the top image with the one from the following link here in order to reduce the amount of non-free content on the page. The suggested image would show a majority of the family, except for two characters. I admit that I added the second image to not only show characters not present in the current top image, but also to add some variety to the section (admittedly not the best reason to add non-free content). I believe that image use is fine as it currently stands, but I would appreciate your input. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  I think that would be digging and filling trenches. If no images showing every character at once exist, we may just as well use two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: That is what I thought as well, but I wanted to clarify with you to make absolutely sure. To the best of my knowledge, there are not any images showing all of the characters at once since Irma was a relatively minor character with limited appearances and promotional images and Vincent was a relatively late addition and it appears that they were not doing group promotional images as much when the show was wrapping up production. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Source review: All the sources appear to be reliable, but there is something missing. All references must have links. Do it and I will make it pass. Ping me since I am in a wikibreak.Tintor2 (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for your review. Just for clarification, some of the references will not have links. I have included specific episodes from the show and some offline sources as references (such as Reference 22), which cannot be completed through links. I believe that everything else has a link already, but let me know if I am overlooking anything (I have been working on this article for a rather long time so there is a high likelihood that I am missing something). Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, compare ref 5 with 4. The latter has wikilinks whereas the former does not have them.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Oh! I'm stupid. Thank you for the clarification. I will correct those either by the end of tonight or tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Just finished adding wikilinks to all of the references, with the only exceptions being for things that do not have Wikipedia pages. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I pass it. Good luckTintor2 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

Reading over the lead and spotchecking the main body, I think this needs a copyeditor to tighten the prose; for instance:

• "The Russells are one of the four core families in Harmony" -- don't assume prior knowledge of the characters or series; I'd expect something like "in the fictional town of Harmony" (plus the state if it's given).

• Revised. There is not a state given for the town other than it is a Northeastern state that used the death penalty at the time of the show's airing. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• "They also been praised by the cast members, while Rodney Van Johnson felt they were not used to their full potential." -- "They have also been praised"? Also I'd have thought a more emphatic "but Robert Van Johnson..." was appropriate.

• Revised. This was my fault, as I recently added over the past week without revising it again. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• "After the program moved to DirecTV, Vincent's storylines focus on his plan" -- would've expected us to say "focused" to continue with the past tense established by "moved".

• I revised it according to your suggestion to avoid the mixing of tenses. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

These are just things that caught my eye during a very quick look, so I'd like someone to go through the whole article. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Thank you for your comments! This has actually been copy-edited a few times since its original expansion last year, but it always good to get another set of eyes. I have attempted to do some minor copy editing of my own and have altered a few things, but it would be more beneficial to get someone new as I have been so close to this for roughly a year now that I am most likely missing some very obvious errors. Hopefully, a user will provide a more prose-based commentary/review. Thank you again and let me know if there are any more glaring errors. Aoba47 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Just wanted to let you know I think the prose has been tightened and greatly improved due to the help of Mike Christie. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

• The list of the four additional characters given in the lead is confusing because the relationships themselves are confusing; it took me a few seconds, for example, to be sure that "Whitney's husband" applied to Chad and not Vincent. I'd suggest making this clearer by separating each character description from the next with a semicolon, and starting each character description with the character's name: "four more characters were added to the family: Liz Sanbourne, Eve's vengeful, adoptive sister; Vincent Clarkson, ...; Chad Harris-Crane, ...; and Irma Johnson, ...."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "The characters initially received negative feedback for their representation of an African-American family. They also been praised by the cast members, but Rodney Van Johnson felt they were not used to their full potential." Looks like you're missing a verb in the second sentence; should this be "they were praised"? I don't think "also" is needed given that the opinions are different to the preceding sentence; and I'd suggest saying who Johnson is as the reader doesn't know yet that this is T.C. Russell.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• You might consider putting a little table in just after the lead with the names of the characters and names of the actors that portray them; that would be helpful for a reader unfamiliar with the show.

• Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I changed the format to shrink it and move it to one side; just a matter of taste but I think it looks a little better that way. Please revert if you prefer it the way you had it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that it looks better that way. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd cut "An official press release from NBC said the Russell family had "a strong presence in the community" of Harmony"; press releases can be useful for some things, but it's not independent and doesn't say anything you don't already cover.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "She also compared the relationship between Julian and Eve to that of Romeo and Juliet": suggest cutting this; it's such a casual mention and doesn't really tell the reader anything.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'Despite being one of the original 25 contract cast members, Johnson criticized the show for not properly using his character, claiming that he was often relegated to the role of "the angry black man."' I don't see support for this in the source; am I missing something? Johnson uses that phrase, but I don't see anything about his character being misused. In fact I wonder if you're missing a source here; I also don't see the retconning mentioned, or the mention of Trey Stark, or any mention of stigma (though he does say being in soap opera led people to pre-judge his acting ability).

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "the chemistry between Ross and Masters": who is Masters?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Kerr later described the week of auditioning and two screen tests to be formally cast in the role as an extremely quick process": I don't see anything in the source supporting this.

• Revised the source. It comes from the following sentence: "It was very fast for me. Audition, two screentests, and booking all in a week. No long night waiting! "Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "She viewed the storyline in which Whitney became a nun as allowing her to approach the character from a different perspective": this seems to be based on this in the source: 'One of the things Kerr likes about this storyline (called “Passions Vendetta”) is that she gets to play Whitney in a new and different way. "I get to be like my character in that I don’t know what’s coming up next either."' I don't think this is a good way to paraphrase this; there's nothing about her perspective in the source.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "His actions are later clarified as a result of Alistair Crane's orders": this doesn't mean anything to me, and I suspect wouldn't mean anything to any reader who hasn't watched the show.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Vincent teams up with Viki Chatsworth to kill everyone in Harmony at the rehearsal for a mass wedding between Luis Lopez-Fitzgerald and Fancy Crane, Noah Bennett and Paloma Lopez-Fitzgerald, Miguel Lopez-Fitzgerald and Kay Bennett, and Edna Wallace and Norma Bates." Does this really mean everyone in Harmony -- everyone living in the town? Also, is it necessary to list all eight names? It's a long list; can we just say "at a mass wedding for four of the show's couples", or something like that?

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Do we need the list of six African-Americans in the first paragraph of "Usage in other media"? I think you could just make this "to celebrate the achievements of African-Americans in commemoration of Black History Month".

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The quote from Kalouria in praise of Passions' diversity in that paragraph isn't a reliable source for that sort of thing, since she's commenting on her own show; I think it should go.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Accolades section needs a bit of work; the sentence starting "The award was given..." follows the mention of two awards; I soon realized that this is because it was one award, given twice, but that's not immediately clear.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them and made the appropriate changes. Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Reading through again, a couple more points:

• I see you use the quote from Johnson about "this thing is going down" twice; I'd cut it from one or other place you have it.

• Revised Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• You also mention the "new supercouple" quote twice.

• This is probably very obvious so I apologize for this, but I can't for some reason find the repetition in the quote so if possible, could you point out where this quote is repeated twice? Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  My mistake -- it was two different "supercouple" comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• No worries and thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• "she is referenced through her letter to Kay before her marriage to Miguel": who marries Miguel? Kay or Simone?

• Revised Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Thank you again for your review. I have addressed all of your points. Let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Aoba47 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  I've struck everything above. I'll do another read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

One last point:

• 'Media outlets' questions about the nature of Liz's exit arose from the slashing of the soap opera's budget by "a reported $4 to $5 million" to secure its renewal': The given source gives the dollar figure, but says nothing about Liz. Do we need this sentence?

• @Mike Christie: Good point. I added this sentence to provide some context to the previous sentence, but I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  OK; that was the last issue. I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! As always, you have helped to improve the article a great deal and be a better contributor on here. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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, 22 January 2017 [30].

---

Red-throated loon

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the red-throated loon (diver) — the world's smallest loon, found throughout the northern hemisphere. Since this bird breeds primarily in the High Arctic, most of our readers won't have encountered it in all its breeding plumage glory, but it's pretty common along populated coastlines (and major inland waterways) further south in the winter. The article is one I've honed over a number of years, and I think it's ready for promotion. I look forward to any constructive criticism you can provide! MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

• Referencing system is inconsistent in an inconsistent way (that isn't supposed to be a joke; there are perfectly reasonable ways to be consistently inconsistent). There are only two books listed in the "Sources" section. meanwhile, there are books, journals and other media listed in the <ref>-style "Notes" section. Well then, you might assume that the books given in Sources are only those that have been cited more than once. But that is not the case; on casual inspection, I see at least Sibley Guide to Birds and Birdwatcher's Handbook cited more than once. <insert crankiness> I personally would prefer to see all books in the Sources section (and all other sources, too)</cranky>, but at least something a bit more consistently inconsistent should be attempted.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, it has nothing to do with the number of citations. The two books listed under "Sources" are those in which the Loons chapter is of considerable length — i.e. if I just put a page range there, it would likely be unnecessarily tough for people to verify the information. If you look in the top section, you'll see that there are links to those book sources with individual page numbers. Books in the top section (i.e. NOT the Sources section) have information on only one or two pages. I can certainly put all books in the top section, but that wouldn't allow me to indicate the individual page numbers on which information is found. What do you suggest? MeegsC (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Certainly leave the journals and other media the way they are; changing them would be an onerous burden. I see 14 books (or ISBNs, anyhow) in the "Notes" section. Arguably, perhaps, moving those 14 down below would not be a life-threatening task. But your mileage may vary.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Changing everything wouldn't be an onerous burden. I can certainly move all the references to the "Sources", by just removing the separate section! If I put the now-separated books in with the rest of the references (and call them all "Sources" rather than "References", if I'm understanding your suggestion), do I then just provide the whole book chapter's page range rather than individual page numbers for the various bits of information I've referenced? And does that really help the reader? I'm guessing that I'm not completely understanding your complaint. MeegsC (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes it would be a burden. It's not just changing headers; it's also changing formats. For example, if you move the full reference in Note 6 "Johnsgard, Paul A. (1987). Diving Birds... etc." down to the Sources, you'd have to leave behind a short reference "Johnsgard 1987 p. xxx" in its place. [I just noticed you don't have page numbers for Johnsgard, btw]. Doing that for 14 books would be a genuine headache, certainly, but perhaps not so much as the heat death of the sun. Doing it for 60+ other references, though, might spark depressive tendencies and excessive alcohol intake. I'm open to suggestions, though.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Ah! Okay, now I understand. Well, I'll start with the books, and then move on to the others. Would you suggest individual page numbers for journal articles too? MeegsC (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  Wait! I don't suggest you "move on to the others", unless you have a preternaturally high pain threshold. Here is one example of what I meant in my very first comment when I said "there are perfectly reasonable ways to be consistently inconsistent". The journals are all consistent with each other as they stand now, but the books are not consistent with each other. I am certainly not insisting that you must make the journals consistent with the books (though i would have preferred it that way from the beginning). I am only wanting the books consistent with... the other books. So books would be internally consistent, and journals and other media would be internally consistent, but books would not be consistent with all else. Do you see what I am saying?... I'm saying "Only change the books, preferably by moving the 14 in the upper section down to the lower, and making corresponding format changes."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Lingzhi:, I've moved all the books into the Source section, and added page numbers for the Johnsgard citation. MeegsC (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gavia_stellata_repartition.png: the source file has been speedy-deleted from Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: I don't know what this means. What do I need to do? MeegsC (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  This image was based on one on Commons that has been deleted. These are the possible reasons that might have happened - if it was any of 1–6 this image is likely non-free, if it was one of the others then we just need a source. I'd suggest you start by contacting an admin on Commons, directly if you know one or via their admin noticeboard, to ask for the specific reason the file was deleted, then we can go from there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, I've posted the question at the admin noticeboard on Commons. MeegsC (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: the reply was Hi, I don't see any valid reason why it was deleted, let alone speedied, so I restored it. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, then we'll just need a source for the data reflected in the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Cas Liber

This article has shaped up nicely. Just double-checking....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ranging from 55–67 centimetres... - ok should be "to" instead of ndash. I changed it thus unless you want to do something else...

I just realized we haven't mentioned that diver was English and loon was American - and also which is the IOC official name.

I took a look at that—the IOC has it has the Red-throated loon. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added this information, with references.MeegsC (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Looks pretty good so far, I'm going to post more stuff here when I am done reading the article. Just looking over it though, the thing that stands out is the fact that you are inconsistent in your usage of "to" and the em dash for ranges. As I said, I will look at it more in-depth a bit later. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pretty sure you could remove a semicolon in "which descends slightly in pitch and lasts about a second; due to strong harmonics surrounding the primary pitch".

  The species also has a short wailing call – aarOOao...aarOOao... – which descends slightly in pitch and lasts about a second; due to strong harmonics surrounding the primary pitch, this meowing call is more musical than its other calls. These are two separate, but related sentences – hence the semi-colon. I don't think it would be grammatically correct to remove it. MeegsC (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, again, I missed the last part of the sentence. It makes a lot more sense now... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Pretty sure that you need to remove an oxford comma in "Primarily dark brown to dark grey above, it is slightly paler on the sides of its head and neck, as well as on its throat, chest, and flanks, with a pale grey lower breast and belly," so it is consistent.

  I'm not sure where you're suggesting I remove a comma; this looks right to me! MeegsC (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Per MOS:OXFORD, you should remove the comma before "and" and after "chest". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly add a hyphen to "In flight, when passing conspecifics or circling its own pond, it gives a series of rapid yet rhythmic goose-like cackles - kaa-kaa-kaa or kak-kak-kak, at roughly five calls per second."

  I made this an en-dash instead of a hyphen. MeegsC (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly add an "and" in "However, in certain light conditions, at certain times in its moulting cycle or at greater distances".

  Not sure where you're suggesting an and. However, I did add a common before "or". MeegsC (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry, I missed the or. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the behaviour section, the articles states, "It is the only species of loon able to take off directly from land," yet it also states, in a picture that is also in the behviour section, "Among the loons, the red-throated loon is exceptional in its ability to take off from very small bodies of water." Explanation?
• Not really sure about this sentence, "Numbers counted in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service surveys in Alaska show a 53% population decline between 1971 and 1993, for example, and counts have dropped in continental Europe as well."

  Changed to ...and survey count numbers have dropped in continental Europe as well.

• "Because it tends to migrate close to shore—generally within 20 kilometres (12 mi) of land—it may be detrimentally affected by the construction of near-shore wind farms;[48] studies indicate a high level of avoidance of wind farm areas, though deaths due to direct strikes with the turbines appear to be uncommon." - How uncommon?

Those are all my nitpicks, it looks pretty good otherwise though. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extra comment: It seems that the use of en dashes or em dashes is inconsistent. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have just mdashed them all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - It looks like it is good to go, although I do have a slight problem with the use of to and then the em dash, but it is grammatically correct to do what you did, so it is fine. I just don't like the look of it. Anyways, it is good to go. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

This looks very good.

• I'm not a fan of using a master's thesis as a source

  Casliber found this one. He's been through this wringer a lot more regularly than I have, so I'll defer to his experience! MeegsC (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, generally when I have found theses, the material often ends up in a subsequent paper that is published in a journal. But unfortunately this is not always the case. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship does not preclude us using them, and the material it sources is not extraordinary, which is why I felt okay using it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention that they have webbed feet (palmate feet - 3 forward facing toes connected by webs and a rear facing toe -as all Gaviidae - Cramp p.42)

  This information is already in there! It's in the description section. MeegsC (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry - I missed it. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• What colour are the legs and webbed feet?

  Added this information — plus eye colour, which was inexplicably missing. MeegsC (talk) 02:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You now mention the eye colour three times in the description section: "Its irides (sic) are carmine-red to burgundy in color" - "and the iris is reddish." and "Its eyes are reddish-brown," - this seems slightly excessive :) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Okay, removed one. The "reddish-brown" refers to youngsters, so I've left that. MeegsC (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• At what age do they first breed? HBW alive has Sexually mature at 2–3 years. Cramp p. 49 has unknown but probably 2-3 years. BTO has 3yr
• Perhaps mention that the full adult plumage is only obtained in their 3rd year (Cramp p.42)
• Perhaps add that the eldest/dominant sibling is highly aggressive. If food in short supply only the dominant receives food. It is rare for both chicks to survive. (Cramp p.48 top left)
• The distribution map indicates that birds breed in Japan. The HBW alive map doesn't show this.
• The map should indicate that some birds breed in Scotland - BTO has 1300 pairs in 2006
• Arbitrary but WP:BIRDS suggests placing Food and feeding section after the Breeding section

  A good number of our current FA bird articles have the food and feeding section first; I'm tempted just to leave it where it is.

• byproduct is usually hyphenated

  Huh. The Oxford English Dictionary shows no hyphen, but Merriam-Webster does. Perhaps it's a regional English difference? MeegsC (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Feeding section and the Breeding section both discuss feeding of the young. eg "For the first few days after hatching, young red-throated loons are fed aquatic insects and small crustaceans by both parents." vs "Both parents feed them small aquatic invertebrates initially, then small fish for 38–48 days." Perhaps better to combine in the Breeding section.
• "small fish for 38–48 days" - but probably not small for the whole period - Cramp p.46 states that the young eat like adults after 28 days.
• Note that Cramp p.48 top left has "carrying on back rare."
• Ref 61 "Red-throated Loon – BirdLife Species Factsheet" - broken link

  Fixed. MeegsC (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 62 Leighton, F. A. (2007) - broken link

  Fixed. MeegsC (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

I've read through Aa77zz's thorough review above, and i can't see anything I want to add to his comments. Nothing looks like a deal-breaker, so I'm happy to support now in anticipation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi MeegsC, seems like a long time between drinks at FAC for you so, just to keep you on your toes, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we promote this. One of the reviewers above might be able to do it, or you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector is clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Cas Will be back to real internet tomorrow, so will be able to address remaining issues... MeegsC (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Formatting consistent. I sentence-cased all the journal titles as MeegsC has difficult access. two-digit page ranges, authors, locations all consistent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 9 - used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 36 - used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 47 - used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 73 - used once - material faithful to source. not a great source RS-wise but material uncontroversial and straightforward. And helps article be comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

i.e. happy with spot checks etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:57, 22 January 2017 [31].

---

Mangrove swallow

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a Central American swallow. I have been working on this article for a good amount of time, and I believe that it meets all the criteria for FA status. Please leave suggestions so I can improve the article. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now:

I'd make the lead into two paras not four - looks too choppy as is.

The feathers transition from its most green when fresh to blue with wear. - I think the grammar of this sentence needs fixing

The mangrove swallow is a seasonal breeder, laying two broods every season. Its breeding season is about five months - lots of seasons here. I'd also add that the first segment is obvious and redundant. Could trim to something like "The mangrove swallow lays two broods over its five month long breeding season"

Mangrove swallows forage close to their nest when they are foraging for the nestlings. When foraging for nestlings - could trim a "forage" here too I suspect...

The new genus Tachycineta was created for this group of swallows by German ornithologist Jean Cabanis in 1850 - sounds odd given the swallow wasn't described until 1863....

Thanks for the review! I made the lead into 3 paras, but not 2 like you suggested because I felt that the description of the swallow and its status/predators and parasites wouldn't go well together. I fixed the grammar part, and I removed a few occurrences of season. I also trimmed down the 2nd para of the breeding section. I fixed the genus thing to make it sound better also. Again, thanks. It took me a few days to get to this, I guess I am addicted to Homeworld. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the lead from 3 paras to 2 now. It took a bit of time to think of how to do it, but I eventually did it. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(Update) - I changed the lead back to 3 paras, but I expanded the lead a good amount, so hopefully it won't appear choppy. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

See para 2 in lead - generally keeping to singular (like this) is good for flow.

Look, not looking too bad. Need to take another look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see another other prose issues jumping out at me nor gaps in information, and there doesn't appear to be a huge amount written about this species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Disclosure: I am a significant contributor to this article. The text is probably as comprehensive as is reasonable for this little studied species.

• My main issue is the lack of number consistency. The lead starts singular, but is plural by the second sentence, then back to singular in the second paragraph. Diet is half singular and half plural. Please go through an make everything consistently singular
• Just a suggestion, which you can ignore. In the last para, you could write the range as 3.17 million square kilometres (1.22 million sq mi), which I think looks neater, {{convert|3.17|sqkm|sqmi|disp=preunit|million }}

In 24 hours, I'm going away for a few days, so i won't react to your responses until I return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I checked again for number consistency, hopefully I will improve that next time I contribute. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support, that looks OK now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• The three images in the article are fine in regard to licence and sourcing, but I'm thinking the article seems a bit empty? Nothing else on Commons[32] that could be added? For example, you haven't shown how it looks from the front, but we do have photos of that[33]. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  I added the picture that you suggested, but, other than that, the rest of the photos are redundant in my opinion. Thanks though! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice, with such vertically long images, it can be a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, like the left one here:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

• The image used for the Infobox is an unfortunate choice in that weirdly one cannot see the black colour of the wings.

  Should I replace it?

There isn't a lot of choice on commons. I've created a tighter crop of File:Mangrove Swallow.jpg that is used lower in the article but the quality is poor. The hand-held bird File:Mangrove_Swallow.JPG is sharp but doesn't clearly show the supraloral white streak. (note the subtle difference in the file names) Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead *Although the two sentences on breeding in the lead follows on from a statement on the breeding range, I think it would be much better to put the breeding section after the description - as is done in the body of the article. The present order gives undue emphasis to breeding. *"appears in three species of Tachycineta: the violet-green swallow,..." This is only mentioned in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the text in the body of the article. *It is worth adding to the description that the sexes are similar.

• "It is a seasonal breeder ..." - this seems banal - birds are usually seasonal breeders.
• "Its nests are frequently found to be 2 metres (7 ft) above the ground." - but the body contains the text "The nest is usually found to occur below 2 metres" - which seems much more likely.

"Its nests are frequently found to be 2 metres (7 ft) below the ground, near water." is obviously nonsense. I've recast the sentence. Please check to see that you are happy. Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

*Perhaps worth mentioning in the lead that the mangrove swallow nests in a hole or crevice. *"Although this is true,..." - this is editorializing - see WP:EDITORIALIZING Taxonomy and etymology

• Move link to Tachycineta to previous sentence.

  I actually already had a link to it in the lead, so I removed the link in this section and moved up the link as far as I could.

The usual practice is to have one link in the lead and another in the body. If the article is very long, some editors add further links in later sections. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

*"...confirm it to be a full species." perhaps "...indicate that it should be considered as a separate species.

Description

• " averages 13 centimetres" - but your source HBW has 11–12 cm. (I'm looking at the online version)
• The bill is not mentioned by the cited source - HBW.
• Better to mention the bill after the discussing the plumage.
• What colour are the eyes, the legs and feet?

  Sorry! I forgot to include that, they have it.

• "The adult's tail is, on average, 42 millimetres (1.7 in) long" - but later the article states that male length is 42mm and the female 40.8mm - so the average must be less than 42mm
• "average of 97.5 millimetres (3.84 in) for the male" - but your source Cornell - has "Male: wing length 96.8 (93.4-101.1)"
• Wikipedia articles generally do not include detailed measurements of bird parts - so all these numbers could probably be omitted - just state that on average a male bird has a shorter tail and longer wings.
• "Tumbes swallow is differentiated..." add article "The Tumbes swallow is differentiated..."
• "lack of white stripes above its eyes." -> lack of a white stripe above each eye.

Breeding

• "In addition, mangrove swallows are solitary." this might be better at the start of the paragraph.
• "when breeding and is very territorial." - isn't this similar to saying they are solitary? Add at the beginning?
• data is plural
• perhaps be clearer that the long breading season means that the "laying is not synchronous within a population." HBW
• "breeding synchrony index" - this is very technical and I don't think should be included in the article.

  I added a quick explanation of the term.

• Perhaps just give the average egg dimensions.
• Do both sexes incubate the eggs?

  I tried to find that, but I didn't find anything about that.

• Has anything been published on moulting?

  Nope, unfortunately, there is not much on this bird.

References

• Need to be consistent in use of periods after author initials.
• Ref 6 - Winkler and Sheldon 1993 - link is broken
• Re 11 - Ricklefs 1971 - this is a publication in the Auk and should be formatted using cite journal: Robert E. Ricklefs Foraging Behavior of Mangrove Swallows at Barro Colorado Island The Auk Vol. 88, No. 3 (Jul., 1971), pp. 635-651

I've added the year and removed the accessdate. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 13 - Quinn 1999. Need to add the first two authors: Moore, O.R., Stutchbury, B.J.M. - Quinn is the 3rd author. Also the article is freely available from SORA and it would be useful if this was linked (url=): https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v116n04/p1039-p1046.pdf

I've corrected the first name of Stutchbury: Birdget -> Bridget. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 14 - Dyrcz, Andrzej (2008) - this article was published in 1984 - not 2008.

I've corrected the year: the article was published in 1984 and not 1998. I also reformatted the article title. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I fixed most of your nitpicks, although I still have a few to go. One should probably note, although, that this species doesn't have much published on it. It would be nice if you could review it again in one or two days. Again, thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Update) On the subject of not having somethings sourced from where they appear sourced (i.e. in the description section), it is because I am putting the refs that I use for most (but usually all) of the paragraph at the end. Also, for some measurements, I can't find the averages (as in the egg dimensions). I will try and improve it all I can. I'm glad for your thorough review, and thank you so much for spending the time to do this review. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 14:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More comments

• I've made some changes myself. Please have a look at the differences. I think that the article needs further copy editing. I'm not very skilled at this but will try to help.
• "bulky cup nest is built in" - but the cited source, Dyrcz 2000, discusses the placement but doesn't mention the shape or the bulk of the nests.
• Perhaps mention more clearly that during the breeding season the mangrove swallow mainly feeds within its own large territory - see HBW family - General habits
• The word "usually" is repeated 18 times in this short article. (I've removed 3 occurrences) Try varying the vocabulary: normally, generally, typically etc.

- Aa77zz (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, thanks! I corrected all of the nitpicks now besides the infobox image one. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - all looks good now. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord note

RileyBugz, it looks like this is will be your first FA if successful? If so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use without close paraphrasing -- you can request this at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the reviewers above would like to undertake it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2017‎ (UTC)

• Earwig's tool looks clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• refs formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 1, material used faithfully. Used 3 times. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 6, material used faithfully. Used once Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• FN 12, material used faithfully. Used once. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 10:08, 21 January 2017 [35].

---

Millard Fillmore

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... perhaps the most obscure US president. Although Fillmore is often mocked today, in his time he was clearly no small person. For one thing, he started his career by winning as a non-incumbent three times against a Democratic Party with two of the most skilled politicians of the 19th century heading the ticket, Jackson and Van Buren. He went on from there, and there is far more than comedy show mocking to Fillmore.Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• but one beyond the powers of government, in contrast to Seward, who was openly hostile towards that practice.—not sure that "contrast" is right here, since it follows a statement about government rights but appears to refer to slavery
• The Fugitive Slave Act was a controversial part of the Compromise—it would help if the central issue was explained here. It's a key event and one shouldn't have to follow the link
• He helped to found the University of Buffalo and serving as its first chancellor. —grammar
• General William O. Butler his running mate—should it be "retired General" or are serving officers allowed to enter politics in the US?

They were then, apparently. Taylor didn't resign until early 1849. We're pretty loose on courtesy titles for former serving military.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Albany Evening Journal. —italics for Albany
• Captions and headings shouldn't normally have the subject's name unless it's necessary to avoid confusion, eg two people shown

Are we talking about "Plaques to Fillmore"? "Plaques" alone seemed confusing.

Thank you for the review. I think I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I made myself clear in the second bullet point. In the lead, you say that the Fugitive Slave Act was controversial, but I had to follow the link to see that the reason for that was that Free states had to return fugitives. It would have helped if there were a few words to that effect. What about "Memorial plaques"? (FWIW, if you really don't want to change that heading, it's not a huge deal) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made that clearer and made the change on plaques.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The fugitive slave bit may be obvious to US readers, but that helps non-Americans. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It's sometimes very possible to overlook the obvious while writing, as I suspect we all know. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Maile

I've been reading through this since yesterday. Just a few minor things.

Congressman

• "Until 1933, Congress convened its annual session in December" Is there a better way to start the sentence, perhaps with a footnote? I thought maybe you meant 1833, but did some checking through Wikipedia and got more confused. Wikipedia has all Congressional sessions being 2-year sessions running March to March until 1933. The 72nd Congress is listed as March 4, 1931 – March 4, 1933, and the 73rd Congress is listed as March 4, 1933 – January 3, 1935 like there was no break between 1931 and 1935.

• "his anti-slavery views were stronger than Fillmore's" - What were Fillmore's position on this? First mention, I think.

Tragedy and political turmoil (1853–1855)

• "The fact that he was in mourning limited his social activities, allowing him to make ends meet on the income from his investments." - not sure the limitations on his social life "allowed" him, as much his deriving income from investments was necessitated by his state of mourning.

• "Fillmore was not himself anti-Catholic" Contrast that with the quote under the "National figure" section: "after his defeat blamed it on "foreign Catholics"." I get it both directions, in that one was about immigrants and the other his local environment. But given the times we've lived through, Fillmore comes across like, "Some of my best friends are ... " when public statements contradict personal life. Is there a way to reword either of those?

I've cut this passage. Given how far away we are in time and the difficulty of knowing how he really felt, it's best to stick to what he did.

You're right about there being more to Fillmore than the public generally knows. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support - Well researched, well written, interesting and informative. A good read that gives us insight into a presidency that history often ignores. Good job. — Maile (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS

• File:Millard Fillmore-Edit1.jpg is A-OK to use
• I will assume good faith with the claims of own work used in File:Fillmorebirth.jpg and File:Fillmore House.jpg, but having these two in such close proximity with the same alignment seems overstuffed. Probably better to just use one or the other. I'd at least give them different alignments since consecutive left aligned images is repetitive (same would apply for consecutive right aligned images) within the article body.
• While File:Unidentified Artist - Millard Fillmore - Google Art Project.jpg is in free domain since it was made in the 1840s, it would be better to instead have something that has a known author/artist

I'd rather keep it as it is the best representation we have of how Fillmore looked in his congressional years.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:MFillmore-congressman.jpg is perfectly fine
• Not sure File:Grand Presidential sweep-stakes for 1849.jpg is worth including when Fillmore himself doesn't seem to be featured in it (though this would be fine for the pages of the candidates it does feature)
• File:Taylor Fillmore.png is also in public domain, but again, it's better to have pics with verified original authors/artists
• No worries about File:ElectoralCollege1848.svg
• File:Millard Fillmore daguerreotype by Mathew Brady 1849-crop.jpg seems rather dark. Could someone perhaps brighten it?

I can list it at the graphics lab if you like, but technical work on images is not one of my skills.

That would be great Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. They seem to work quickly over there, judging by last few requests.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:Henry Clay Senate3 crop.jpg, File:FILLMORE, Millard-President (BEP engraved portrait).jpg, File:Mfillmore.jpeg, and File:Slave kidnap post 1851 boston.jpg all look good. However, having the latter two of Fillmore in the same basic area with the same consecutive alignment again feels overstuffed
• I can't really see Fillmore himself in File:1851 Fillmore Boston MA USA GleasonsPictorial.png

It's what we have. I'm mildly more inclined to keep it than to ax it but will if you feel strongly.

I definitely would say ax it, though only because it's hard to tell where he is in the pic Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• His outfit in File:Portrait-MillyFillmore.jpg seems to blend into the background; try to avoid things like this
• Is File:Unnamedkk.jpg really beneficial here?

Cut the last two.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, lack of known authors makes me worried, even if File:Fillmore2.JPG is in public domain

Isn't it published before 1923 in the US?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it helps to know who exactly was the original creator (which clearly isn't the uploader) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing of concern for File:ElectoralCollege1856.svg
• I fail to see the benefit of File:Millard Fillmore. Waist length, seated - NARA - 530497.jpg, even if its author was known

It's similar to the lede photograph, but it shows how he looked in the Civil War era, which is what is being discussed. Again, my views are not strong on the matter but I'd keep it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

True. I personally would remove, especially since there's the statue photo right below it (again, try not to overstuff edges or corners with images) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I've swapped the statue with the obelisk shot, which breaks that up and also moves the statue next to where it is mentioned. On consideration, given we only have two photographs of Fillmore, I'm inclined to make every effort to keep them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• File:DSCN4470 buffalofillmorestatue e.jpg is claimed as own work. I'll assume good faith with this as well as I can't find any copyright concerns involving it.
• No licensing concerns with File:Millard Filmore Issue of 1938-13c.jpg or File:Millard Fillmore $1 Presidential Coin obverse sketch.jpg, but once again, two images with the same alignment in very close areas is overstuffing an area.
• Assuming good faith that File:Fillmore Gravesite, Buffalo, NY.jpg, File:Fillmore Home 2.jpg, File:Fillmore House NHL.jpg, File:Fillmore DAR.jpg, File:Fillmore plot plaque.jpg, and File:Fillmore obelisk detail.jpg are in fact the author's own work

That's all of them. I might come back later with comments on other aspects of the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get to these later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've done generally as you ask. I've made a number of changes, not all of which are catalogued above. See what you think. Your comments would be very welcome indeed, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely looking better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, I think I've addressed all your concerns, assuming the graphics lab performs as admirably as they usually do.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The graphics lab did quite well :). Images all set! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I fixed a couple of tiny errors in page numbering, but everything else looks OK in that regard. The sources are all of high quality, no problems there. The only thing that I would fix is that you're inconsistent in adding the publication locations in your Works Cited section. Other than that, this is good to go. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done that. Much obliged for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Other comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"Nathaniel Fillmore was not a successful farmer, and hoping his oldest son would learn a trade, apprenticed him at age fourteen to cloth maker Benjamin Hungerford in Sparta, New York," is quite a mouthful, and I'm pretty sure the comma after "New York" should be a period. "But Fillmore left Wood after 18 months" is a fragment. None of the words from "FANBOYS" (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) should be used to start sentences. "lock the nation's limited supply of gold money away from commerce,." has a stray comma You probably meant to say "Finkelman" when typing "Fillmore biographer Paul Winkelman" "In September 1850, Fillmore appointed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints leader Brigham Young as the first governor of Utah Territory. In gratitude, Young named the first territorial capital 'Fillmore' and the surrounding county 'Millard'." seems rather short on its own as a paragraph For "He was not yet done with tragedy: on July 26, 1854, his only daughter Mary died of cholera", Mary was already linked earlier, and I'm not so sure how I feel about "done with tragedy". Maybe try something like "He was further saddened by his daughter Mary's death from cholera on July 26, 1854" or "He was also saddened by his daughter Mary's death from cholera on July 26, 1854". "While in Europe, he met with Pope Pius IX in Rome. Fillmore carefully weighed the political advantages and disadvantages of meeting with Pius, and nearly withdrew from the meeting when told he would have to kneel and kiss the pope's hand. To avoid this, Pius remained seated throughout the meeting." also seems a bit short as a separate paragraph "He differed less with the Democratic candidate, former Pennsylvania senator James Buchanan; the two men had similar views on slavery"..... what did he and Buchanan agree on? Try not to have images leak into other sections. You can avoid this by moving them up in sections or placing {{-}} at the end so they remain more intact. I thankfully don't see any glaring issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Well, that's good. Thank you for the review. I've done those things. I've left the two short paragraphs as they stand, though, as they don't fit well into the other paragraphs and aren't worth expanding. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC) No problem. One last thing: Regarding "In 1819, he took advantage of a time of little work at the mill to enroll at a new academy in the town, where he met his fellow student, Abigail Powers, and fell in love with her", saying "his student" implies he was Abigail's teacher. Did you mean "his classmate", or did he in fact teach her at the academy? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC) But it says "fellow student". Doesn't that convey they were students together?.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC) In that case, let's go with "met and fell in love with his classmate Abigail Powers", which is less wordy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Done with a slight variation.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Support this is now worthy of becoming FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Greatly appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Coemgenus

Overall, an excellent article, as usual. I have a few comments.

• I think "Ways and Means" ought to direct to United States House Committee on Ways and Means rather than Ways and means committee.
• "Millard left due to abuse..." Does this mean the guy beat him, or just worked him too hard?

Both, apparently. I didn't want to get into it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, best left alone then. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• The "Congressman" section: this is a big block of text. I'm not sure if there's a painless way to break it up, but if so it would be an improvement.
• More later... --Coemgenus (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. I've taken care of those except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Weed had sought to get the vice presidential nomination..." Could that just be "Weed had sought the vice presidential nomination..." or is that too old-fashioned sounding?
• The popular vote: it might be worth writing an endnote explaining that not all states decided their electoral votes by popular election in 1848.
• "Abolitionists recited the inequities of the law..." I'm not sure "inequities" is right here. "Unfairness," maybe? Or did you mean "iniquities"?

"recited the unfairness"? Not sure that works. I'm phrasing it that way because what they say doesn't have to be as NPOV.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. There's something that bothers me about the text, but I'm not sure it can be remedied while staying within NPOV and all that.

• There is nothing else here I can see that needs improvement. I'm happy to support. Good luck with the rest of the nomination process. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil

• Support - Very impressive, especially wrt the depth and breath of research, the firm establishment of setting and historical context, an authoritative grasp of narrative, and the overall standard of writing - a joy to read. I have made some edits during a read through that you are free to revert. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Display name 99

General

• There are several instances within the article in which a period ending a sentence in quotation marks is placed outside of the quotation. On Wikipedia it is common practice to place punctuation that is not part of the quote, for instance, commas, or periods used to end a sentence but coming after a quotation which itself was not at the end of a sentence, outside of the quotation marks. However, I feel that should be different when a period is being used to end a complete sentence that is being quoted. Wouldn't that make the period part of the sentence, meaning that it should be placed inside the quotation marks along with the rest of it?

Can you be specific? I generally only include punctuation inside if it's a full sentence.

Wehwalt, sorry-I forgot about this. Let us take for example the first sentence under "Legacy and historical view", which reads:

"No president of the United States ... has suffered as much ridicule as Millard Fillmore".

This looks like a full sentence. Unless it isn't one, the period should go inside the quotes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's the ellipsis. I'm happy to go either way on it, but that's why I didn't put it inside.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life

• "the two quarreled when Fillmore earned a small sum by advising a farmer in a minor lawsuit." Why was this a problem? Did they have some kind of prior agreement that Fillmore wouldn't take any money? If so, this should be explained.

It's still an apprentice setting up shop against his master. That's frowned on in most professions. I don't know if it was specifically addressed; Snyder speaks of the two disagreed about whether Fillmore had the right to go "pettifogging" before justices of the peace.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Buffalo politician

• The last sentence says that he was active in the New York Militia. You might want to mention when he joined.

The sources cited don't say. I will research the matter further when I'm home on Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

None of my sources mention it. His letter of resignation (1830) states that he had joined some years earlier, but it was too much of a time and financial commitment.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's not entirely clear through what time Fillmore served in the New York Legislature. I first got the impression that he was elected in 1828. It goes on to say that he was elected for three-one year terms. The first sentence of the "Congressman" section says that he resigned from the legislature after the 1831 session-only two years later.

Elected in the fall but did not take office until January 1829, then 1830 and 1831. I'll tweak the language.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Election of 1848

• Have you any idea how Fillmore reacted to his nomination?

I don't have anything on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea to give the percentages of how much each candidate won.

Done.

Domestic affairs

• The article mentions that Dorothea Dix wrote to Fillmore advocating asylum reform, and that this began a friendship. Did Fillmore ever act on Dix's request?

She wanted his support in Congress. Her proposal did not pass, one reason she moved on to Europe. I'll clarify.

Later life and death

• Didn't Fillmore voice his opposition to the Emancipation Proclamation? If so, this should be mentioned in the context of his overall opposition to Lincoln.

Not as far as I know. The sources I can access from here don't mention it. I'll be home Thursday, the bigly traffic jam for the inauguration permitting, and I'll check more sources. Pierce tended to be the loudest of the ex-presidents, none of whom were very helpful to Lincoln.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything in any of my sources that says he opposed the proclamation. Finkleman says he opposed emancipation, but I think that's more general.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

Overall, the article looks good. I will be prepared to support it if these issues are properly addressed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. With the exception of the matters I need to research further, I've done or explained in all cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That looks good. Please ping me once you have dealt with the remaining matters. Display name 99 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Display name 99, I've responded to the remaining points.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. The article is comprehensive and well cited. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment

Promoting but I noticed a few duplinks using Ucucha's checker, so perhaps check those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 09:59, 21 January 2017 [36].

---

Grasshopper

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth

This article is about another major insect group. Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth have already brought this to GA status and we have recently done some fixes and expansions. We now feel it is ready for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support The advantage of having three experienced nominators is that the copyediting and nitpicking has been done before it gets here. Well done for taking this on and producing an excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the kind words, and best wishes for the day's festivities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support but please fix some dead links. I have fixed a little. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

All fixed and checked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Link on ref 60 times out. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably the archive is down for maintenance. Removing item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

I'm pleased to see this article at FAC. The article reads well and appears comprehensive but as I know absolutely nothing about insects I'm restricting my comments to nitpicks with the referencing. The reference numbers refer to this version.

• O'Toole 2002 in the Sources section is not cited and should be removed

Done.

• The article should be consistent in how author's initials are formatted in the reference: with or without a period and spaced or unspaced.

Period, spaced

• I suggest that the page numbers for Capinera 2008 in the Sources section are omitted so that Refs 36 and 43 can use the short format currently already used by Refs 37 and 67. Note also that Capinera is the editor and not the author.

Done.

• Ref 1 - Why is this Part 4? Mentioned by Google but not in book. Need to add edition=2nd

Done.

• Ref 5 - Don't link the title as not open access - the doi is sufficient

Done.

• Ref 6 - Why specify publication location here but not elsewhere? Add oclc=1514958

Done.

• Ref 11 - Remove title link as does not give access to article - doi gives abstract

Done.

• Ref 12 - Looks like a children's textbook. The link to the page doesn't work for me (in London). Why is this reliable? Worldcat doesn't have it and I'm not likely to find this book in a big library. I suggest you use another source.

Replaced desc and ref.

• Ref 13 - Title should be in title case. Page number?

Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 14 - Why is this a reliable source? An enthusiast family in Brisbane.

Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 15 and 16 - put in Sources and use short form?

Done.

• Ref 18 - The link is broken perhaps should be https://projects.ncsu.edu/cals/course/ent425/library/tutorials/internal_anatomy/respiratory.html

Done.

• Ref 19 - Unsuitable source - see Ref 12

Removed.

• Ref 25 - Link broken - should be http://jeb.biologists.org/content/63/1/53.1.long

Done.

• Ref 27 - Vol 19 (not 17) and link should be https://archive.org/stream/bulletinofamateu1920amat#page/n113/mode/2up This source is over 50 years old. Have opinions changed?

Most of it is unexceptionable; removed the last phrase. Updated ref.

• Ref 28 - Suggest you add doi-access=free

Done.

• Ref 29 - This is the text from the open access book cited in Ref 1. I consider the book a better source.

Done.

• Ref 30 - This is text from the Ref 1 book (not University of Wisconsin)

Done.

• Ref 31 - Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds - who published this? Details are here Perhaps include link to pdf http://www.invasive.org/publications/xsymposium/proceed/05pg349.pdf

Done.

• Ref 36 - Short format cite to sources?

Done.

• Ref 37 - Page -> Pages

Done.

• Ref 39 - Mention University of Florida as publisher.

Done.

• Ref 40 - Journal publishers are not usually specified for journals (and never with Ltd). Suggest unlink title and add doi-access=free to template

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 43 - Suggest short form - see at top

Done.

• Ref 56 - Dated January 9, 1998 and is authored by Tim Connell

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 57 - Suggest unlink title and add doi-access=free to template

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 58 - This is an open access article in a journal called Base (Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement). You need cite journal

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 59 - Why is this a reliable source? Who is the publisher?

Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 62 - Link times out

Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 65 - St John the Baptist - link is broken

Not now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 70 - Mention that the source is the United Nations

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 72 - Why is this a reliable source? This an enthusiasts web site written by André Dollinger see here

"The Ancient Egypt Site, composed by André Dollinger, is reliable and useful, and is the source of many of the assigned readings on the syllabus."of Texas Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced: "I do not have any academic degrees in Egyptology nor any affiliations with institutes of higher learning" - but at the very least the reference should acknowledge the author: last=Dollinger | first=André

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 82 - The author is H.W. Dickinson. What does 108–. GGKEY:XQY2HBWKP5Z. mean?

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked whether the sources support the statements made in the text. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Two more issues:

• Ref 1 (Pfadt 1994 pp. 1-18) is identical to Ref 27. They should be combined.

Done.

• Ref 29 "Life Cycle" is a web page that reproduces the text and diagrams from Pfadt's book (pages 11-16) see here. It would be preferable to replace the web page with a cite to the book as in Ref 1 (but different pages). If the book is moved to sources then the short format can be used for refs 1, 27 and 29.

Done.

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with the responses/actions re. your comments, Aa77zz? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose: Yes, I'm happy with the responses to my comments. My review was limited to the sources and thus I'm not in a position to support or oppose promotion of this article. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the first sentence, which would not mean much to a layperson. I would change the first sentence to something like, "Grasshoppers are insects of the suborder Caelifera within the order Orthoptera, which includes ....(and mention more notable relatives here) ."

Thank you, that does work better.

Grasshoppers are plant-eaters, sometimes becoming serious pests of cereals - I'd tweak to "Grasshoppers are plant-eaters, with some (a few?) species at times becoming serious pests of cereals"

Done.

If possible, avoid each para in lead starting, "Grasshoppers..."

Varied.

In evolutionary terms, the split between the Caelifera and the Ensifera is no more recent than the Permo-Triassic boundary - Would be nice to get an age in millions of years here. There must be a source that discusses this...

Done, and added a source in the Phylogeny section.

.. the oldest living group of chewing herbivorous insects - I think this is worth going in lead

Done.

Ok all looks good now. so all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• All files are usermade, from CC licensed websites/journals, or PD, and the sourcing looks proper. FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.

• No image of eggs and larvae?

We have an image of egglaying, and of six larval stages (instars). The eggs themselves don't look like much and I haven't seen a good image around. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• This vector image of a drawing used in the article might be better:[37] But as space seems crammed, I think the space that image takes could be better used by showing the above mentioned eggs or larvae.

Ok, replaced it. Those are the 'larvae'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• These two images also need PD US tags:[38][39]

The Ruysch painting has PD-Art|PD-old-100 which is "considered to be in the public domain in the United States". The Wytsman image, published 1903, is now labelled PD-1923. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but if you look at the tag, it says "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." So it seems something must be added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the two statements are part of the same tag! I think we're safe there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The file description for the hieroglyphics here[40] suggests that the image is based on PD sources, but it doesn't state which, and it doesn't mention PD.

All I can see there is about CC-by-SA; it says it's derived from File:Egyptian-snḥm.PNG which claims CC-by-SA and a GNU free documentation licence. I don't see PD mentioned anywhere. It looks to me that the licensing is fine but if we need to fix anything, please say what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The description credits "S. Rosmorduc (pictures), G. Watson (pictures), J. Hirst (pictures)", without specifying from what sources or who they are. They seem to be researchers. But in any case, the symbols themselves would be PD, so it perhaps needs to be stated, otherwise those researchers would be assumed to be the actual copyright holders, not the compiler of the image. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see, PD-ineligible since fonts and typefaces are not eligible for copyright under Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Added to image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• All looks fine now, I added the instar SVG, because the old one was still there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 10:16, 21 January 2017 [41].

---

The American Bible Challenge

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about The American Bible Challenge, a Biblical-themed game show that aired on Game Show Network from 2012 to 2014. The series was hosted by Jeff Foxworthy, perhaps best known for his career as a comedian and host of the highly successful Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? on Fox. The series received a Daytime Emmy Award nomination and broke several ratings records for GSN over its three seasons. I brought it up to GA status a couple of years ago and am now nominating it here. Any comments and/or feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved

The image of Jeff Foxworthy seems rather large in comparison to the text and the other images. I would recommend re-sizing this so it doesn't seem so out-of-place, or interrupt the flow of the article as much. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I am not religious so I may be incorrect about this, but would "biblical characters" be a more appropriate phrase rather than "Bible characters"? "Bible characters" just sounds odd to me, but it could be a correct phrasing of it. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I am a little confused by the beginning of the second paragraph of the "Main game" subsection. I understand the bit about the physical activity/stunt, but I am confused by the sentence about the questions, specifically the line: "with the same set of choices given for each character." Could you please clarify what you mean by "the same set of choices"? I believe this needs to made clearer as it seems to a central structure of the game show. The following sentence after this part also adds to my confusion as it names an example of a physical stunt, but the "question" and "answer" still seem rather vague. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I would rephrase the first sentence of the "The Final Revelation" subsection as it is somewhat awkward. The phrase "Before this game" seems a little strange, as it could read that it is transitioning to a completely different game rather than being the final round of the game as a whole. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) In the last sentence of the first paragraph of that same section, I would clarify "along with a physical copy of the Bible". Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) The phrase "After the 10 minutes are up" seems rather informal, so I would suggest revising with stronger word choice. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) The "many" in the phrase "many new staff members" is not necessary. Either state the number if known or just say "new staffs members" as the "many" does not add much to the sentence as it is vague and could represent a majority or a few depending on reader interpretation. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) I would separate the first sentence in the "Season 1" subsection into two: with the first saying the premiere date and the second about the ratings/records. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Please add ALT descriptions for the images (including the image in the infobox) Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Do you have any information on the show's cancellation, such as the reason behind it? This would be helpful, but I understand that this information may not be out there. You should at least say that the show was either cancelled or ended somewhere in the body of the article (most likely in the "Season 3" subsection). GSN is a (very) small cable network (though perhaps not as small as it was before Bible Challenge's success...), and because of this, their shows are usually just quietly dropped. The fact that new episodes haven't aired in nearly 2.5 years certainly implies production has stopped, but I'll do my best. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Bcschneider53:Understandable. You could use the following source here to support a small line that the show was canceled/ended in the 2013-2014 television season. Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC) There are just three reviews in the "Reception" section: with two that seem positive and one that seems negative, so I do not believe the first sentence of the "Reception" section is quite needed. If there aren't any more reviews to discuss, I would stay away from describing any kind of consensus or summary of critical reviews with only three that were known to have been published. This could be more of a personal preference, but it just seemed odd to me to make a consensus after three reviews so I wanted to draw your attention to this. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Remove "also" in front of "honored" in the same section. The previous sentences did not mention anything about the show winning a reward so it cannot also be honored if it is the first sentence that discuss the show's accolades. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Shouldn't the third paragraph of the "Reception" section be moved up to the "Season 1" subsection as it deals directly with the first episode? You already mention briefly something about the records/ratings there so it would be better to group the information together. Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Bcschneider53: Great work with the article as whole. If promoted, this would be the first featured article on a game show so that is very exciting. A lot of more comments are more minor notes/nitpicky questions about sentence structure and confusion on certain parts, but otherwise, I will mostly likely support this after you address my review above (I will give one or two more look-throughs after you address my comments just to make sure I caught everything). If possible, could you help me with my FAC for Love, Inc.? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so I understand if it is not possible. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thank you for your comments! I will take a look later this evening when I get home from school. I believe I added alt text everywhere except the infobox but I could be mistaken. As my user page notes, life is very busy for me right now but I'll try to make time to look at your FAC as well. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Bcschneider53: Awesome! And thank you for adding the alt text. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. The article was an interesting read, as I never heard about this show before this. And no worries, life is extremely busy for me too so I completely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: I believe everything here has been addressed; let me know after you give it a second run-through. Thanks again! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96

General

• I believe it would be benefical if app were to be changed to application to make the article slightly less casual

• Partly done; changed to mobile app with the direct wikilink. Is this okay? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Numbers between one and nine should be spelt out per MOS:NUMBERS

• Thank you for pointing this out, let me know if I missed any (if I did, free free to fix it yourself). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• Remove the names of publisher where it is very similar to the aforementioned works
• The Deseret News wikilink in Ref 17 is a dab link
• Same issue with New York Daily News in Ref 27
• NBC News should be italized and wikilinked
• Refs 3, 4, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35 and 37 should all be archived to prevent link rot

@MWright96: Thank you! I addressed the first two but have to step out for a bit. Hoping to get to the references later tonight, though archiving the links may take a bit, so I may have to push it back to tomorrow. Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@MWright96: Okay, finished the reference issues, except for two URLs that the Internet Archive would not let me save (both belong to The Futon Critic). Thanks again, and let me know if there is anything else I should do. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Article is comprehensive, neutral and well written. You want to use webcitation.org to archive The Futon Critic references but this does not stop me from lending my support to giving this article featured status. I have not spot checked the sources MWright96 (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:The American Bible Challenge Season 2.png: Non-free logo, which is appropriate licensing given the stylization. Using it in the infobox to identify the work seems fine for me. I am inclined to think that all requisites of NFCC are satisfied.
• File:Us mil Foxworthy 0411 cropped.JPG: Free image on Commons. Using it to illustrate the host in the section where this is explicitly discussed seems fine for me. Source links need to be fixed, but the license statement seems plausible to me - such circumstances would most likely be considered on-duty.
• File:Kirk and Tammy Franklin.jpg: Free image on Commons. It does not appear to be discussed in the section the image is in. Flickr file with plausible EXIF which has apparently been relicensed as "all rights reserved" later but that does not negate an earlier free license.

All images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I fixed the summary section for the Foxworthy image but it appears the link is dead and the Internet Archive does not appear to have an archived link available. Can the image still be used? If not, the only other alternative would be this image, which, in my opinion, is inferior to the current one given the amount of blackspace and the writing in the bottom right corner. I suppose those could maybe be cropped out though… --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• All three occurrences of the adverb "officially" are redundant and should be deleted. There are other occasions of redundant words ("conversely"), grammatical errors ("the Levasheff's son") and unwieldy sentences (the second sentence of the second paragraph is very difficult to comprehend).

• Mostly done; tried to clean up various sections of prose but not exactly sure which sentence is the "unwieldly" one. Which paragraph/section are you referring to here? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Why is the Washington Post's review mentioned third, after a tabloid and a religious publication? It seems to be the wrong way around: the most reliable critics should come first, whether they are positive or negative.

• Switched. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• In the review section there is no mention of the (generally positive) 2012 New York Times review by Neil Genzlinger, despite it being invoked at footnote 4.

• Not sure how I missed this, thanks. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• T. L. Stanley's article in the LA Times is not used. You wouldn't need to use all such newspaper pieces, but the article as it stands relies very heavily on GSN's coverage of its own programming. Syek88 (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Syek88: Thank you for your comments! I'll take a look as soon as I get a chance. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Syek88: Done with most of it, let me know if you find anything else that needs work. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I have now been through the article at least a half-a-dozen times, including since my comments above. After those reviews, and considering the comments of others, I am now happy to support. Sorry for the delay in doing so. Syek88 (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Syek88: I don't mean to pester but I don't want this nomination to stall out either. Is there anything else that needs to be amended before you are willing to offer your support? Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the second image can still be used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

A few comments:

• "GSN was then forced to bring in new staff members during a six-week period": why were they forced to bring in new staff members?

• Unclear. The book just says they brought them in as part of the changes. I've tweaked this section. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "GSN announced its development to the public at an upfront presentation": what does "upfront" mean here? To me it usually means "honest" or "straightforward".

• An "upfront" presentation is when a TV network previews series that are either in development, or have been given the go-ahead to air, for the coming year. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• 'he was "sold" on providing hosting duties': one performs duties, or provides services. Also I don't think you need the quotes around "sold" though it might be better phrased as "he decided to take on the role of host" or "he agreed to act as host".

• Fixed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Throughout the first season, the series became GSN's most successful original program ever": needs to be rephrased; the series became the most successful original program at some point in time; it didn't continue to become it throughout the season. Perhaps "By the end of the first season, the series had become"?

• Rephrased. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't done a source review, but I noticed the use of thefutoncritic.com; what makes that a reliable source?

• It's a television news source that I've used in several GAs that I've never had an issue with when it comes to intentionally giving out misguiding information. A previous reviewer actually requested that I use one of the Futon Critic sources, so I obliged. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• "While GSN never canceled the series, the show is considered to have ended after the third season given the lack of production since 2014": as far as I can see the source for this is just a listing that doesn't show any series after 2014. I think you should cut the "considered to have ended" wording; for all we know GSN is planning to bring it back next year.

• Rephrased. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: Thank you, Mike. Will get to this soon. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Mike Christie: I believe I've responded to each request. Let me know if anything else is needed. Thanks, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Everything above is addressed; as far as I can tell thefutoncritic.com is reliable though I'm not familiar with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber

• Earwig's copyvio tool clear.
• References formatted consistently.
• FN 10 - material faithful to source.

• @Casliber: Thank you! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• FN 29, 31, 36,37 and 38 - used once each. material faithful to sources.
• Quite a few primary sources used actually, but material that it is supporting is not controversial so not a big deal.

  I'd say that primary sources are only an issue if they are used for synthetic claims or those under purview of Template:AEIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 09:40, 21 January 2017 [42].

---

Sabre Wulf

Nominator(s): czar 06:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As part of the project to improve the articles of all 30 Rare Replay games, I present the 1984 game that started the Sabreman series. Eclipsed in history by the isometric advances of successor (and fellow FA), Knight Lore, this game was "much-beloved" in its own right. Though it is mainly known today as a colorful maze, it was among 1984's most popular games in the UK, topping sales charts and (possibly?) breaking sales records. The article is complete and has been vetted both through a thorough GA review and continual feedback from editors intimately acquainted with the game's nuances (I invite them to take a look: @J Milburn, Chaheel Riens, Ritchie333, and Diego Moya). After a close copyedit, the prose should qualify as "brilliant" for the FA standards, what would be my ninth. czar 06:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

Not mentioning the current debate on the talk page, but there is one thing that I'm finding frustrating, am not familiar with, and indeed don't think I've seen on any other pages that I routinely edit, and that's the format of the references. Why are they in this particular format? It seems a bit long winded to have to click on what would normally be a reference, but instead takes you to a "notes" section, and then you have to navigate to the relevant reference section itself. I'm more familiar with clicking on the reference number to be taken to the relevant entry in the "references" section, or to click directly on the popup and be taken to the actual reference itself. That doesn't seem to be happening on the SabreWulf page.

I assume that this is an accepted way of using references, as the article wouldn't be in the position it is otherwise - but is it the best way of presenting references and sources? It seems to be adding an extra step for no good reason. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The short footnote style is best for articles that use specific pages within a reference. For example, instead of having multiple full references for each page of an source, the short footnotes direct to a single citation. WP articles for older games often work better with short footnotes because they rely on page numbers instead of websites (which have no page numbers). See Knight Lore and WP:SFN for other examples. czar 17:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I should have clarified that I'd noticed a few of the other Ultimate articles use a similar method, but it just seems at odds with the commonest method of <ref>[blah-de-blah] here</ref>. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not at odds—it's a standard reference format. Poke around the other FA noms to see similar footnote situations czar 16:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I know, but it's not the commonest format, (<ref>Here be dragons wulfs</ref>) which is what I said.

Sabre Wulf Vs Sabrewulf

I see that Sabrewulf currently redirects to the Killer Instinct character. I suggest that it instead becomes a disambig with links to either the character, or the ZX game - possibly even the GB Advance game as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

That isn't related to the article (or the review) but I added a hatnote at the destination anyway czar 16:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: I think you, uh, forgot to actually post this to the FAC page. --PresN 00:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@PresN, oops. Thanks! czar 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Indopug

Comment the first two sentences of Reception have 17 references, making them very difficult to read. Can they be cut down or combined? It seems like a topic sentence that summarises the section; if that is so I don't think any references are needed because is referenced later on in the section.—indopug (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Indopug, all challengeable statements need direct citations, and there isn't a single source that makes the same point. If there is consensus to do so, the footnotes could perhaps be combined—just for that one sentence—into a single footnote that elaborates on the sourcing. It's a clunky solution but perhaps better than the successive footnotes. Sentences similar to this have not been an issue in previous video game FA Reception sections, though, as they're the only way of creating summative sentences when no source has done the work for us. czar 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps just group them inside a {{#tag:ref}} as done at Amphetamine (see the end of the first paragraph of the lead). Sizeofint (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sizeofint and Indopug, I think that's a decent approach—I did something similar czar 06:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Prose looks fine; I went through and made some edits personally. Images have appropriate rationales and licensing, and I think have decent NFCC defenses. References chosen seem neutral and appropriate for the subject matter; I spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 5, 16, 31, and 34, and didn't see any issues with missing info or incorrect/bad citations that would suggest further investigation was warranted. Don't appear to be any major missing gaps in coverage, so I'm happy to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sabre Wulf cover art.jpg: Non-free cover, which seems like the correct licensing to me. The non-free use rationale makes a good case and I am inclined to agree with it. Using the cover art to identify the game in the infobox seems fine for me.
• File:Sabre wulf 4.gif: Non-free screenshot. I am a bit uncertain on whether this use of a screenshot meets WP:NFCC#8 - I am not a videogame person but it looks a bit low-input.
• File:ZXSpectrum48k.jpg: Free image on Commons. Showing a photo of the platform (?) used to play the game on in the development section which discusses said platform seems fine for me. Marked as own work, no EXIF. Utilitarian object so derivative works copyrights probably don't apply.

ALT text seems OK for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the review, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. I updated the FUR purpose on File:Sabre wulf 4.gif to better fit the contextual significance. Masem explains the general philosophy of non-free video game screenshots at the bottom of this linked discussion, if it helps. czar 18:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the screenshot from GIF to PNG, keeping the existing rationales in each case. (And giving it a more meaningful name while I was at it.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Might want to fill in the remaining fields of the rationale then. I've also tagged the now orphaned file for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Why does this article not have a disambiguation? -> Sabre Wulf (1984 video game)

Because the 1984 game is famous (the primary topic) while the 2004 re-release was a dud. And the hatnote resolves any residual ambiguity czar 17:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. --JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• "The Spectrum release was included..." After having to stop and reread this, I feel it would be clearer if you just said "Sabre Wulf was included..."; the following sentence you could replace Sabre Wulf with "It" or "The game". --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I rephrased it to lose the passive voice czar 17:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Those were the only comments I had because I see no other issues. I Support. --JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

This is in excellent shape. Just a handful of issues:

• Crash predicted that the cost could have led to more piracy": I copyedited this from "lead" to "led", but then realized the tense doesn't really make sense. "Could have" implies Crash was discussing this much later, after it was clear whether or not the piracy had occurred, which doesn't fit with "predicted". Should this be "Crash predicted the the cost might lead to more piracy"? Or is the point that nobody knows whether more piracy occurred? In which case "predicted" is probably the wrong verb.
• "and the frustratingly narrow window in which sabre swings register as enemy hits": suggest "registered" to fit with the past tense used elsewhere to describe gameplay.
• 'Retro Gamer credited the Sabreman character as memorable both in name and appearance as an archetypal "8-bit hero"': not sure "credited" is the right verb here, and the rest of the sentence seems loosely structured, with two consecutive "as" clauses.
• "later released the side-scrolling platformer Sabre Wulf for the Game Boy Advance": suggest something like "later released a side-scrolling platformer also titled Sabre Wulf for...".
• "Retro Gamer considered Sabreman's recurrence to be": I think "reappearance" might be a better word choice than "recurrence".

Other than that I see no problems, and I expect to support once the points above are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, thanks for the review!

• I rephrased the first point to "Crash predicted that the cost would lead to more piracy." It was a prediction from 1984—no verification whether it came to fruition, but it is an applicable stance to mention. I think "predict" describes the magazine's position without making the call into some kind of "foretelling", which could imply correctness.
• Tense sometimes gets strange in game articles—the critics "noted", since the review was in the past (they don't continue to note), but the game is just as present as it was in 1984. So gameplay is usually described in the present tense, as the player would play it today (unless, of course, the game no longer exists in any extant form). But feel free to rephrase as you see fit
• Rephrased re: character memorability & recurrence

czar 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Struck all but two points above. On the tenses, I take your point about in-game description. Does that mean, for example, that it should be "Sinclair User particularly liked how the hippo enemies force the player to vary their...."? Currently you have "forced". The other unstruck point is because "Sabre Wulf" appears to be a link back to this article, but isn't, so "also titled" might be a helpful clarification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie, it doesn't sound right in my head, but I think you're right that "force" is the better choice. Should be good on both points now—appreciate it czar 21:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. The minor issues I was able to find have all been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 20:31, 17 January 2017 [43].

---

Jennifer Lawrence

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC), Snuggums (talk / edits) and Krimuk2.0

Jennifer Lawrence has impressively been the highest-paid actress in the world since 2015. She has also set a few records at the Oscars. The article was expanded by me and Krimuk2.0 (who unfortunately has retired) till the personal life section in May. Recently I decided to complete our work on it. We are ready to address any prose concerns - I believe there will be quite a few of them - you might have. Enjoy! – FrB.TG (talk) 10:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review and spotchecks

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN40 should have a time or chapter reference

The other reference covers everything FN40 was used to support the statement so I simply removed it.

• What makes Daily Express a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Replaced - many thanks, Nikki. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Support Excellently done, it reads very well. Just a few comments and I've made some hands-on edits you are free to revert if you do not like:

Resolved comments from Wehwalt

"After performing in church plays and school musicals during her childhood, a talent scout spotted her in New York City when she was 14." if you read this literally, the talent scout did the performing. "highest-grossing action heroine " what is an action heroine? I know she was quite athletic in The Hunger Games, is that it? Do we have a suitable article to link? "She also won" I might say "She has won". She is still alive and may win more awards. "continued to take on parts" I would say "continued to take part". They did not send her scripts to review and discuss with her agent at this point. " Lawrence's mother was not keen on allowing her to pursue an acting career, but she briefly moved to the city to let her read for roles." this feels a bit confused, with who some of the pronouns refer to unclear. I take it that Mrs. Lawrence moved to the city with Jennifer, I would say after the comma: "but temporarily relocated to the city with her so Lawrence could read for roles". Or some such. "Despite opposition from her parents, she signed on with the CESD Talent Agency, who convinced her parents to let their daughter audition for roles in Los Angeles." Well, wasn't parental consent needed to sign? "with a high score" Is a score needed to graduate high school? Was this on the equivalency exam, or are grades meant? The first paragraph of the 2011 section could usefully be split. "made her an ideal role model for youngsters" I would cut "for youngsters" first because I think it's implied and second because I'm not thrilled about the word. Also, role model is linked on a subsequent usage and not here. I'm not sure I see the need to keep stating the years on the various films, meaning subsequent, non-linked mentions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Many thanks for your suggestions and especially for your copyedits - much appreciated, as always. - FrB.TG (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you Wehwalt for the input and support :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

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

• "She has won three Golden Globe Awards: Best Actress – Comedy or Musical for Silver Linings Playbook (2012) and Joy (2015)": That looks like two awards to me.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Much appreciated, Dank :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba In the sentences about The Burning Plain in the "Career beginnings and breakthrough" sub-section, you seem to favor the positive review of by including the quote from it, while not fully expanding on the negative review in the same way. This may come across as a bit of a bias (I have never worked on an article like this so feel free to correct me if I am wrong). It may be best to add a brief phrase to the negative review explaining why they felt she was miscast (just a brief paraphrase of a few words on how they felt the transition fro Lawrence to Theron was unbelievable, a quote is not necessary). Let me know if this makes any sense. Explained. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC) I am not sure if it would be helpful for this article, but do you think you should add in a brief sentence following the X-Men: Apocalypse bits in the "Established actress" sub-section that Lawrence has publicly said she would not reprise the role of Mystique for future X-Men movies? I think she said that back in June or near that month but I see a plan to sign JLaw in the sequel. Let us wait until the filming for the next film begins. Makes sense, it is too soon to tell for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC) This is more of a note for you, but the parts about Passengers could use an up-date in the near future as the film will be released soon. I will. Thank you, just making sure. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Great work with the page. I only have relatively minor comments. Once my review is addressed, then I will support the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the suggestions. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Support: Very well-done article! Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• No audio files used, images only.
• All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
• Good use of captions that illustrate the image in a clear and concise manner for the reader. All images in the body of the article are appropriate for the sections.
• Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with the rest of the comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the review and support, Aoba47 :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Anytime! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Support on prose. I haven't spot-checked any sources. I did make several minor copy-edits. A couple of other minor points that don't affect my support:

Resolved comments from Moisejp

"During the film's production, Lawrence damaged some of her costumes, causing the wardrobe department to create a number of identical dresses.[63]" Actually I did look at the source for this one because I couldn't figure out the notability of this fact in the context of her career or even as a notable anecdote from the film's production. The source in fact seems to say that production was planning to make multiple dresses anyway, due to the planned spilling of champagne on the dress—so that should definitely be changed. But back to my original concern, is this sentence notable enough, or would it be worthwhile to remove? "Lawrence did not study acting and was not involved in professional theater.[9]" Possibly it's OK, but I was wondering about the nuance between "was not involved" vs. "has not been involved". "Was not" assumes that theater would necessarily be earlier in one's career as a way to learn the craft. That may often be the case. But other successful film actors decide to also do theater later in their career, which is a logical possibility, in which case "has not been involved" is more accurate. It's true that "has not been involved" loses some of the impact of supporting the idea that Lawrence jumped right into (TV and) film without formally learning the craft. So I'm not insisting on one or the other, I just wanted to confirm you have carefully considered this question. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Many thanks, Moisejp - both your points have been considered and addressed. Also, thanks much for your copyedits. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Same from me, Moisejp :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC) The article states she played the daughter of Mel Gibson and Jodi Foster's characters in "The Beaver". She did not. She played the girlfriend of their son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eindaeast (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Corrected, thanks. - FrB.TG (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC) Do you have any other comments, Eindaeast ? Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from HJ Mitchell

Comments HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Lead:

• The lead paragraph doesn't really tell us what she's known for. We get that she's an actress, she's made a lot of money, she's earned lots of awards, then we jump to feminism and philanthropy without learning anything about her acting. There wouldn't be any of the other stuff if it hadn't been for her acting so the emphasis should be on that.

• It does say she's "known in the media for being a vocal advocate of feminism and gender equality", but when it comes to film roles, I'm not sure what a good general description would be. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup, that sort of info can be found in the biographies of senior actors but Lawrence is a bit young for that. She is not particularly known for the types of roles she plays and things of that sort. I think for now it is enough just to discuss her success. - FrB.TG (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• On that note, the lead isn't huge for a 4,000-word article, so you've got room to play with. If it was "my" article, I'd keep paragraphs two and three pretty much as they are, move the politics and philanthropy to a fourth paragraph and maybe add a tiny bit more detail (notable feminist statements, charitable work done by the foundation), then use the first paragraph for a summary within a summary and to introduce her biggest claims to fame.

• Before I do that, do you find that any particular statements come across as prominent enough to be in the lead? I'd hate to just move that bit down only to have a really short fourth paragraph. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Me too, but it does look awkward jumping from money to feminism to philanthropy. I have shifted the philanthropy and politics parts to fourth para but I don't think there is anything more beyond that which can be added to the lead. - FrB.TG (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• It takes a moment to parse all the adjectives in "with the acclaimed role of a poverty-stricken teenager in the independent drama"; maybe lose "acclaimed role"?

• Scrapped that bit Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• "established her as the highest-grossing action heroine of all time. She has earned several accolades from her collaborations with director David O. Russell." That's a bit of a jolt; I'd expect more than half a sentence on her best-known and most successful role, but the prose jumps abruptly to different projects.

• Added some more and tried to make the change less abrupt Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• The three sentences about the awards need a bit of a rewrite; they seem very repetitive at the moment and "in the two aforementioned films and for starring as the eponymous inventor" is very awkward.

• If I can think of a better way, then I'll revise accordingly Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Now tweaked. Let me know if the revision is any better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• I was mildly surprised that Passengers wasn't mentioned in the lead, nor is anything about her public image.

• It seems a bit soon to add Passengers, but would you suggest for public image? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Early life

• "Jennifer Shrader Lawrence was born on August 15, 1990..." The normal convention is to cite the full name and DOB in the lead so you don't have to repeat it (this one of the exceptions to WP:LEADCITE)

• Not sure that's really a convention, but it looks incomplete to not have full name and DOB on first mention in article body Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• "she was spotted by a talent scout" on the street, or was she performing/auditioning?

• On the street Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Career

• "made her film debut with a supporting role in the independent drama film Garden Party" a few words about this role would be good; it's her film debut, after all.

• Added more detail Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's as far as the 2011–2013 subsection for now; more tomorrow hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments so far, HJ Mitchell. It might not be perfect at the moment, but the article hopefully looks better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• "something a little lighter" is that a quote from Lawrence herself? It's not entirely clear from the context; does the quote really add anything?

• It is indeed her own quote: "IGN: Is starring in a superhero movie an antidote to the seriousness of Winter's Bone? Jennifer Lawrence: I actually was thinking of it that way. Not this movie specifically, but kind of thinking about doing something a little lighter. I wouldn't call it an antidote, but I was definitely looking forward to it." In other words, she was looking for something less serious/dramatic. I have no objections to paraphrasing that if you'd like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already paraphrased, and I can't see any serious objection on that, as paraphrasing is always good. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Despite being an admirer of the books, Lawrence was initially hesitant to accept the part, as she was intimidated by the scale of the film, and pondered how it would affect her career" What do we mean by "intimidated by the scale"? Is there any more detail in the sources about why she was reluctant and what effect she envisaged on her career? Was she looking to go back to something more serious, for example, or just trying to avoid being typecast in a sort of role? Do the sources elaborate on how her mother changed her mind?

+'d grand to scale as in "grand scale". Hopefully that is clear. I read the source to see if there is anything worth adding about her mother convincing her to take on the film. It says that her mother told her not be scared by the film's size, but I don't think that is anything worth mentioning in fact that will just make the prose repetitive. Do you have any suggestion? - FrB.TG (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand what scale means but I was wondering why she was intimidated by this role in particular, and what her concerns were when she "pondered how it would affect her career". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are the other editor's (who is inactive here) words so I don't exactly know what he meant by this, but I have now used a quote from Lawrence, in which she expressed her concerns about taking on the project. But if it still does not make sense, an attempt can be made to remove this bit from the article. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I get the meaning and I don't think it needs to be removed (though I like your re-written version). I was just wondering if there were any more details. In a biography of an actor, it's interesting that they hesitated before taking on the role that gave them their big break. If the sources aren't there there's not much we can do, but it would enhance the article if we knew what Lawrence's thoughts were. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Any other recommendations for the article or does it now look FA-worthy? Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately that happens very much to the bios of contemporary actors like Lawrence. I often see in several bios that say certain actor was skeptical on taking up a role but s/he later changed his/her mind without clarifying why as the source does not do so. It is really an uphill task to write about them with the lack of literature and scholarly sources. I guess we just have to write from whatever we find. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sad but true :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the challenge with this sort of article. It's not easy to write a comprehensive biography of someone whose success is so recent, but we're about the only place you'll find one so it's that much more important. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• "An Empire writer considered..." Was this reflective of the consensus among critics? Is there anything more that's worth adding about Apocalypse? The prose just seems to jump a little from a negative review to gross takings.

I remember critics deeming Apocalypse the worst in the X-Men series and I can see why. It got really bad reviews so yeah you could probably say that. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• I read a few reviews of Passengers before I went to see it, and Lawrence seems to have attracted praise for making the best of a poor film. Don't feel obliged to use it just because I brought it up, but one that caught my attention wrt Lawrence was this one, which concludes "Lawrence is no passenger. She’s carrying this thing".
• "Lawrence is vocal about issues pertaining to women's rights." I'd have expected at least a couple of sentences about when and where she was vocal about issues that matter to her.

I believe the para does discuss that e.g. her speaking about gender pay gap and not supporting a party that does not support women's rights. Another one added that talks about her promoting body positivity among women. Hopefully enough. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing fundamental here, and I can't see any reason not to support once these minor concerns are addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. As I said above, it's not easy to write these sorts of articles but people come to Wikipedia looking for them so it's important work. My minor criticisms have been addressed to the extent possible; there are details that would enhance the article here and there, but we can only go with the sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your input and support, HJ Mitchell :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John

Not bad. First pass comments; too many quotes and weird image formatting. Will look further. --John (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any specific quotes you feel should be paraphrased? Sorry if there's too many at the moment, but I'm not sure which ones to change without there being too few. Do tell how the image formatting could be improved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The only quotes which should be kept are a very small number which are irreplaceable, ideally ones where the exact words of the quote have become part of the "story" of the subject. The others can be summarised. The upright images should be formatted by using the upright parameter. --John (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Implemented upright parameter into pics. Quotes will probably take some time to sort through. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Quotes are major part of biographies of actors/actresses. It is the media speaking about them and their words cannot always be paraphrased the way they describe films/actors using adjectives. The article has only quotes of film reviews, of her speaking about her films and thoughts, and some other ones from directors and media publications of what they think about the actress – nothing particular that other FA-class actors/actresses do not have. If you could point some out that you feel are unnecessary that would be great. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There are too many and at present I would oppose on WP:QUOTEFARM. I can take a look at which ones should be paraphrased. It may or may not be tonight though. --John (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have paraphrased/trimmed some quotes and would be interested to know if there are any other unnecessary ones. - FrB.TG (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's a good start. Let's look at what we have now. I'll do it section by section.

Early life

• • She describes her childhood as an "unhappy" experience, as she suffered from hyperactivity and social anxiety and considered herself a misfit among her peers. This can be paraphrased without losing anything. Good encyclopedic writing is not ctr-C, ctrl-V.
  • Lawrence says that her anxieties would "disappear" when she performed onstage and that acting "made me happy because I felt capable whereas before I felt good for nothing". Paraphrase.
  • Describing her early experiences, Lawrence says: "It was hard at first. I didn't have any friends. I remember being kind of lonely." Paraphrase. --John (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    •  Done paraphrased all three of those Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Shall we continue with quotes, @John:? - FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry technical problems this end. Restricted Internet access. Be possibly a few days. Will finish. Promise. John (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Take all the time you need. - FrB.TG (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have been moving house and it has taken longer than expected. My Internet is now on but I only have an IPad to work with at present. Do you mind if I just edit the article directly? I propose to paraphrase a few of the quotes and clean up some of the language. Easier if I just do it then discuss here than posting suggestions here. That ok? John (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely, easier for us too. And a discussion would be needed only when there is disagreement. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for your patience. I will definitely get to this in the next few hours. --John (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking forward to it :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• All right. Can you live with this? --John (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That came out really well! I was a bit concerned at first about the nude hacks bit, but thankfully your revision didn't take out the crucial bit agreed upon in the extensive discussion mattbuck mentioned. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Echoing my co-nom: great copyediting. I must say I consider this nomination of mine lucky to have so many great reviews. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I now support. I may still slightly trim some more quotes but it's passed the level I support at now. Well done, it's a great article. --John (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, John :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

I don't know Jennifer Lawrence from a hole in the ground I'm afraid, but I'll see what I can do....

• Is it worth clarifiying what a "children's camp" is - is this a holiday camp or something slightly different?

• Summer camp Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lawrence was educated at the Kammerer Middle School in Louisville As multiple Lawrences are being referred to in this section, I think WP:LASTNAME means we should go with "Jennifer" instead.

• Fair enough; changed Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I can't say I'm jumping up and down with excitement about using People as a source in an FA, though I seem to recall long drawn-out conversations at WP:RSN that says it's okay.

• It's far from the best source overall compared to other publications, but certainly not the worst either. If including it, then I personally would just limit its use to non-contentious claims. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Rolling Stone source mentions her family was predominantly boys and she was raised accordingly; this would be worth adding as it explains why she didn't play with girls much

• Good find! Added. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• her mother convinced her that they were lying - I'm confused; who was convincing whom?

• Karen (Jennifer's mom) was convincing Jennifer Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

More later, hopefully Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I look forward to it, Ritchie333. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Richie, did you want to add anything? I'd like to try and close this soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been caught up with other things. How quickly do you need comments? I wouldn't worry about waiting for me if it's important, I think enough experienced eyes have looked over this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If possible, any additional input you might have is best given within the next day or two. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from mattbuck

Addressed concern from Mattbuck

I don't mean to rain on the parade of other commenters here, but I would not suggest paraphrasing everything. Specifically the comments regarding the iCloud hack of 2014, Lawrence was especially strident in her statements, and it is worth quoting them. This was discussed last year at Talk:Jennifer_Lawrence/Archive_2#Scandal, and the version which stood in the article (and which I reverted to) was the preferred wording. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC) No parade has been rained on, at least for me. I never said, and don't intend to say, that all quotes should be paraphrased. Here's a repeat of my comment: The only quotes which should be kept are a very small number which are irreplaceable, ideally ones where the exact words of the quote have become part of the "story" of the subject. The others can be summarised. ... --John (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC) and I stand by that. I will have a look at the discussion you refer to above. Of course, FAC is a higher bar than peer review and what was agreed there does not necessarily bind us here. I am sure we can haggle in good faith but the highlighted text continues to describe my (and Wikipedia's) position on quotes. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC) I've now read the article talk discussion and the BLPN one. Very interesting, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I stand by what I said though; a form of words selected for BLP compliance a year and a bit ago isn't automatically going to pass FA standards. Neither am I saying at this point that I want to change that particular bit, I haven't got that far yet. --John (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC) My parade hasn't been rained on either. John did in fact make it clear that pertinent quotes should be kept, and that RFC (which I participated in) concluded that this quote indeed was very important to have. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC) Good to know we're all in agreement that the sun is out! I just wanted to make sure that what was I thought a very important quote wasn't lost. Most people when something like that happens would apologise and say it was a mistake, Lawrence's "no, this is a crime, fuck you" stance was unusual in content and vehemence. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Coordinator notes: I think we are just about there now. Just a few queries from me on which I'd like reassurance before we promote:

• "and was brought up as "tough" like them" and "Jennifer's mother did not allow her to play with other girls in preschool as she deemed her "too rough" as a result of her upbringing": I'm not too clear on the meaning of these words in quotation marks in this context. "Tough" and "Rough" are very vague terms and we should either explicitly spell out what they mean in this context or use a full quote. Given the concerns expressed above over quotes, I think the first option is better.

• Here's where it comes from: "Karen Lawrence says. 'I didn't mind if she was girlie, as long as she was tough.' Jennifer was so tough that in preschool she wasn't allowed to play with the other girls because she was too rough. 'She didn't mean to hurt them,' her mom says. 'They were just making cookies, and she wanted to play ball.'" If I were to try to reword this without quotes, then "aggressive" might be a stretch, but maybe "assertive" could work better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I reworded this a little myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for that :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Why are we calling her Jennifer in that section? I think it's fairly clear who we are talking about if we stick to "Lawrence"...

• Ritchie333 suggested using it for clarity (at least within the Middle School part), but I'm willing to change that bit if desired Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• It's up to you and other reviewers really, but I think it probably better to stick to "Lawrence". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• FrB.TG adjusted accordingly Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• ... but can we do a check of the number of times we use "Lawrence"? A ctrl-F search suggests we are over-using her name, including many times in the same paragraph, on many occasions.

• That could take some sorting through Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• That would be great. Let me know when we are done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Now reduced. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• It is always worth asking this question for these types of articles: The reviews of her performances here are fairly glowing. How certain are we that a) This is a fair representation of the sources and that we have covered all the major views and b) That there are no reviews in reputable sources that say that she ISN'T amazing.

• If you look in the "2014-present" section, there is "criticized Lawrence for making her character too grim" for X-Men: Apocalypse and "considered her character to be of minimal importance" for Passengers. While wanting the positive and negative comments balanced out is understandable, I admittedly haven't seen very many negative bits on her compared to positive ones. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• That's fine, it's always worth checking though. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Although not a FA requirement (and this won't hold up promotion), I would recommend looking at the alt text for the images and checking that we are following best practice. The 2011 Academy Awards image alt looks like it might need to give her name. If there is any uncertainty, RexxS is probably the best person to ask. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Adjusted to include that. If you have any other suggestions on alts, Sarastro1, then I'm willing to listen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert on this, and will defer to RexxS, but there's no need to hold things up over this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: This has had a lot of review now. There may still be one or two last points to address from reviewers, or further points that arise, but these can be taken up on the article talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 23:27, 16 January 2017 [44].

---

2003 Cricket World Cup Final

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(talk) 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the final of the 2003 Cricket World Cup, played between Australia and India. After taking this to GA in April 2015, I spent several months shaping the required moulds to reach this level. This has had two peer reviews and the concerns raised by the reviewers have been fully met. I believe the article is in good shape and now meets the criteria. This is my first FAC in this topic. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support from Jim. I commented on this in detail at PR, and I can't see any new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jim, for your comments and support. —Vensatry _(talk) 10:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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

• "one-handed six", etc.: I'm not taking a position on cricket jargon. Some is fine, but you probably don't need as much as you use.

• Removed —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "criticize": I'm not clear on what spelling you're using. There are some cases of -ise and some -ize.

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the copyedits and support, Dank. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator for this one. This seems in good shape, and I'm leaning support, but I'd like a few more non-cricketers to check this for jargon. I've also a few little points I'd like to see addressed as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• It may be worth a section somewhere that explains the match format for the uninitiated: 50 overs before the innings closes, restrictions on where fielders can be placed, no bowler to bowl more than 10 overs.

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• As we go into a little detail about Australia's team, it may be worth mentioning India too, even if it is just "In contrast, India's players remained available..." or something similar.

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• Are we going with a team as singular or as plural: we have both "Australia was" and "Australia were". Either would be acceptable, but consistency is the most important thing here.

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• ""Australia must not win" was the "out cry" among most of them.": This is a strange little sentence, which I think should either be cut, or replaced with "Most of them supported India".

• Done —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Pakistan's Imran Khan said, "Dice in India's favour."": While this is what the source says, this just sounds odd. I'd reword it as "The former Pakistan captain Imran Khan believed India to be favourites".

• Rephrased —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• "With just two fielders outside the circle": This needs clarifying, but could be done in the section about the match format.

• Done as suggested —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• The part in the aftermath about Duckworth Lewis seems misplaced; was this said after the final or before it? If the latter, it would be better in the build up section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, it belongs to the 'Aftermath' section. It was only after the final (where Aus made 350+) that it was observed that the 'standard' edition was a little problematic for matches involving big totals. Our article explains this reasonably well. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A few more points: Almost there I think. Just a few last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Wisden overview of the tournament mentions that India's players were in dispute with the board over contracts until shortly before the tournament. I think this is worth including.
  • Added —Vensatry _(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that Tendulkar's autobiography is the best source for burning the players in effigy.
  • Replaced —Vensatry _(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• There is a glitch in the scorecard: the symbols for captain and wicketkeeper do not seem to have been put into the table correctly.
  • Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm still not sure about the DL section in the aftermath. The main citation is to the 2003 Wisden report, but this does not mention the final at all, but just the way that South Africa were eliminated. And the other source used, the Scandals and Controversies book, does not seem to have this information on the page cited (although I might be missing it). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed the criticism part. But still retaining the latter half as it adds come context to the final. Switched to chapter name to avoid confusion. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Support with a heavy copy-editing disclaimer: I think this is pretty much there now. Again, I'd like non-cricketers to have a look at this as I may have overlooked something! If no-one else gets to the source review, I'll do that this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, your comments at the PR and here are much appreciated. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Has come together nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Casliber, thanks for the support. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments – I was asked for a review on my talk page. Having commented already at the most recent peer review, I re-read the article and came up with the following points:

• "The final was Australia's 17 consecutive ODI win". "17" should be "17th".
• Format: "according to the standard rules of an One Day International." "an" → "a"?
• Build-up: "were completely sold out immediately India entered the Super Sixes stage." Needs "after" or another appropriate word before India, I think.
• Summary: Minor, but there should be a "the" in "For umpires".
• Aftermath: Is the "we don't think that we are the best side, but it is the way we play the game" a direct quote? If so, it needs quotation marks; if not, it need a re-write. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: As for the last point, I've reinstated the quote as the construct follows a direct speech. Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 05:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All of the fixes look good. Nice work on the article, which meets the FA criteria after all of the work that has gone into it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments at the PR and here, Giants2008. —Vensatry _(talk) 02:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes -- I think we probably just need image and source reviews now; you can leave requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Done —Vensatry _(talk) 08:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

image and source review

• Images all appropriately licenced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Footnotes all consistently formatted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 22 & 23 support material in text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 66 supports material in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• FN 31 supports material in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Earwig's clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sourcing looks reliable. I think we are good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Casliber, thanks —Vensatry _(talk) 11:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 00:16, 17 January 2017 [45].

---

SMS Schwaben

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Another German battleship, this one spent much of its career in a training role. She was also one of a handful of old battleships retained by Germany after war, though only after having been converted into a depot ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• My suggestions would be the linking of launching, commissioning, mines and ship breaking. Armored cruiser should be linked at the first instance in the third paragraph in service history instead of by Blucher. Also would link tender next to Ulan. Llammakey (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Good ideas, all. Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done
• File:Wittelsbach_class_linedrawing.png: do we know the status of this image in its source country?
  • No, so that's why it's here on en.wiki instead of Commons.
• File:North_and_Baltic_Seas,_1911.png: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Added the original source. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in great shape. I have only one point:

• The low range of the belt in the infobox isn't reflected in the body
  • Fixed - thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Query Why not use File:SMS Schwaben.jpg? ϢereSpielChequers 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no source for a pre-1923 publication, so we can't prove it's PD in the US. Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Schwaben spent the majority of her career.. - why not just, "Schwaben spent most of her career"?

That sounds good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Should the conversions be rounded - eg 250 mm to 10 in rather than 9.8 in?

As a general rule, I don't like to do too much rounding with these figures - there have been times where slightly different figures round to the same conversion, and that can cause confusion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Otherwise looks in order...but I am no expert in the area. I can say that it is accessible to a neophyte...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Casliber! Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review on this? If we don't have one yet, it can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No concerns re. source reliability, I just tweaked formatting a bit. Given the depth of MilHist review prior to FAC, and Cas' (by his own admission!) neophyte check for accessibility, I think we can safely close this long-running review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 20:47, 16 January 2017 [46].

---

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the flotilla leader (large destroyer) Dubrovnik, a British-designed ship that was the de facto flagship of the Royal Yugoslav Navy during the late interwar period, and saw service under three flags during World War II. She conveyed King Alexander home after he was assassinated at Marseilles in 1934, and was captured by the Italians at the Bay of Kotor during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. As Premuda she was the most important and effective Italian war prize ship of World War II, doing duty on as an escort on over 100 North Africa supply runs. After the Italian surrender, she saw service with the German Navy as TA 32, during which she notably clashed with Royal Navy ships in the Battle of the Ligurian Sea. She was scuttled by the Germans at Genoa in April 1945. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki! [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67}} (click to talk to me) 00:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing from coord duties, with the caveat that I don't know as much about ships and navies as I do about aircraft and air forces, but I have reviewed a few of these over the years and note that a couple of our more naval-minded editors looked this over at MilHist A-Class Review last year...

• I think I've managed to cross-check everything in the infobox with the cited material in the text and it all seems to match except for one technicality: as obvious as the case may be, I couldn't see where the ship's naming for the Dalmatian port city was cited.
  • Good pick-up. I found the reference.
• Prose-wise, pls let me know any issues with my light copyedit; outstanding points:
  • "and they had to build their naval forces from scratch" -- Is this strictly accurate if they had 12 modern MTBs, even if those do seem a pittance? Can we qualify as "ocean-going naval force" or some such? Alternatively, you could perhaps do without that bit entirely, as the pursuit of bigger vessels follows soon after...
    • tweaked with "almost"
  • "an expanded version of the British Shakespeare-class" -- "expanded" sounds a bit odd, do we mean "enlarged" or perhaps "enhanced"?
    • Good point, enlarged is probably best.
  • "In the late summer of 1929" -- Can do better than the seasonal reference from the sources?
    • The source isn't any more specific.
  • "she had been damaged by Yugoslav civilians prior to her seizure" -- I don't suppose we know their motivations or whose side they were on? Axis sympathisers, proto-partisans, run-of-the-mill anarchists, kids on schoolies...?
    • I'm guessing they were either patriots or Ustasha sympathisers, but Freivogel doesn't say.
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
• I haven't done a source review per se but could have a go later if no-one else does.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ian. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Now done source review and see no obvious formatting or reliability issues -- full support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Support - all my (minor) issues solved. Apologies for not updating earlier! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• "naval forces almost from scratch.[2]" - This should be the end of the para, what follows is stand-alone.
• "improved anti-aircraft armament" - same here.
  • Done and done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Her rounded stern was adapted for minelaying" - this could use some expansion. What about a rounded stem makes it suitable, and what sort of stem would otherwise be used?
  • Bloody good question, the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I've looked online for some explanation of this, Maury, and came up empty, so I'm pinging a couple of other nautical coves who might know. @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy:? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• "and 2,400 long tons (2,439 t) at full load" - para break.
• "Her crew comprised 20 officers and 220 ratings" - and here.
• "Her captain was Armin Pavić" - and here.
• "and British ships" - and here.
  • Done x 4. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Yugoslavia entered World War II in April 1941" - this section seems like it should have some prior introduction. I assume that she took control of 1st flotilla some time before this, perhaps right from commissioning? If so, it should be mentioned there, not here.
  • The composition and allocations within the fleet varied in peacetime, the sources don't indicate if she was flagship of the 1st Torpedo Division at an earlier date. The key point here is to state what her deployment was at the time of the invasion.
• " Freya early-warning radar," - Do we have a model number on this? There were several very different naval units. Actually, given the time frame and size of the ship, it seems odd it would be any of the Freya's because the Hohentwiel was available.
  • You obviously know more about this than I do. All the source says is that it was intended that she be fitted with a Freya system, which of course wasn't done in the end.

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Maury! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest putting British before Tribal class to let the reader know that the class wasn't Yugoslavian. Also Tribal class is not italicized as there was not ship named Tribal. Llammakey (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Got me again... Fixed, and thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's my thing. That and definite articles. Llammakey (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go. Can I have dispensation to put a new one up, please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to this earlier, but I'm promoting this now so it's slightly academic! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 20:26, 16 January 2017 [47].

---

2012 Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The 2012 edition of the Tour de France cycling race, which was won by Bradley Wiggins, the first from the United Kingdom. I brought it up to GA around a year ago. Other GA Tours I helped promoted are 2013, 2015 and 2016. It is part of the 2012 Tour good topic, that includes the List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France, which I brought up to FL. The structure is the same as other FA Grand Tour races (1987 Giro d'Italia, 1988 Giro d'Italia, 2009 Giro d'Italia, 2015 Vuelta a España). BaldBoris 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I've copyedited the article; please revert as needed.

• I was going to suggest linking "Palmares" in the infobox to Glossary_of_cycling#P, but I see the meaning given there doesn't quite correspond. (And it's spelled with an "è" there; should it be here?) Is the glossary missing the definition intended here? If so, it would be nice to add it there and put in a link. Not a requirement for FA, though.

I've changed the template ({{Infobox cycling race report}}) to "Results" instead per a recent discussion at WT:CYC about the use of it. BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• "each team's roster are introduced": "roster" is singular, so this needs to be either "is introduced" or make it "the members of..."
• "It was the first time a Grand Départ outside France had been hosted in the same location twice, with other occasion in 2004": suggest: "Liège, which had also hosted the 2004 Grand Départ, became the first city outside France to host the Grand Départ twice."
• The alt text for the picture of Voeckler and Kessiakoff makes it clear which is which; I think the caption should too.
• When Wiggins slows down the peloton so that Evans can rejoin it, I think it's worth pointing out that this was an act of sportsmanship. I found a mention of this in John Deering's "Bradley Wiggins: Tour de Force", but you might have a better source.

I added "As an act of sportsmanship" Wiggin then... In the given source it says "a gesture of fairness"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I've done all suggestions. Thanks for the copyedit; can't believe all those missing words. I'm not sure about the tense changes in the first paragraph of Classification leadership though. I think it should use past tense (see 2015 Vuelta a España#Classification leadership for example). BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I admit I hesitated over that section, and I realize now that I didn't carry it through properly on the next paragraphs. The problem with the past tense is that it makes it sound as though the general classification is no longer calculated that way; that it was a one-time calculation for that year.

Perhaps the right approach would be to start by describing these classifications in the context of the Tour de France generally, not just of this edition? E.g. something like "The 2012 Tour de France included a team competition, and four main individual classifications, which have been standardized on the tour since 19xx. The general classification is calculated by..." This makes the present tense seem more natural. If you don't think that would work, please go ahead and change it back; I'll think about it some more but I agree the way I left it isn't satisfactory.

I'll try to reread the article tomorrow and see if there's anything else to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Although the current classifications haven't disappeared since their introduction, others have come and gone. So, as it is now, it seems like a guide to classifications of the Tour. I think the only way is to say what the situation was in 2012. Also, the other info is in the past tense, so bit muddled. BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The points above are now fine, except of course the issue with the tenses. Reading through again:

• The pre-race favourites section links every racing team mentioned, even though they've all been linked in the list just above. I see a few other duplinks; Wiggins is linked in the caption for that section and also in the first sentence; the same is true for general classification. Just yesterday I finally figured out how to correctly use Ucucha's duplinks script; you might try that if you don't already have it installed.

Yes, I use it all the time, great tool. As the intro of it says and my interpretation of WP:REPEATLINK is, a repeated link is fine outside of the prose. I intentionally linked the classifications as the section is pretty much link-free (compared with the pre-race favourites) and of the three paragraphs only only one has another link. So in my opinion they're helping the reader, rather than doing harm. The pre-race favourites section is a bit too blue for my liking, so I suppose unlinking the teams after the list is a fair point? BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do think those should be unlinked. Your justification for the other links seems OK to me; I wouldn't do it that way myself, but I think that's within editorial discretion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So unlink all teams after the list? BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Nibali had shown his form in the lead-up to the Tour by winning Tirreno–Adriatico stage race": presumably missing "a" or "the"?
• More about tenses: I see you're using "would not have" for discussing the race in the context of the pre-race situation -- e.g. "Cavendish ... would not have the full support of Team Sky". I can see why, but is this usual? I glanced at a couple of the Giro d'Italia FAs, one of which I remember reviewing at FAC, and it looks like the "would have" language is used when reporting opinion at the time, and simple past is used when directly reporting the state of affairs, rather than attributing an opinion. So I think you could make this "but he did not have". I also noticed that for the next rider discussed, Greipel, you have "who had the full backing of his team".

The "would have" is just my bad. Cavendish was at that moment the top sprinter and he was used to having almost an entire team dedicated the him winning stages via bunch sprints (as is the same with a couple of the top sprinters) at previous Tours. He was unlucky that when he joined Team Sky in 2012 they had a potential Tour winner in Wiggins; Cavendish only lasted one season at Sky. I have changed it to "did not have the full support of Team Sky as he did in the 2011 Tour with the HTC–Highroad team;". BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

That does it -- it was just the tense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• "As the peloton (the main group) passed the Mur de Péguère, the race was sabotaged as a large number of riders had suffered tyre punctures from carpet tacks": might be better to rephrase it to reflect that it the punctures occurred before it was realized the race had been sabotaged. (And why "had suffered" rather than "suffered"?) Perhaps "As the peloton (the main group) passed the Mur de Péguère, a large number of riders suffered tyre punctures; it was later [or soon] discovered that the race had been sabotaged by placing carpet tacks on the course".
• "Schleck quit the race after traces of xipamide, a banned sulfonamide diuretic drug, were found in the A-sample of his urine, and was later confirmed by the B-sample": I assume he quit before the B-sample was tested, so I'd make this "...f his urine; the presence of xipamide was later confirmed..."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All done, with replies. BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed the refs in the doping section for more reliable ones, changed that Schleck quit to his team withdrew him and also added his ban. Nothing major but worth a look. BaldBoris 22:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've reverted the problematic tense changes, but I think more tweaking is needed. For example: "If a crash happened within the final 3 km (1.9 mi) of a stage, not including time trials and summit finishes, the riders involved received the same time as the group they were in when the crash occurred". The second half ought to be subjunctive, because of the "if", but it would have to be something like "If a crash had happened within the final 3 km (1.9 mi) of a stage, not including time trials and summit finishes, the riders involved would have received the same time as the group they were in when the crash occurred". Then does the "time bonuses" sentence refer to this process?

I adjusted the previous sentence using the Vuelta and used your suggestion. The sentence about there being no time bonuses is not to with it and is really just a note, as it changes year to year (time bonuses were included this year). I switched them around to avoid confusion. BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• The "coefficient" ranking scale: does "coefficient" need to be in quotes? Is it that way in the source? Also, can we say how many points were associated with each stage classification?

I used the quote initially in 2015 Tour de France because as this did. The table in the race regulations has the title "Coefficients for each stage". To me it reads oddly, so I wasn't really sure. Shall I drop the quotes of change it to coefficiency? It may be a like the combativity award, in that it's an awkward translation. BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Things are getting a bit fragmented above (my fault), so after looking at your responses above, here's what's left.

• Yes, I would eliminate those team links after the list.
• Having read the link you provided I think the quotes around "coefficient" are a form of scare quote -- perhaps the writer thought it was a word many readers wouldn't know. I'd drop the quotes. I see the details of exactly how many points are awarded to each rider are pretty complicated, but this is the article about the race, so I'd go ahead and put those details in -- perhaps in a table directly below, or even attached to, the stage classification table? I must admit I'd assumed the mountain stages would award the most points, so I was surprised.

I've changed the coefficient table for one that shows how many points for the points classification. Yes, it's very complicated, as can be seen on page 37 in the race regulations. The points classification is for sprinters that can't climb mountains, so awards the most in the flat stages. I've added more to the mountains classification, which ideally should have it's own table. BaldBoris 21:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

-- I really think that's everything now. I'll read through one last time after you make those fixes, and I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the new table, but I have a question. Looking at page 13 of the source, there appear to be six coefficients; you only list five. I noticed this because I was going to add a "Stages" column, listing the stages for each coefficient, and I was going to get the data from that table in the source. Then I also noticed that this page says "9 flat stages 4 medium mountain stages - one with a summit finish, 5 mountain stages - two with a summit finish, 2 individual time-trial stages" which I can't match to the table in the source either -- which are the five mountain stages, for example? Perhaps if my French were better I'd be able to figure this out, but I'm hoping you know the answer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, I've not fully understood it myself. The coefficient scale is for deciding degree of difficulty of a stage, which is then used for calculating the the cut-off time and type of each stage. Some coefficients overlap, so medium-mountain stages can have a coefficient of 3 or 4, and mountain stages can have a coefficient of 3, 4 or 5. Regardless, they've chosen the stage types. I've now completely removed coefficient to make things easier for the reader. BaldBoris 21:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You probably already knew this, but I just realized that the PDF from the Tour site has an English translation as the second half of the document. I just used that to fix the second row in the table, which I think you miscopied; you may want to check I got it right. I agree that dropping the word "coefficient" is a good idea. The English source says "High mountain" for the row you've labeled "Mountain stage"; what would you think of making that "High mountain stage"? And there's no hyphen in "Medium mountain" in the source, so we should drop that. And can we add a column showing (for the first four rows) which stages fit which description? Interestingly there appears to be a typo in the English translation -- it says coefficient 3 is both "medium mountain" and "high mountain", but the French version only lists it as "medium mountain". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have used the same stage type wording that is used for all the modern cycling races articles on Wikipedia, including the 2015 Vuelta a España (which is organised by the same company). I'm not sure why people have medium-mountain used here? I don't really have a problem with it, just don't like inconsistency. The official route page is even different from the regulations; it uses "hilly" and "mountain". In fact they are usually never as they are officially described. The stage type for Wiki just gets decide by lots of users while the race is going on, then sticks. It's all a bit of a mess really. BaldBoris 01:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Race stage#Medium mountain stages may give you an idea as to why there's all the confusion. BaldBoris 01:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Support. The last edits fixed the points I was querying above. I think this article is in excellent shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the great comments Mike! All the best. BaldBoris 23:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• "twenty-one", "eighteen", 35, 31, 12: consistency is needed. Spell out everything under some cutoff, and write everything as a numeral above the cutoff (subject to the exceptions at WP:NUMERAL).

@Dank: Sorry, I've only just seen this. I've now made the cut-off "twenty", with any number under used in a sentence as a figure because there a more than three numbers, a second number is over 20, a time difference (e.g. "1 h 30 min 7 s", per WP:MEASUREMENT), or uses {{convert}}. BaldBoris 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments – This is a solid article. I came up with a handful of comments after reading it, and look forward to supporting.

• "Andre Greipel of Lotto–Belisol and Team Sky rider Mark Cavendish both also won three stages." Minor point, but "both" is a redundant word in this context and can safely be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, making the writing a shade tighter.
• Teams: The list of teams has some redirect code coming through, which could use a fix.

I think you just caught a redirect between team page moves and a bot fixing the double redirects. The list is future-proof thanks to {{ct}}. BaldBoris 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Pre-race favourites: "Andy Schleck, who finished second in the 2010 Tour and finished second in the 2011 Tour". Once you remove the parenthetical stuff, this looks repetitive. You could remove the second "and finished second in the" altogether.
• Classification leadership: I see 25,000 and 5000 in the Euro amounts. Did you decide to only use the hyphen for five- and six-figure amounts, or is there another reason it was omitted from the 5000 figure?

I take it you meant comma not hyphen? Fixed. BaldBoris 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• By the Souvenir Henri Desgrange, a "the" is needed in "given to first rider". Giants2008 (Talk) 00:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Giants2008. I did all the fixes with this edit. BaldBoris 13:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Overall the article was a fine read, and I think it meets FA standards now. Great work here. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, we still need a source and image review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• images - Per file info the map image was created under a free art license by editor that has created many other maps. The picture of the palace is entered as created by the uploader and distributed under a CC 3.0 license. The Bradley Wiggins was taken off Flicker where it was under the CC 2.0 this was confirmed. The stone cross image is a wikimedia image described as created by the uploader under CC 3.0 license. The rider Cancellara's picture was taken off OTRS. Wiggins' was taken off Flicker where it was under CC 2.0, this was confirmed. Voeckler's image is also a confirmed CC 2.0 Flicker image. Is this where and how the review is reported? Also should it be this detailed? Rybkovich (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less how an image review goes. I also reviewed the images and agree with your assessments. I will add a few more notes:

• The map in the infobox combines a previous CC-licensed map from Commons with specific route information from another source that is probably under copyright. The route information is similar to the source (as it would need to be to be accurate), but the design elements are not copied exactly, so this should be acceptable.

You can't copyright colours and simple shapes. Nothing in the map is copyrighted. BaldBoris 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• I re-checked all the Flickr images that were previously bot-checked. The only one that doesn't currently match the license checked by the bot is File:Bradley Wiggins 19 etape du Tour de France 2012 Chartres.jpg, which has an appropriate explanation for the discrepancy in the license description on Commons.

I added the Flickr-change-of-license template as the Flick has since changed the licence there. BaldBoris 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• All images have appropriate captions and alt text. The information in the captions is either already in the body text, or confirmed with a reliable source.

I think we are good on image review. I put a "header" above to make it easy for the coordinators and other editors to find. --RL0919 (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Rybkovich (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this guys. BaldBoris 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• What makes http://www.procyclingstats.com a high quality reliable source? Their "about" link at the bottom of their pages just takes you back to the index page, not reassuring.

It's the foremost online cycling database. The site is well used in Wikipedia and we have the highly used {{ProCyclingStats}}, {{ProCyclingStats race}} and {{ProCyclingStats team}} templates. I can fully understand your query, in fact a couple of years ago I opposed it's used on Wiki. I'll have a look to see if I can find more reliable sources. BaldBoris 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because we have a template for a source doesn't make it reliable, much less the higher standard that FAs are held to. Note that we also have {{Findagrave}}, but no one thinks Find A Grave is a reliable source. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. The best method is a mix of all of the above. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't actually proving to you that it's reliable, just giving you some background. As I can't find alternative sources, I'll give it a go. I must say that Find a Grave and ProCyclingStats are incomparable as the former can be edited by the public. I can't find anything about how they get their data, just an interview with website director Stephan van der Zwan. The most reassuring thing I've found is that they provide data for the SBS (Australia's BBC) Cycling Central website.[48]

Here's a list of high quality news websites that have used it as a source:

• Cycling Weekly: [49] [50] [51]
• Cyclingnews.com: [52] [53] [54]
• Diario AS: [55]
• NOS: [56]
• L'Équipe: [57]
• beIN Sports: [58]
• Marca: [59]
• BT: [60]

– BaldBoris 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I know it doesn't mean much, but the FA 2015 Vuelta a España uses it several times. BaldBoris 17:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure what source "ASO" is meant to refer to - it doesn't match up with any of the authors listed in the sources section

If you click the shortened footnote it takes you to the source which states that the publisher is the Amaury Sport Organisation. I have followed the documentation at Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template. BaldBoris 16:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What about people who are on mobile devices or other similar things where it isn't convient to click on a link (or people who don't figure it out?) I would suggest that if you're treating the ASO as the author in the shortened footnotes - you try to make it a bit more intuitive to the reader so they don't have to click links. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This is clearly something you are familiar with, so what is your advice, change ASO to Amaury Sport Organisation? Also, what's the difference with "ASO 2012" and "Bacon 2014"? How would a reader know what "Bacon" is then? BaldBoris 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Bacon 2014" clearly matches up to "Bacon, Ellis (2014). Mapping Le Tour. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-754399-1". "ASO 2012" does not match up to the first word of any ref in the Sources section. I'm not familiar with the sfn template - I don't use it myself - but while the linking works for most things, it's not consistent with how the other refs are matched up to the source listing. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Race regulations 2016". See Template talk:Sfn#No author name. BaldBoris 22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Works well, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's tool is being flakey so no plagiarism checks.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: If Ealdgyth is happy with these sourcing replies, I think we are almost good to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I don't think we need to hold this up any further. If any of the reviewers wish to take up the matter of the reliability of www.procyclingstats.com, they can do so on the talk page. I'm not sure any further action is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 23:54, 15 January 2017 [61].

---

Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed'

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Another entry in the contest for "most bizarrely named FA", Musidora: The Bather 'At the Doubtful Breeze Alarmed'—and yes, that punctuation is correct—is arguably the example of William Etty's pioneering mixture of literary references, detailed landscape painting and gratuitous nudity which looks least dated to modern eyes, despite illustrating a scene from a poem which is virtually unknown today. This article is slightly more confusing than the rest of this series, as while we know for certain that there are four versions of this, the provenances have been lost so we no longer know which is the prime version. (I've tried to keep the summary of the situation as brief as possible; since three of the four versions are almost indistinguishable, it doesn't actually make a great deal of difference which is from 1843 and which from 1846.) This should hopefully be the last of this Etty series for a while, at least from me. ‑ Iridescent 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments.

• This will be a fun one. FWIW, I think the single quotes are fine; they're historically accurate, of course, and double quotes might be misinterpreted as enclosing a title of a subsidiary work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• They're also the format used by the Tate, who own one of the two publicly displayed versions (Manchester Art Gallery's online catalogue is currently down). In the absence of a very good reason not to, I always use the title used by wherever any given artwork is currently displayed, on the assumption that the majority of readers will be people who've seen it displayed and want to know more about it and that the title on the label is what they'll search for. ‑ Iridescent 18:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

The article is very educating. My only concern is the huge second paragraph in Subject. Could you pharaphrase it or move it to the bottom?

• Also, in Composition "Burnage speculates that Etty" shouldn't that be past tense?

Anyway, just @Tintor2: when you want to talk to me. Lastly, I also made a FAC here. I'd appreciate some feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "the huge second paragraph in Subject" and can't tell what you're referring to; the three paragraphs in that section are 151 words, 190 words and 121 words respectively. Of the 190 words in the second paragraph, 117 of them are the relevant quote from The Seasons, which can't be omitted as the reader needs to know what the painting is actually supposed to be depicting.

No, the present tense is correct when discussing the contents of a book, since the book still exists. ‑ Iridescent 08:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll support it. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Coments from the Bounder

• I'll be back shortly for a more complete review, but a quick comment first: in the caption for the main image, you have "exh.", which I am unsure of. Is this for "exhibit"? If so, then it's short enough to put the full word in; if it's longer, would {{Tooltip|exh.|exhibit}} work better? More to come soon. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've expanded it out to say "exhibited" in full (as far as the visual arts are concerned, artworks don't generally exist until their first public exhibition); there's sufficient whitespace underneath on any reasonable screen width that the length of the caption isn't an issue. ‑ Iridescent 16:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Could you clarify in the opening line that it is the "name given to four similar oil paintings", or words to that effect? I was expecting a series, or differences between them until I got quite far down the page.

• Reasonable; I've reworded to "four nearly identical oil paintings". This is an unusual case, as normally we'd talk about an original and three copies (see Hope for instance) but in the case of Musidora we don't actually know for certain which is the 1843 and which the 1846 version. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are a couple of spots that the date format is "2001–02"; I think there has been an RfC that suggests is should be "2001–2002" (I don't think it's a positive move, and the closing summary of the RfC doesn't seem to reflect the consensus of the discussion, but what do I know…)

• I've expanded "1780–1788" to the full years. The other date ranges are consecutive years, for which the xxxx-xx form is still correct. Don't get me started on the MOS. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• The phrase "studied under renowned artist Thomas Lawrence" comes across a little as a false title; it should probably also have a definite article, as this is in British English.

• In this particular case, I don't think that "the" is appropriate—"the renowned artist" makes it sound like he was the only one. I won't lose sleep if someone wants to change it, though. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• The beginning of the first and second paragraphs of the Subject section say the same thing; you could probably tweak the second to smooth it out slightly.

• I've left the second untouched and tweaked the first

• The words "on the riverbank" are a bit lost after the quote: "leaves a note on the riverbank reading 'Bathe on... '" would avoid that and make it a smoother read.

• Yup, done. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Needs a comma after "written by Damon"

• Fixed. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• I stumbled on reading "Etty illustrates the scene from his viewpoint", thinking "his" was Etty

• Clarified—it has the unfortunate drawback of meaning four Damons in one paragraph, but I can't see an obvious way to avoid it. ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• The "now" in "Up to now his history paintings" strikes an odd note when we're talking about the mid 1840s

• Fixed—that's an artefact of trying to avoid a repetition of "up to this time". ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• "The Literary Gazette called" and "The Critic described": should both technically be something like "A reviewer from ..." or similar, as the inanimate publications don't describe anything. (That's not to all writer's taste, so I won't push the point any further).

• This has come up before—these early Victorian journals explicitly took a house line when writing reviews, so anything not specifically attributed to a named author was attributed to the periodical (and anything subsequently written by other staff writers was expected to adhere to it). ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Aside from these very minor points, a very informative and enjoyable article. Thanks and all the best The Bounder (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks ‑ Iridescent 17:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Moved to Support now. The Bounder (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil

Only reading through, but images all correctly licenced and the sources of the first rank - would be familiar with many of the art historians used. More later. Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Have read through fully; fine and enjoyable read, no quibbles. Ceoil (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

Support - up to the usual standard. I'd only say that the location of the 1843 version in a private collection (which the article seems to be saying, even if the nomination above casts doubt on it) should be made clearer in the lead. If that really remains uncertain, that needs to be spelled out. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I left that intentionally ambiguous. The most recent sale of the 1843 version I can find is Agnew's buying it for 60 guineas from an anonymous seller in 1947, and selling it to "Mrs Dunne" in 1948 for an unspecified price, but nobody's attempted a full inventory of Etty's works since Farr in 1958 so it may well have been sold on again since then. It's unlikely to have passed into public ownership since then—it's famous enough that any gallery acquiring it would likely be boasting of the fact—but I don't want to state definitively that it remains in private hands, just in case it's in a cache of paintings bequeathed to a gallery who promptly put it in a storeroom, or has ended up somewhere like Ponce, Iziko or the Ringling (all of which have substantial collections of 19th-century English art) where the acquisition wouldn't necessarily have generated press releases and which don't have full online catalogues. (It was hard enough tracking down the various versions of Hope, which is a genuinely iconic work.) It's hard to provide a citation for "I don't know and I can't find out". ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I think people understand that WP isn't all-knowing. You could say for example that it remained in private collections "until at least 1948" - me I'd include the 1947 price - and say the "present location is unclear". Or something like that. But I think deliberate ambiguity/muddle should be avoided. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've added "at least until 1948", and a footnote about the 1947/48 sale and the lack of a current inventory of Etty's works. (I don't really want to give too much weight to this sale, as if we include one sale we really ought to include all of them and this particular version changed hands quite frequently. Plus, I have no idea who "Mrs Dunne" actually was, and I really don't want to draw too much attention to that name as it conjures up quite the wrong connotations to anyone who's seen Dumb and Dumber.) ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed them, I think we still need image and source reviews for this. As usual, they can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• With the sole exception of The Seasons, the sources are identical to the 12 other FAs in this series, so should all have been checked to death by now. ‑ Iridescent 10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've checked them anyway. They're all reliable and formatted perfectly. I made one teensy tweak (which could well be wrong), otherwise no quibbles at all. Checking off as fine. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Victoriaearle: Does this include the images as well? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Sarastro1, it does now. The images are fine and licensed appropriately. Victoriaearle (tk) 13:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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, 13 January 2017 [62].

---

Paranthodon

Nominator(s): IJReid ^discuss 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the dinosaur genus Paranthodon, arguably one of the most obscure dinosaurs, with the only bone known being part of a skull originally identified as a pareiasaur. From what I can tell with a simple Google Scholar search, every verifiable publication on the taxon has been included at some point, as well as most sources mentioning the taxon. While being fully comprehensive, this article has remained quite short due to lack of literature. No major changes should come anytime soon, as in a short email conversation with palaeontologist Susannah Maidment (several of her publications are referenced here), it was brought up that an project on the taxon was going to be started by one of her students, but that she didn't expect anything on the taxon to change. This article has been copy edited, and is as comprehensive as it can be with the current literature, and that is why I am nominating it for FA. IJReid ^discuss 02:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• There are 3 instances of "however" in the Classification section; see if you can trim one or two of them.

I have cut out two, in addition to grammar and flow fixes. IJReid ^discuss 03:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow thanks for the support! I see nothing wrong with your edits, every little fix helps. IJReid ^discuss 03:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Since I GA reviewed this, and have drawn one of the images in the article, I'll wait doing a review/support after some more uninvolved users have left their comments. But two image things that could be done is to link and attribute the base map this map was cropped from[63] on the file description, and add the source for the size given in this size estimate[64] in the file description there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Both are done. For the first image, the base was already in the description, so I added it under Other Versions as the base map. However, I am considering using the base .svg instead, with a locator to indicate where the formation is (if I figure out how to add the red dot things). IJReid ^discuss 02:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice, then that at least won't be a problem during the image review. FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support - with the caveat that I GA reviewed the article. This article proves that comprehensive and interesting accounts can be written about obscure dinosaurs known from very little material (most of our other dinosaur FAs are about much more completely known and famous animals). FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Support and comment from Jim

I'm happy to support this well-written article, just one minor point though. In the body of the text, when you name a person you put, for example, British paleontologist Richard Owen. Wouldn't it be more helpful to put this fuller description at the first mention instead of just "Owen"? At first glance, I thought Nopsa might be an acronym until I hovered on the link! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I have fixed your comment, moving the "british/south african/hungarian paleontologist" to the first mention of each person in the lead. IJReid ^discuss 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment from Cas Liber

Reading now...

approximately 145.5–136.4 million years ago - flows oddly, try "approximately 145.5 to 136.4 million years ago" or "between 145.5 and 136.4 million years ago"

Ok, chose the second option. IJReid ^discuss 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd link taxon

Which taxon? Anthodon and Palaeoscincus are both linked. IJReid ^discuss 01:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No no, I meant taxon as it is a bit not plain English Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops :P It's linked now. IJReid ^discuss 15:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about this. Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Too bad image and source reviews take so long, otherwise this article would be a FA right now. :-P IJReid ^discuss 15:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Cas Liber

• References formatted consistently.

• Spot checking....

FN 13, ref does mention meaning "flower tooth"....but it is in Latin so bit of a stretch....

I change the reference to the original description, which I guess is a little less of a stretch, even though it only says something like "... teeth resembling a polyapteous (idk spelling?) flower, for which the genus was named". IJReid ^discuss 05:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FN 18, checks out - used twice and material faithful to source

FN 14, used once - I can't see where Coombs uses species epithet in this....

I checked in Galton & Coombs, and it turns out that I had the wrong source for that part, although apparently Coombs first used the binomial in a different 1978 publication by Olshevsky. I've also changed the classification reference to use Coombs (1978) instead of Glut mentioning Coombs' classification. IJReid ^discuss 15:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Dutch article[65] indicates that Coomb's first used the recombination in a 1971 dissertation, and that the name was therefore not valid until properly published in 1978... Perhaps MWAK has something to add? FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Coombs apparently first used the combination in: W.P. Coombs, 1971, The Ankylosauridae. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, 487 pp, as an invalid nomen ex dissertatione. The first valid publication was in Olshevsky, G., 1978, "The Archosaurian Taxa (excluding the Crocodylia)", Mesozoic Meanderings 1, pp. 1-50, referring to Coombs (1971), not to be confused with W.P. Coombs, 1978, "The families of the ornithischian dinosaur order Ankylosauria", Palaeontology 21(1): 143-170. As an aside, the article presently claims that the type species (Paleoscincus africanus) is a junior synonym of the combinatio nova (Paranthodon africanus) which is an impossibility!--MWAK (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have finally sorted this out in the article. The statement about Coombs' dissertation is now referenced to Olshevsky's publication, and the sentence about the synonymy has also been modified to fit with what would be correct (they are still listed in the synonyms, because they are former names that are not to be used instead). IJReid ^discuss 23:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FN 15, checks out - used twice and material faithful to source (also corroborates other material in article)

Image review from RL0919

• Most files appear to be appropriately sourced and licensed on Commons, including sourcing for the factual claims represented by the images. Most of the sources are paywalled, but since source review was already passed, I'm willing to assume these sources are good also.
• Captions all seem appropriate.
• None of the images have WP:ALT text for accessibility. As far as I know, alt text for images is not explicitly required for FA, but it would be good to provide.
• The only item I want to question is File:Anthodon.png. The source is given as an 1876 book with a Google Books link. Certainly public domain if that is the source. However, the link goes to a general description for the book, not a specific page. No page number is provided and I could not find the image using Google's search function. Can you provide more specific information to verify where this image is within the book?

I believe the question on the Anthodon image is the only thing that needs to be resolved for FA image review. --RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll add alt text now, and I'll locate the page on Owen (1876) with the image (although I do understand how 500 pages isn't something anyone wants to look through). IJReid ^discuss 05:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have now added alt text and specified on the image page of the Anthodon image what plate and page the image was on (Plate XIII Page 126). Is this satisfactory? IJReid ^discuss 05:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Source confirmed. I think we're good on images. --RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Is "Holtz, T.R. Jr. (2007). Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages. Random House Books for Young Readers" really a high quality reliable source? I'm not sure a book from the series "Random House Books for Young Readers" is really high quality. The WorldCat entry says "Elementary and junior high school"

This is one of the better book sources, being written by a paleontologist for a younger audience. That doesn't change the fact that it has accurate information in it, it just has less complex language then something like Predatory Dinosaurs of the World or Princeton Field Guide. (I removed the ending of the publisher anyways, I don't think thats part of their actual name) IJReid ^discuss 15:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's tool shows no obvious plagarism.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

If I thought it was an utterly unreliable source, I'd have opposed the nomination. I just have concerns that it might not meet the definition of "high quality". I'll leave it here for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we are almost there, but I'd like to hear Ealdgyth's opinion about the Dinosaurs book before this is promoted. My inclination is to share her concern, and I wonder if there is an alternative source to circumvent the problem? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that Holtz's estimate is in the appendix itself as well..... would the book citation be necessary at all? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The appendix is already referenced alongside the book. I believe I have referenced a more recent version of the appendix than you linked however. IJReid ^discuss 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The 2014 version is broken, it leads to a 404. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, Gregory Paul's Field guide simply says the size is uncertain, so it might be good to note this in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from Firsfron

Support, as the original creator of this article back in March 2006. I'm definitely happy to see this article filled in and fully referenced. Thanks for your efforts, IJReid and team. Nice work on an article about what is basically just one partial skull. Checking the Paleobiology Database, it looks as though every paper on the Paranthodon skull has been referenced; seems very comprehensive. I copyedited the article and am satisfied with the prose.

A concern has been raised about the quality of one source, Holtz's book, but the author, Thomas Holtz, is a highly-respected vertebrate paleontologist, and although his book is meant for general readers, the quality of his work is definitely not a concern for me. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: I think there is a consensus to promote here, but just a few points that struck me. I would appreciate if someone could at least take a look at them, but they are not enough to hold this up any longer. There also seems to be consensus that the Holtz book is a reliable source. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Atherstone published about the find in 1857": Is there a better way to phrase this?
• This needs a quick check for WP:HOWEVER; it's probably OK but we could maybe remove one or two.
• "Only in 1876 did Owen name a series of specimens from the collection as Anthodon serrarius": Is there a way to rephrase this to avoid the use of "did" here?
• In the lead, we state "After years of storage in the British Museum of Natural History" but this is not directly mentioned in the main body. I suppose it is implied so this isn't enough to hold up promotion, but it would be better stated more explicitly.
• "Due to present conventions, the specific name was later emended to owenii.": The mix of tenses is a little confusing here. If this was a while ago, it cannot be "present conventions". A date might clarify this slightly.
• A minor point, but the "Paleoecology" section might be better earlier, but that is more of a style/preference thing.
• I'm not too sure about the value of the all the alt text as written here. It might be worth asking RexxS to look if he has a moment. Again, this is not enough to hold up promotion but we should try to follow best practice. Any issues could be taken up on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 00:37, 8 January 2017 [66].

---

Analog Science Fiction and Fact

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the most important magazine in the history of science fiction. For a few years, from the late 1930s, the editor, John W. Campbell, completely changed the field, and launched the careers of numerous famous sf writers, most notably Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. This also happens to be the last science fiction pulp magazine I intend to nominate here; all the others are now GAs (and probably too short for FA) or are already FAs. I'll probably bring one or two more articles on later (non-pulp) magazines here, and an article on the history of sf magazine, but with this article the end is in sight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:ASTJAN1930.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:ASF_0034.jpg
• File:Changes_in_Astounding_SF_and_Analog_SF_title_layour_in_1960.jpg: the "n.a." parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; both are now fixed -- the first by uploading a better quality image and changing the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning Support -- recusing from coord duties...

• Copyedited as I usually do so pls let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
  • "The interior artwork, particularly by Elliot Dold, was also very impressive." -- "very impressive" is a bit opinionated, is it possible to employ a more descriptive term that's faithful to the source, or else attribute the opinion?
  • I think that several quotes should probably be attributed in-line or else paraphrased:
    • "one of the best-loved novels in sf" (Mission of Gravity)
    • "one of the most famous of all sf novels" (Dune)

      I've attributed or tweaked all the above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Schmidt "continued the long-standing tradition of writing provocative editorials, though he rarely discussed science fiction" -- I'm intrigued to know the sort of things he did discuss in an sf mag editorial if not sf... :-)

    Done with a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• No dablinks but there are quite a few duplinks you could review with Ucucha's script.

  I can't get this to work. Does it conflict with any other scripts such as pagesize, or the one that colours links green if they are redirects? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  Heh, I don't know about the green-linking redirect one but it seems to work fine with pagesize for me. I wonder if it's anything to do with the skin -- definitely works for me with monobook, not sure of others. Worst case, I could go through the article and make the calls... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  I figured it out; duplinks removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Coverage-wise, I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the magazine and this seemed to hit all the right points without over-detailing.
• Source-wise, all look reliable, dominated as they are by Mike Ashley's name -- I haven't checked formatting but may be able to get to that in due course.
• Image-wise I'll of course defer to Nikki's review.

A great read as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Your copyedits look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks, changes looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mike, this article inspired me to re-read Aldiss' commentary on the mag in my copy of Trillion-Year Spree, and I wondered if the story about "Deadline" and the visit it provoked from the FBI might be worth a mention here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good idea; I'll get to that, perhaps tonight or tomorrow. There are so many stories about Campbell and the Golden Age that some have to be cut, but I'd forgotten about that one and I agree it should go in. Have you read Hell's Cartographers, by the way? Six autobiographical essays by Knight, Harrison, Aldiss, Bester, Pohl and Silverberg. Some very good material there, including a "How We Work" essay by each of them that I found fascinating, since at one point I wanted to be a professional sf writer; but what brought it to mind was a wonderful and very funny anecdote by Bester about the only time he met Campbell, in the late 1940s. Definitely worth a look if you don't already have it on your shelves. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I just added a paragraph about "Deadline"; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Tks for that, looks great (although I'd usual expect "similarities to" rather than "similarities with" -- is that an Americanism?). Yes, one of the good things about this article is its brevity (considering the longevity of its subject) so I don't think even the most casual observer could be bored, and it does leave room for the odd addition like this... I don't have Hell's Cartographers BTW, will try and read sometime; there's also Clarke's Astounding Days, which I do own but haven't checked lately... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like "similarities with" is acceptable but much rarer, so I changed it to "to"; and re-reading it I do think that's more natural. It might not be an Americanism in my case, though; my English is now a bastardized mixture of British and American, after twenty-seven years on the left side of the Atlantic. I've read the Clarke; it's a long and fairly entertaining collection of anecdotes, but I don't think I've ever been able to use it to source anything on-wiki. An enjoyable read, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Done to the end of the initial chronology

• " Campbell took over editorial duties under Tremaine's supervision, and the following year Tremaine was let go, giving Campbell more independence." Is the last part with stating? If your supervisor is let go and not replaced, then it is fairly obvious you have more independence.

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "The period beginning with Campbell's editorship is often referred to as the Golden Age of Science Fiction." He was editor into the 1970s, by which time I think we can say the curtain was rung down on the Golden Era.

  Yes, but it's hard to find consensus on when the Golden Age ends. See this, which I put together while working on this article, in order to try to get some consistency. I could make it "decade", which is more or less supportable; or I could add a footnote explaining that the end date for the Golden Age is not universally agreed-on. I think the latter might be better, unless you think it needs to be clearer in the body text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• The second sentence of the second paragraph of the lede is something of a run-on

  Fixed by eliminating the reference to Campbell's pseudo-science interests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "such as" a phrase used five times in the lede, including four times in the second paragraph.

  Yuck. Thanks for catching that. Better now, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  I still see four times in that paragraph (19 for the article).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  I think I must have failed to hit save on that edit. Tried again; I took out a few in the body of the article too, where there were two close to each other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a better way to sum up the editorial change from Campbell to Bova than what writers became in under the new regime? Possibly dealing with the sort of SF, not your traditional space opera, perhaps.

  I'm not quite sure what to do here. It's not that Campbell published space opera; it was more that Bova introduced elements that would have been forbidden under Campbell -- sex and profanity, for example. Ashley identifies "Hero" and "The Gold at the Starbow's End" as important because they are examples "of how radically society and attitudes were changing in the early 1970s". At the same time, Ashley points out that Bova made efforts to accommodate the long-time readers, partly by keeping the existing names such as Anderson and Dickson. Is this not clear enough in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "who continued to publish many of the same authors who had been contributing for years" that is, under Bova, or under Campbell?

  Under Bova; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "had a space for one more cover." I might cut "a"

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I would pipe pulp magazine somewhere

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "that they start a magazine of period adventure stories" possibly "contemporary" for "period" if I understand what is meant (if not, "historical")

  The source just says "the idea of a new monthly magazine of period-adventure stories", and gives no details. I think this must mean historical, so I've changed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• "He left on May 1, 1938, reducing Street & Smith's oversight of Campbell and giving him a freer rein." It feels like you are saying the same thing twice.

  Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• " Harry Harrison had discussed taking over with Campbell before Campbell's death," a bit awkward. Maybe "Harry Harrison, before Campbell's death, had discussed with him the possibility of taking over,"

  I tried a different tack -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• "an adventure-oriented magazine, with no interest in education through science. " "with no interest"? Odd phrasing

  Clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "he began "The Analytical Laboratory", which calculated votes from readers" maybe "compiled" for "calculated".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "and Hubert Rogers, whose first cover was for the February 1939 issue, and who quickly became a regular, " the second "and" can possibly be avoided.

  Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• In the final paragraph of "Campbell", consecutive sentences begin with "Campbell", probably unnecessarily.

  I moved the sentence about Tremaine's era up to that section and moved the one about Campbell's editorship up to a paragraph about story ideas; I think that flows better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• The second sentence of "Golden Age" could benefit from splitting IMO.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "publishing three novels in the next two years: If This Goes On—" sort of short for a novel. Its article says "novella".

  I'd like to leave this as is -- Ashley refers to it as a "short novel", but it would be hard to draw that distinction in the list within lengthening the sentence. When it appeared in the magazine it was listed as a novel. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "instalment" This seems a more common spelling in countries other than the one where Analog originated.

  Yes, my native dialect is now BrAmEng, so I'm prone to this sort of thing. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "several of the regular contributors such as Heinlein, Asimov, and Hubbard, who had joined the armed forces," Neither Heinlein nor Asimov was in the armed forces during WWII (Heinlein of course had been a naval officer earlier), they worked for the military as civilians.

  My mistake; Ashley says "war work", not "armed forces", and I rephrased carelessly. Now says they joined the "war effort". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "in the fantasy work they were writing for Unknown, " I'd pluralize "work".

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "of the field.[notes 2] Campbell's growing interest in pseudoscience also damaged his reputation in the field." Possibly avoid the repetition.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Also in 1979 Schmidt began" The footnotes that follow this sentence are out of order. This is also true twice in the "Bibliographic details" section and once in "Anthologies". I'd take a run through making sure I haven't missed any.

  Done. You might be interested in this related survey. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "The stable of fiction contributors remained largely unchanged from Bova's day, and included many names, such as Poul Anderson, Gordon R. Dickson, " both of these were mentioned two paragraphs previously. Are first names (and initial) needed?

  No; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• "genuinely unrecognized genius" (note 3). I might cut the "ly".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Enjoyable article on a magazine I certainly read much of in the 70s and 80s. I think I subscribed a couple of times at cheap WorldCon rates. Good to see the article done to a high standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

Drive by comment:

• Reference 40, labelled "TTM_106-112" hasn't been defined. I suspect the cite where it was defined was removed, leaving an orphan. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• Twice in the lead the word "title" is used three times in close proximity. Perhaps "name", "publication" or "magazine" could be used instead. "Title" is also often repeated in close proximity throughout the body of the article.

I've fixed a few of these; see if that looks better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's better, thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• "tremendously successful" – this sounds like puffery to me.

  The source (Ashley) says "In 1931 they had a remarkable success with The Shadow.... It was instantly successful, with a circulation rocketing to 300,000 copies." I'm open to rephrasing, but the success of The Shadow really was spectacular, and it was instrumental in convincing Street & Smith that a science fiction magazine could be successful, so I think there does need to be some indication to the reader that it did very well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Fair enough. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are a couple of short paragraphs in the "Street & Smith" section. Perhaps they could be combined.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are inconsistencies in the spacing between the initials of people. For example: both "E.E. Smith" and "E. E. Smith" are used; also "A.E. van Vogt" and "A. E. van Vogt"; "C.L. Moore" and "C. L. Moore", etc

  I think I got all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've done a little copyediting here, otherwise it looks good. I haven't reviewed the sources as many of them are offline. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the copyedit and the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  Support. It all looks fine now – an interesting read, and maintaining the high standard of your previous sf mag nominations. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Already verified reliability in my review above.
• Formatting-wise, a few things:
  • Not a biggie but any reason Nicholls (FN7) isn't with the book refs and just short-cited?
  • FN04 and some others use yyyy-mm-dd for the access date -- spelling out as you do in FN09 and elsewhere would help consistency and user-friendliness.
  • Your archive date in FN08 is not in US date format.
  • No page number for FN27?
  • FN34 uses "pages" instead of "pp." (might be best to put the whole thing into a cite magazine template anyway).
  • FN50 also has "pages" and could perhaps be reformatted more consistently with similar sources.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for these; I'll clean them up. The FN7 issue is interesting; I think I added that years ago and they all should be changed to the web entry, but when I started looking at them I notice one minor error, and a point that I think Ashley has wrong, because it made me reread the cite to the NYT about the purchase of Street & Smith by Condé Nast. Everyone gives it as February 1962 but the NYT article makes it clear it was really 1959. I've emailed Ashley to ask about it, though of course I can't use what he says until he publishes it! I'll finish cleaning the rest up tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately he had already noticed the error and there's a footnote about it in his most recent book, which I was able to cite. More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose: all done, I think; I also decided to convert all the SFE citations to point to the online version, as it's more accessible to readers and is maintained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, made you work for it, didn't I -- tks Mike, you've addressed everything and more...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I really should have done it before nominating! By the way, I heard back from Ashley and he had the information I needed in a corrigendum in Science Fiction Rebels, so I was able to cite that. I also heard he's working on yet another volume, though he doesn't know what the end date will be -- maybe 2005. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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) 11:13, 7 January 2017 [67].

---

Water pipit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

A follow-up to Eurasian rock pipit, this is another little brown job, but no castrating nematodes involved this time! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• Looking at Commons, it seems there are maybe some better photos (even a video) that could be used? Some of the photos currently in the article are quite low res and taken from afar. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Funkmonk, where are you looking? At the commons page for this species, the non-used images are even poorer, misidentified or of unclear status?

The category[68], the pages are usually not worth looking at... FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, thanks, I'll have a look through in the morning, about to log off now. Pity there isn't another blakistoni, but unsurprising Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk. OK, I've been through the gallery (note that the Adana image is actually a meadow pipit, complete with pink legs), and changed to or added larger images where I can, although there's no substitute for the blakistoni. Feel free to further change the images if you wish, since that's more efficient than me trying to second guess. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks better, but the new taxobox image unfortunately has a transparent watermark plastered over the bird. Perhaps one in the series you took the "Characteristic pale underparts" image from (or that photo itself) could be used instead? FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved image as suggested, the others in the series are too similar, I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'd expect the taxonomy section to begin with info about this bird itself (naming, subecpesies), rather than its relationships?

• I think top-down or bottom-up is a matter of personal taste. I've always done it this way, most recently with Eurasian rock pipit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you abbreviate subspecies trinomials.

• Fixed one, I think all trinomials are now written in full at first mention and abbreviated thereafter as per normal practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the voice section be a subsection of description, as in other articles?

• Yes, my error, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• "A new species of feather mite was discovered on the water pipit" Why not give its name, as you do with the other parasites?

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure why we need to have "nominate" every time that subspecies is mentioned. Is it necessary outside the taxonomy section?

• The different subspecies have differing appearances, calls and range, so I've either got to put "nominate" or A. s. spinoletta for the comparisons. I follow normal practice in going for the shorter option. I can't see where I have put "nominate" other than where the other ssp differ. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Birds close to snow fields took insects specialised for" Why past tense when the former sentence is present?

• Good spot, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• FunkMonk, thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support - everything addressed, looks good to me now. Remember to check the Commons categories, they always have more stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

These brown pipits look practically identical to me, even when I look at a large photographs. I've made some small, hopefully uncontroversial, edits.

• Edits look good, thanks for that. Yes, they are definitely tricky to identify, especially in the field. I moved one of the commons' images supposedly of this species to the correct meadow pipit page there, so you have to check carefully! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Description

• "The head is blueish grey ..." The head doesn't look at all blue to me and your two sources Alström & Mild and HBW do not mention blue (nor does BPW). Alström & Mild have good photos. (perhaps grey rather than grey-brown?)

• Blueish-grey seems to have crept in from Harris et al, but even there the accompanying painting looks a lot more grey than blue, changed to grey Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Behaviour

• "The water pipit is a much less approachable bird ..." The cited source, Bijlsma (1977), doesn't appear to support this sentence (as far as I determine using google translate).

• That was an existing ref that I foolishly took on trust, changed to Harris et al which definitely says that (and it's a surprisingly useful pointer in RL birding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Breeding

• It is strange that EURING doesn't list a maximum recorded age - given that there are hundreds of ring recoveries.

• I was surprised too. I can only speculate that most ringings were of migrating or wintering adults, that's likely given the relatively difficult nesting habitat, and were therefore unsuitable for maximum/average age calcs?? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)-

Aa77zz (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Taxonomy and systematics

• "...until they were separated by the British Ornithologists' Union in 1998." The cited source, the HBW Family article, doesn't mention the BOU.

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Removed, it's not necessary, and I'm not sure that the BOU binds other, more international, organisation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Aa77zz, many thanks for edits and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• "... separated from A.s. coutellii. That form is ..." When reading this I have to stop and think as to which of the two mentioned species "That" is referring to. ("This" form?)

• Added "latter" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Description

• "... and the songs are also diagnostic.[12]" where the source is Leonovich et al 1997. I cannot find this article online. It is in Russian and was already in the article before the recent expansion. For this information I think it would be preferable to use a reliable English language source.

• Replaced with the sources I've used for the songs in the Voice section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Voice

• The comparison of the water pipit with the rock pipit reads as if the vocalization is very different which I don't believe is the case. Alström & Mild in their 1996 article (p. 166) wrote: "The songs are basically similar, but the song of Water Pipit includes a diagnostic sequence with harsh drawn-out notes, ziir,ziir,ziir, ziir. This sequence is usually included when the song is given in flight but less often when sung from the ground." When comparing calls they write: "The calls are so similar that they cannot with certainty be distinguished from each other." The same authors also compare the two species in their 2003 book on pipits and wagtails (page 165, page 170). This looks like a useful source. The detailed discussion is on page 169 which is not available on Google preview). They cite a 1990 article by Thorsten Elfström here.

• Two issues, I think. The songs are different, and although it's possible to argue about the extent of that difference, Simms is a vocalisation specialist, and I'm happy with his description. The calls are another matter, and I've added a sentence to make it clear that any differences are subtle and non-diagnostic. I don't accept that they are indistinguishable, as your first source says, no other source says that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Breeding

• "The male has a display flight in which he climbs to 10–30 metres (33–98 ft), flies in an arc and glides back down." Perhaps mention that the male sings while making this manoeuvre - ("song-flight"?).

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - all looks good - excellent work. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Aa77zz, Many thanks again for your input, I'll try not to do another pipit next time! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Support this one has come together well...nothing to quibble about that I can see....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cas, many thanks for support. I think the previous two reviewers put this through it's paces, but I'm always happy when I don't need to act! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

It seems pretty good, although I noticed 1 or 2 punctuation errors (for example, no period at end of "Voice" section). I also noticed that you seemed to repeat "chicks" a lot in the second paragraph of "Breeding". Also, in "Status", what are the units in the second paragraph? For me at least, the picture in the description section is a bit low quality, and doesn't really show the head marks at a glance. Finally, any information about the variation in moults for the subspecies? Other wise, I think that it is ready to go. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

RileyBugz thanks for review. Added missing full stop and removed two chicks. Units in Status are at start of section. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Support - Welcome! Nice job on the article! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RileyBugz, thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

Although I can see discussion of images and sources above, it doesn't appear that image licensing or source formatting/reliability have been formally checked -- you can add requests at WT:FAC as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose, thanks, will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Image review - all images are properly CC licensed and sourced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk, thanks for that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• Earwig's tool is being flakey so no plagiarism checks.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thanks for source review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we are just about ready now, but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the "Behaviour" section. We have rather a lot of sentences beginning with "the", including six in a row at one point. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1, thanks for looking. I'm not sure I accept the validity of your criticism, which I have never had raised before in over 60 FAs (doesn't necessarily mean I'm right, of course). If you are writing descriptive text, it's difficult to avoid "the" unless you chop and change between singular and plural, something for which I often criticise other editors. Even writing passively, which I try to avoid, doesn't help The nest is constructed by... has the same "problem" as "The female constructs...". In the past, I've sometimes used phrases like This pipit, but was regularly criticised for doing so. Anyway, to show willing I've lost three definite articles. Please note that I'll be away for nearly a week from tomorrow, so if this response doesn't meet your requirements, it likely I won't respond until I return, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. It wasn't a huge issue, just something to bear in mind. In any case, I'll promote this now. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 [69].

---

2014 Japanese Grand Prix

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, a Formula One motor race held on 5 October 2014 at the Suzuka Circuit in Suzuka, Japan. It was the 15th round of that year's season and the 30th running of the event as part of the Formula One World Championship. The 44-lap race, which was affected by Typhoon Phanfone, a category four tyre storm, was won by Mercedes driver Lewis Hamilton. However, the race was overshadowed by a major accident involving Jules Bianchi of the Marussia team in which he collided the rear of the tractor crane which was tending to the recovery of another car. Bianchi remained in a coma until his death nine months later on 17 July 2015. I started working on this article in July, and after an extensive copy-edit from the GOCE in August, I believe it meets the FA criteria. All constructive feedback is welcome. MWright96 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support – I fixed a few typos and only see one minor issue: reference 4 appears to be dead, or at least is not working for me. Assuming that can be fixed, as Jaguar put it, this is pure FA material. Well done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support Benjamin. I have removed the dead link since the same issue has reoccurred in the past. MWright96 (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support I rarely quick pass articles but in this case I'd say that this article is flawless both in terms of quality and comprehensiveness. Outstanding work. JAGUAR  12:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• Template:Interlanguage link multi: Consensus seems to be against this template at FAC, and I've converted both links to standard red links. Blue links would be better, if you can create stubs, but a couple of red links won't disqualify this article at FAC. (The template serves as a warning sign that something needs to be fixed. FAC is the place for articles where the things that need to be fixed already have been fixed.)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. My only concern is the red link from "Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice" and the length from some section but that's the nitpicking too much. Also, if you have free time, could you check my own nomination.Tintor2 (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Zwerg Nase

• I'd suggest adding at least half a sentence to the lead about what the cause for Bianchi's hospitalization and death were (head injuries). At the moment, all we learn is he crashed, came to the hospital and later died, which comes as a surprise at that point without having learned before that his injuries were very severe.
  • Added in third lead paragraph. MWright96 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Backgorund: When did Hamilton reclaim the championship lead? That needs to be established.
  • Hamilton reclaimed the championship lead in the preceding Singapore Grand Prix. MWright96 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Apart from these small things, I see no reason why this should not be a Featured Article. Very nice work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Zwerg Nase: Have now taken action on the two above points you have raised. MWright96 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Looks good to me now. Support. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments – Sarastro asked me to have a look at the article, and I'm happy with most of what I saw. There were only a handful of things that made me want to comment here. With a couple of exceptions that I note below, I found this to be well-written and can easily see myself supporting.

• Background: The third paragraph could use a Sebastian Vettel link, unless there's one earlier that I missed.
  • Added. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• The link to 2015 Formula One season in the last paragraph is what's known as an easter egg link; it looks like a bare year link to the reader, and it could be made clearer that it is a high-value link. This could be phrased "at Toro Rosso in the 2015 season", which would fix the linking issue.
  • Reworded for higher quality linking. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Race: The end of the second paragraph here reads like a long list, because it is one. Unless something really notable happened in the back of the field, how would you feel about limiting the running order to the top 10 cars, like was done in the practice summary?
  • Hmm, I've seen it in another Formula One FA but have no objection. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• The end of the third paragraph mentions 130R, which comes off as jargon to a non-racing fan. If possible, consider providing a brief explanation of what kind of turn this is (at least I assume it's a turn).
  • 130R is a corner. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• The lead says "The race ended prematurely on lap 46, when Jules Bianchi made contact..." with Sutil's care. However, the body implies the incident occurred on lap 43, and the caption gives that lap number. From reading between the lines, it seems like there were a couple of laps run before the second red flag came out. If I'm right, shouldn't the lead read "after Jules Bianchi made contact..."? If not, the article doesn't actually say the crash was on lap 46, just that the race was stopped then. At the very least, the caption would need to be fixed.
  • Reworded to clarify that Bianchi's crash occurred on the race's 43rd lap and it was prematurely ended three laps later. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
• Race Note 1: Another minor point, but "his" could be inserted into "added to race time" to make the note read better. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Added. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Thank you for taking the time to review. I have the edits that have been suggested. MWright96 (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support – As I said earlier, this is a fine article overall and I think it deserves the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Image and source review

• Everything is properly licensed for this article. Source review coming soon. --Laser brain (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sources look good, no faults found. --Laser brain (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.