Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 22:46, 31 October 2016 [1].

Taylor Swift[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC) and IndianBio[reply]

This article is about Taylor Swift, one of the most popular celebrities on Earth, a very unique songwriter (who only writers about her exes) and a not-so good singer. In 2012 the article became a GA but was delisted last year due to length and prose issues. I trimmed it down significantly (with the help of co-nommer) and also gave it a little bit of expansion - about 18k bytes. It underwent a highly profitable peer review with a thorough review from Wehwalt. I leave it up to you reviewers to decide whether or not it is ready for the bronze star. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • No audio files used, images only.
  • All images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed. The only one that worries me is this one, which has personality rights warning, although it appears to be free for public use.
  • Regarding the captions, can you modify some of them to read more unifying? Some suggestions bellow:
Pictured in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010→Swift performing in Los Angeles during the Fearless Tour in 2010
link the Speak Now World Tour in 2012
Swift's 1989 World Tour grossed $250 million, becoming one of the highest grossing tours of all time→Swift at The 1989 World Tour, which grossed $250 million and became one of the highest grossing tours of all time
Swift in 2009→Swift at the 2009 Cavendish Beach Music Festival in Prince Edward Island, Canada
  • Notifying that I made suggestion on the prose during the peer review, and all of them were resolved.--Retrohead (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Have acted on on your suggestions. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing not related to the images. Please check the external links in the box on the upper right. You'll find some references in green indicating some links need to be updated. The ones in red are dead and need to be replaced. This was probably going to be mentioned in the source review, but it is better to be fixed now.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are very common to occur; one particular source titled "You Belong With Me" was updated not long ago and yet again it needs fixing. I tried to 'fix' those anyway with checklinks, but it's not seem to work. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not the redirects, I'm talking about the urls of the references. For example, ref 7 has changed its url and I've updated it. You need to update the remaining links that appear in green and red. Once updated, the software will not remove them from the list.--Retrohead (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Retrohead: I am also talking about the sources - sources redirect. I tried to fix most of them, but many of them are still appearing in green. Redirects are common. Don't think they need to be changed, unless the link dies. – FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the links seem fine now. Good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Looks pretty good. Surprised at how few reviews there are, but I guess most Wikipedians were brought up on Frank Sinatra. Anyhow, some points, not requiring action:

  • Is one episode of CSI worth mentioning in the lead?
  • My favourite line in the article is "Swift was also honored by the Association with a special Pinnacle Award for "unique" levels of success, becoming the second recipient after Garth Brooks"
  • "Trenchfoot" is actually two words, but the quote matches the source. Meh.

Well done! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. - FrB.TG (talk) 06:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

I was pinged on my talk and am happy that I came: excellent reading, meticulously referenced, - I'd even think sometimes too much, - if there are two good sources I'd let go of a third. I found nothing wrong with the prose, no wonder after a peer review by Wehwalt. All these accolades are almost a bit boring, but what can she do if she gets so many ;) - I didn't know what "self-titled album" means, but that's probably just my lack of English. Image captions: Perhaps make them consistently full sentences or not, the former closed by a full stop, the others not. I like the image placement a lot! (You have probably no idea how rarely I say that.)

One minor issue: I'd have Influences first, then Musical style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, thanks so much for taking a look at the article - I'm glad that you enjoyed reading it. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp A very nice read. I made a number of minor edits just now, mostly for punctuation consistency issues. Here are just a few remaining comments I have:

  • "Teardrops on My Guitar" became a minor pop hit, reaching number thirteen on the Billboard Hot 100: At what point does a hit cease to be a minor hit and become a medium hit? Perhaps consider removing "a minor hit" and let the chart position speak for itself?
Replaced with moderate commercial success, hopefully better? – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I Knew You Were Trouble" was a commercial success,[107]peaking at number two in the United States: This may imply that none of the album's other singles had a degree of commercial success, but (according to Taylor Swift discography) "Red" was a top-10 hit, and two of the other singles were top-40.
  • Subsequent singles included "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar), which reached number one in the United States, "Style" and "Wildest Dreams" which peaked in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100, and "Out of the Woods" and "New Romantics": Possibly find a way to rewrite this? It may not be clear whether only "Bad Blood" reached number one, and only "Wildest Dreams" was top 10. Also, there are a lot of instances of "and" in the sentence.
It's more clear now but the occurrence of and is still frequent. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian has praised Swift for writing about teenage "with a kind of wistful, sepia-toned nostalgia" over the course of her first two albums: Should this be "writing about teenagers"? Or something like "writing about teenage years"?

That's all. I'm pretty much ready to support once you address these. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, thanks much for the suggestions - followed each of them. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It all looks good. I did a further tweak of the sentence about 1989's singles. I'm happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Fn 7: there's no publication date, only a retrieval date, which is one year earlier than the publication date on the website.
  • Fn 12: is there a link to the story, or is it off-line only?
I don't think it's available online.
  • Fn 18: is there a better way to title this than the file name?
  • Fn 29: is there a title to the article?
  • Fn 51 is a dead link.
  • Fn 52 is a dead link.
  • Fn 153 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 168: is there a title to the article?
  • Fn 170 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 172 needs a publication date.
  • Fns 185, 187 aren't formatted at all, which makes them look different from the other magazine cites.
Ref 185 (now 182) is formatted properly but the publication date to it is not known.
  • Fn 191 needs a publication date.
Publication date not available.
  • Fn 213 is a dead link.
  • Fn 214 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 222 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 231 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 245 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 246 won't open for me, but that could be a temporary problem with the website.
It works fine for me.
  • Fn 247 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 248 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 252 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 258 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 259 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 267 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 268 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 269 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 274 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 276 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 277 needs a publication date.
  • Fn 279 doesn't list the author's name (it's at the bottom of the article.)
  • Fn 281 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 286 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 289 doesn't list the author's name.
  • Fn 292 doesn't list the author's name and has the wrong title.

That's all for now, I'll check back later. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review - for someone who's done source reviews in the past, this is really bad news. – FrB.TG (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. It's tough, with a popular article and many sources, to keep everything in order. All looks good now. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: do we have a consensus for closure? – FrB.TG (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, on first glance, but I'll have to go through it later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but there's something about the second sentence, "Throughout her career, she has become one of the most popular female contemporary singers"... "Throughout her career" implies she's always been "one of the most popular female contemporary singers" but "has become" suggests she wasn't always. What are we actually trying to say here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having played with the opening paragraph a fair bit, I think I'm getting a little close to this one so will recuse from coord duties now to be on the safe side. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for your help. I think it might be fair to ping @Laser brain: for assistance. Cheers – FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already done -- we always let each other know of recusals. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments I've picked the "Public image" section more or less at random:

  • "Swift's personal life has been the subject of constant media attention" - starting from when?
  • "For Ben Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church, she is "the whorish face of doomed America"" - why are we prominently quoting a fringe figure abusing the subject of the article in an really awful way?
    • "These have been addressed, but this para now feels a bit incomplete: can it be said that there's lots of interest in her personal life, along with commentary on it or similar? The NY Times quote comes a bit out of the blue now, and it's not clear why Abercrombie & Fitch was mean to her. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swift considers her to be a role model" - is the article referring to Michelle Obama here?
  • "but unlike her contemporaries, she is modest in appearance, and according to New York Daily News, finds it easy to "keep [her] clothes on"" - this sounds rather Victorian-era language. What's meant by "modest" isn't clear, and "finds it easy to "keep [her] clothes on"" isn't great (bear in mind that young female pop stars come under pressure from their management to behave in certain ways publicly - presumably Swift has chosen not to take this path for whatever reason, but this language is judging others who have).
  • "She was included in Time's annual list of the 100 most influential people in 2010 and 2015" - quite an honour, and seemingly out of place in a para on her appearance given that she's known for a range of things - I note that a similar judgement by Forbes appears in the next para on her wealth rather than her looks. On what grounds was she judged influential? Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the few comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: thanks for the comments and it seems that was the end of 'em (unfortunately). Could you strike out the comments you consider resolved for the coordinators? – FrB.TG (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done: a couple need a bit more work (I would like to see more material on why she was judged highly influential - presumably this is an acknowledgement of her dominance of pop culture at the time). Thanks for the quick and response BTW. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: done both, I think. – FrB.TG (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks great. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2016 [2].

Sabrina Sidney[edit]

Nominator(s): WormTT(talk) & ツStacey (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sabrina Sidney, a foundling girl taken in by Thomas Day with the intention of creating the perfect wife for himself. It's a very interesting story, an article I've really enjoyed writing with Staceydolxx, and I do honestly believe it meets the FA criteria. However, I'm not terribly experienced in process (this is only my second attempt to go through it), so I'd appreciate it if you went easy on us! Of course, we're willing to address any issues that do come up and I should also mention that I am competing in the Wikicup WormTT(talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto

A fascinating and bizarre story: you almost think that you are reading about a character in a gothic novel, not a real person. The article mainly looks good; I only have a few comments:

  • Rousseau's Emile is referred to throughout as Emile, or On Education. I'd give the subtitle only on the first mention (or perhaps first mention in the lead, and then again at first mention in the body of the article).
    I've removed some instances of the subtitle, leaving it in the lead, one mention in the article and in the image of it's front page. WormTT(talk)
  • The final paragraph of the article could, I think, do with a rewrite; I had to read it a couple of times to work out what was being said. I'll have a go to see what I can do about it.
    here is my attempt; feel free to revert/improve. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a significant improvement to me, thank you! WormTT(talk)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably formally support this nomination... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fountains-of-Paris

  • The references in the Wikipedia article on Rousseau appear to indicate that this Sabrina Sidney article is a counter-intuitive reading of his book on Emile, and this might be amplified to clarify its usage for the readers of this article since Rousseau actually believed the exact opposite of the type of treatment received by Sabrina S. This is the passage included in the section in Mansfield Park dealing with feminism and the position which Rousseau actually takes: "Significant literary criticism has been made upon Mansfield Park concerning the role which feminism plays in Austen's characterization of the main character depicted in Fanny Price. Margaret Kirkham in her essay titled "Feminist Irony and the Priceless Heroine of Mansfield Park" has commented directly on the positions of both Rousseau and Wollstonecraft regarding the type of feminism Austen explores in the depiction of Fanny Price. For Kirkham, these two views are highly constrasting with Rousseau portraying the role of women as limited by "feminine" frailties which, counter-intuitively, Rousseau encourages women to exaggerate in order to affectionately manipulate their effect on men as he states in his book Emile: "So far from being ashamed of their weakness, they glory in it; their tender muscles make no resistance; they affect to be incapable of lifting the smallest burdens, and would blush to be thought robust and strong." (quoted in Margaret Kirkham, "Feminist Irony and the Priceless Heroine of Mansfield Park; In Jane Austen: New Perspectives (Women and Literature, n.s. 3), edited by Janet Todd, 1983, Holmes and Meier Publishers.) Wollstonecraft for her part agreed with Austen's perspective contrary to both Rousseau and his followers in this regard such as Fordyce whom Kirkham criticizes stating: "I know not any comment that can be made seriously on this curious passage (from Fordyce and Rousseau), and I could produce many similar ones; and some so very sentimental, that I have heard rational men used the word indecent when they mentioned them with disgust." Kirkham, siding with Austen, was critical of the "feminine" frailties school represented by Rousseau and Fordyce. Sabrina received tuition opposite to that suggested by Rousseau. Wikipedia's current top editor is User:Moderninst who might have another relevant viewpoint. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Fountains-of-Paris, thanks for your comments and sorry for the delay in replying. Your interpretation of Rousseau matches mine, I do agree that Day misunderstood the work - but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was following his interpretation of Rousseau. Day was a complicated individual, who's opinion of women was contradictory - he appeared to want a strong-willed, intelligent woman with whom he could discuss matters of gravitas, but at the same time she should be chaste, need protection from all other men and follow his every will. He was not alone in his interpretation of Rousseau, which is not surprising as radical works will be interpreted differently by people with different backgrounds. I'd certainly value Modernist's view if he has time to read the article.
    That said, whilst I'm happy to debate Rousseau and the different interpretations, I do think the article is clear that it is Day's actions were based on his reading of Emile, not that Rousseau was advocating Day's approach. I don't believe Rousseau and Day ever met, nor that Rousseau was even aware of Day. If you think that it's not clear, I'll have another look and see if I can reinforce that fact. WormTT(talk) 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all fair. When I did the Kirkham edit for the Jane Austen pages, Kirkham was of the opinion that this type of reading of Rousseau should be written up as being "anti-Rousseau" in her published article. Since its a published source and Kirkham is a respected scholar, then it seems that your lead section might benefit from calling it an anti-Rousseau position following Kirkham. Just leaving it as another "Rousseau" reading seems a little ambiguous if it is left without some adjective (or some sort) to clarify Day's off-center reading of Rousseau. Its really up to you, though I thought you would like know about Kirkham's published preference on this question. Possibly @Modernist: can comment further. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but involved). I did the GAN review on this piece and it has improved since then. Fully support. Montanabw(talk) 07:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I enjoyed the interesting story already at DYK time. Will read the lead last. General: at times I'd place a comma more, to separate ideas, but that may be just me. I wonder if the headers could be written more from her perspective than Day's? Please fix a ref warning.

  • Infobox: I am suprised that the name on top is one she possibly never had.
  • Day's experiment: I'd insert a subheader such as Background.
  • Choosing the girls: "his birthday" doesn't match a plural subject.
  • Lead: all I found on re-reading was that I needed a new para for the section after her death, which I did.

I like the engaged writing, excellent job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your suggestions Gerda.
  • I think we used both names in the info box as we couldn't decide which to use. Which would you suggest? Sabrina Sidney or Sabrina Bicknell?
  • I've put in the sub-heading.
  • I have changed the sentence to make it clear who's birthday we were referring to.
  • Thanks for your edits too! ツStacey (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - just Gerda is fine with me. Name: I'd match the article name on top, and have the other as other_names.
Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

Accessibility comments:

Note on references: it appears that the Oelkers 2014 entry in the Bibliography section isn't used as an in-line citation in the article. Technically, it should be in a "General references" or "Further reading" section, but I wouldn't insist on such a section being created for just one entry. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks RexxS. I've now used Oelkers 2014 in the article as an in-line citation, hopefully that removes the difficulty. WormTT(talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note - has this had a source review? --Laser brain (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • Refs 25, 56 and 57 (all to Moore 2013) should be "pp" not "p"
  • In Bibliography, location missing from Backscheider, Cunningham, Oelkers, Sadler, Schama, Stewart and Wilson. These locations are needed for consistency with the others.
  • All sources look to be reliable and appropriately high quality.
  • Spot checks not done

Apart from the above two points, everything looks fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- such an unusual, almost unbelievable, story I decided to recuse from coord duties and copyedit/review:

  • The story could hardly be anything except engaging but I felt the prose could stand some improvement, so I've spent some time tweaking and trimming; please let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning.
  • Article layout seems straightforward, the level of detail appropriate, and the tone neutral.
  • I'll defer to Sarastro re. source formatting/reliability.
  • Likewise Nikki re. images, although it looks to me that there might still be an outstanding point, pls check on that.
  • It's been a few years since WTT's last FA so I think someone ought to spotcheck sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if no-one beats me to it I'll try and do so in the next day or two.

To summarise, at this stage I'm leaning to support but I'd like to check that the image review is finalised and see a spotcheck of sources before committing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the copyedits, Ian Rose, I'm not the best writer (my BSc was in Maths!) so I appreciate anyone taking the time to tidy up anything I've written. Looking through your edits as you were doing them and they all seem to keep the meaning but improve the prose. Nikki's point was dealt with, but stupidly I confirmed on her talk page rather than here! I've commented above with a link to the talk page. I've no issues with a spotcheck on the sources, I may not spend much time at FA, but I do ensure that articles I write are regularly peer reviewed through other Wikipedia processes, so I'm confident that there should be no difficulties there. WormTT(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing or plagiarism -- I've restricted myself to sources available online either through Google preview or elsewhere on the web...

  • FN14a -- article mentioned "slender" but I didn't notice anything supporting that in the source; also both article and source mention a "melodious" voice and, while it's only one word, perhaps using a variation like simply "pleasant" would be preferable.
  • FN14b -- okay.
  • FN17 -- okay; also supported by Backscheider p. 121, which I'd checked earlier for FN14 (just an observation, no action required).
  • FN34 -- okay.
  • FN55 -- "despite Bicknell being just two years older than he"; this may be true but the source doesn't actually make this comparison as far as I can see.
  • FN59a -- okay.
  • FN59b -- okay.
  • FN67 -- "stating that she never loved Day" may be implied by the source but isn't that explicit as far as I can see; the rest of the sentence is fine.

WTT, none of the above is particularly serious but the proportion of such little niggles suggest that as well as taking care of these it might be worthwhile you going over the article against the sources and just double-checking things along the lines that I've noted. Of course if you think I've missed something in my checks above pls let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose. I don't believe I added anything in that was not from the sources. When I put the article in for GA, Montanabw recommended that duplication of sources was a bad idea and so I've removed anything where very similar information came from two different sources. I expect these niggles can easily be put to rest by double checking the earlier version and bringing some of those sources back in. The only one with a little synthesis is FN55, which is correct, but not drawn as a parallel in the source. This was another point raised in the GA, Day's complaint that Bicknell was too old was rather hypocritical given their comparative ages, but the age difference hadn't been made clear in the article. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I notice the first point among my spotchecks has been actioned so I've struck it; pls keep me informed how the rest go so I can strike and wrap up my review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Apologies for the delay, the real world has rather taken my attentions. I've had another look through the sources and I can't find the statement that she didn't love Day, so I've removed that too. Regarding FN55, as I mentioned above the GA raises the issue that Day complains about the age difference, without explaining what the age difference is. I don't see anywhere that the age difference is mentioned in a book, though I believe Moore does mention both ages in her book. I've reworded to make it more neutral as no book is bringing up that age difference - it's now simple information which can be found easily by checking each birth date. Hopefully that resolves the issue there too. WormTT(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, I've struck the remaining concerns and am ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've had this article on my watch list more or less from when it was created so have followed the changes as it has progressed. I feel after recent final tweaks it now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support promotion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:47, 31 October 2016 [3].

O. G. S. Crawford[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prominent early to mid 20th century British archaeologist. It reached GA status earlier this year and now I'd like to see it sit alongside Margaret Murray and Mortimer Wheeler as a Featured Article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM
  • Is "Notes for Beginners" the same thing as Notes on Archaeology for Guidance in the Field? If not, what is it? A pamphlet? Article?
    • I think that they are the same thing; I've standardised this so that the text mentions "Notes on Archaeology for Guidance in the Field". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He followed this with a range of further maps in the 1930s: 'England in the Seventeenth Century', 'Celtic Earthworks of Salisbury Plain', 'Neolithic Wessex', and 'Britain in the Dark Ages'." Why single quotes? If they're titles, it should be in double quotes; if descriptions, plain text.
  • "the spring and summer 1924" Shouldn't that be "spring and summer 1924" or "the spring and summer of 1924"?
  • "Crawford himself was known as "Ogs" or "Uncle Ogs" to a number of these individuals,[84] who shared his desire to professionalise the field and take it in a more scientific direction and away from the domination of antiquarian hobbyists." The comma is throwing me a little, here; perhaps this sentence could be rephrased?
    • I've made some changes to both this sentence and to the structure of that paragraph: we now have "They shared Crawford's desire to professionalise the field, thereby taking it away from the domination of antiquarian hobbyists and into a more scientific direction. To a number of these individuals, Crawford himself was affectionately known as "Ogs" or "Uncle Ogs"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one place, you suggest that he never became involved in "organised politics", but, in another, you suggest that he had some affiliation with the Labour Party
    • A pertinent observation. I'll have to go back to Hauser's original text here in order to see if I can clear this issue up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taken on by Daniel" Ambiguous; several people by this name have been mentioned.
    • Ah, I see the confusion. "G. E. Daniel" and "Glyn Daniel" are the same person. I've amended the prose to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no dependents" No human dependents, presumably; he had cats!
  • "Wheeler and Daniel." As above
  • "Daniel characterised" Again
    • Same as above. 12:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What is meant by "functionalism" in this context?
  • I wonder if an explanatory footnote at the first mention of Bloody Old Britain would be helpful given that it is both the name of an unpublished book by Crawford and the name of a biography of him.

A very engaging read. I made a number of edits; please do double-check them. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is very well-written and referenced. A relatively brief delve has revealed no major sources missed or possibility of a free lead image, but I will watch the page to make sure no one else finds anything we should be worried about. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No view right now on comprehensiveness, spotchecks not done.

  • Why are you using {{cite contribution}} for Ascherson? It makes it slightly inconsistent with the other journal sources.
    • I have no idea, but however that got in there, I have changed it to the more standard {{cite article}}. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still inconsistent; compare the page ranges. Why not {{cite journal}}? On that note, you vary on whether you drop the hundreds; compare "139–143" to "382–86". It doesn't matter which style you adopt as long as it's consistent! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point on both. I have made corrections that hopefully sought both of these issues out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark 1951 and Myres 1951: Is "eds" not reserved for multiple editors? Elsewhere, you use "ed.".
    • Well spotted. That was juts a silly mistake, which has now been corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reported the DOI error; hopefully that will be resolved.

All sources are appropriately scholarly. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Stonehenge_1877.JPG is tagged as lacking description, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the issues with this image, I have replaced it with File:Stonehenge, Condado de Wiltshire, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 09.JPG. This image has the disadvantage of having been taken over a century after Crawford's early visits to the site, but at least it should have no copyright problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

This is certainly good enough for FA as it stands, so I'm happy to support, but two minor points for you to consider

  • I'm always wary about "however" and "nevertheless", please check each occurrence to make sure it's necessary
    • I've had a look and taken out one example of "however" and two of "nevertheless". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it was suggested by another reviewer, but "human dependants" is nonsense. If a social security form asks for dependants, you don't write "Moggie and Fido". I realise you're stuck in the middle with this, so I'll leave it to you
    • I'm probably going to keep "human" in there, if that's okay. It's certainly not essential, but Crawford did have cats and under some definitions (if not the legal definition, perhaps), they would count as his dependents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)I confess it seems bizarre to me to talk about someone with companions as having no dependents; I would point out that the word "dependent" has connotations other than the legal ones (which, of course, vary from situation to situation). Given Jim's worry, however, I'm happy to let MBO go with whatever she things best. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck, Jimfbleak (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support, Jimfbleak. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "subsequently": I'm not sure if this word works anywhere, but I know it doesn't work on Wikipedia, because it's given a variety of contradictory senses by Wikipedians, in roughly equal proportions: soon, later, consequently, not consequently, etc. Often, it's best just to delete it. Please search for the word throughout and replace it with one of those words, or nothing, or something else.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

  • Support Nothing came to mind, but clearly FA standard, Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

I noticed a few instances of seasonal references ("summer", "spring and summer", etc). Tweaked a couple of these but it would help our antipodean readers (and others too I think) if more precise timings involving months of the year could be used wherever possible. Won't hold up promotion on that account but pls have a look. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but in most cases the reference to seasons rather than months is based on the statements in the original sources (unfortunately). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:58, 31 October 2016 [4].

The World Before the Flood[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair to say that The World Before the Flood divides opinion. Dismissed by John Constable as "a revel rout of Satyrs and lady bums as usual" and condemned in the press for obscenity, it also drew great praise in some quarters, and was the subject of a ludicrously effusive poem by John Taylor. Having spent the last century on display in Southampton, which is something of an artistic backwater, it's not particularly well known, but it's an interesting aside in the story of English religious art. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil[edit]

The article uses the same reliable quality sources as those used in previous Featured Articles in the series. I added a couple of archive URLs and removed a dead URL from another ref that there wasn't an archive available for.

Subject

  • Both paragraphs start "The World before the Flood ..."; could the second para perhaps be re-jigged slightly?
  • Second paragraph: "...Archangel Michael, Michael ..."; can the immediate repetition be avoided?

Reception

  • Second paragraph: "The Athanaeum considered it ..." followed by the next sentence "Colburn's New Monthly Magazine considered it ..." replace one of the "considered it"?

Legacy

  • Final paragraph: It states paintings remain at York Gallery and Southampton Gallery "as at 2015" - should this be "as at 2016" as they seem to still be held there?

These are all just very minor nit picks in another very interesting article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. Realistically neither painting will ever go anywhere—austerity has come to an end, so the risk of local authorities having to sell off their art holdings to make ends meet has dropped considerably, but someone will no doubt complain if it doesn't include a couple of {{asof}}s. ‑ Iridescent 15:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks for tweaking so quickly. SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Great to see this here, reading through now... CassiantoTalk 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "William Etty was born in 1787, the son of a York baker and miller. He began as an apprentice printer in Hull" -- Etty or his father?
  • Expanded a bit on this—I try to keep this background bit as short as possible, as I'm aware that someone reading through this series is having to read essentially the same story a dozen times. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And indeed you should. But the clarification you've made seems good enough without being too detailed. CassiantoTalk 22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a few pieces of chalk crayons" -- who said this? Unattributed quotes, I find, are always unhelpful.
  • Alexander Gilchrist—the reference seems to have been lost somewhere along the line, re-added. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've removed that "chalk crayons" bit altogether. It doesn't add anything, and it means this article avoids the use of Gilchrist's hagiography altogether. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude" -- At all other times he was fully clothed?
  • This was raised at the Dawn of Love FAC as well—I don't think any reasonable reader can misinterpret it in context given that it follows "Etty tried to replicate its success by painting nude figures", and mangled phrasing like "specialise in artwork primarily featuring people in a state of nudity" just makes it harder to read.
  • "Following the exhibition of Cleopatra..." -- Should the shortening of The Arrival of Cleopatra in Cilicia receive itals? If the painting was known as simply "Cleopatra" this should also feature in the parenthesis, no?
  • Paintings at this time didn't have titles, which were a Pre-Raphaelite invention in the late 1840s. There is no "right" and "wrong" title for Cleopatra, just various names by which it was known. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The painting shows the stages of courtship as described by Milton" -- New para, new full title. I've noticed you've done the same elsewhere.
  • I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here; if it's that each time it's mentioned for the first time in a paragraph The World Before the Flood needs to be written out in full, I'd strongly disagree with that. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that is not what I meant; for instance: "The World Before the Flood is strongly influenced by A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan (1632–33) by Nicolas Poussin" speaks of two paintings, this one, and A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan. The next para then starts with: "The painting...".
  • Ah, I'm with you. I've changed the second occurrence to "Etty's painting", to avoid having two successive paragraphs start with "The World Before the Flood"
  • "grave" -- what do the quote marks add to this?
  • To indicate that I'm using this archaic terminology because it's the term used by Milton, and that it's not in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Milton considers" or something similar then. As I've said elsewhere, unattributed quotes are most unhelpful. CassiantoTalk 21:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection, I've removed that altogether, as we already have Milton's text running alongside here so it's superfluous. ‑ Iridescent 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Up to here, more to come... CassiantoTalk 18:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I guess I'll add my voice asking for a slight rewording of " Etty was the first British artist to specialise in the nude". The issue is unintended humor.
  • How about "the first British artist to specialise in paintings of nudes"? ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the reaction of uneducated audiences to these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century.": I have a slight preference for "and these paintings caused concern throughout the 19th century." Most readers will get what you're saying, but some won't, and a misreading would be unfortunate.
  • The issue was specifically concerns about the reactions of the uneducated lower classes to paintings on public display—Artists and connoisseurs were generally trusted to approach images of the undraped figure with contemplative composure but audiences uneducated in the intricacies of art criticism tended to be regarded with suspicion if you want chapter-and-verse. (The definition of "obscenity" in English law is based on whether it has the potential to corrupt its audience, rather than on what's depicted; up until 1959 the social class of potential audiences was taken into account when deciding whether something was appropriate for distribution.) Realistically, someone demanding a citation for "the English assume that anyone from a different background to themselves isn't to be trusted" is right up there with this guy. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[35]),[36]", "[35]),[27]": Reference formats aren't my thing, so I won't comment other than to say I don't usually see them written this way.
  • The MOS editors seem to change the preferred placement of citations more often than they change their underwear, but I think that's the current approved format when one citation supports the comment in parentheses, and the other supports the surrounding statement. Moving the [36] and [27] to the immediate end of the statement they support rather than after the first succeeding punctuation mark will mean a footnote appearing before punctuation, which I'm given to understand means the world coming to an end. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I have read through the article and found very few issues. All the content is nicely referenced but I'm afraid I have not checked any of the sources themselves.

  • Composition:
    • The text refers to "early versions" and the caption to "preparatory sketches", but I only noticed a mention of the study at York. Checking again from the top, I see "worked through various configurations for the characters in the painting before settling on his final design" earlier in the Subject section. I would like to see a sentence or two about what other studies are extant or mentioned in sources (Burnage 2011b or whatever). For example, were they drawings or paintings of individual characters or groups, or other sketches of the whole composition? Do we have any idea how long he worked on it?
Other than the two versions shown here there's nothing to say about any of them; literally all that has been written about the preparatory sketches is pencil 89⁄10×71⁄5, on folded envelope, small sketches for this composition. Regarding how long it took to paint, there's no way of knowing as he didn't keep notes and was so pathologically shy we don't have any accounts from visitors to his studio of what he was working on. His paintings usually took three days to complete once he got started on the final version (one day inking outlines, one day painting, one day glazing and overpainting) but for his showpiece paintings could take anything up to a couple of years. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How about changing "In early versions the right-most..." to "In the study and other preparatory sketches, the right-most..."? I think that would prevent the "what other versions?" question. --Mirokado (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended it to "In Etty's oil sketch and in preliminary drawings the right-most…" which ought to address it. ‑ Iridescent 14:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception:
    • Please check my copyedit to The Athenaeum link
Yes, you're right—that one slipped through. ‑ Iridescent 19:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support (assuming sensible responses to the above!) --Mirokado (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No further issues from my point of view. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

As with the above review, my comments are mainly in the way of small quibbles:

  • Lead: I'd delete "which greatly pleased Etty", not that I doubt he was pleased, but the observation doesn't seem leadworthy.
  • Removed from the lead, although I think it should remain in the body text; there is some significance to the fact that it was bought by a member of the aristocracy and not northern new-money (who at the time were the main market for experimental art, as they didn't have the public-school background and expectations of what Great Art was supposed to look like). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
  • The words "in painting" in the second para seem unnecessary.
  • Agreed—per my comment to Cassianto above, I try to vary this "background bio" part slightly on each article in the awareness that someone working through this series is going to read what's essentially the same story 14 times, so glitches slip in. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again a small quibble, but the words "nude" or "nudity" appear six times in the final paragraph, and I feel that a reduction by a couple would help the prose – for example "distribution of such material"; "portraits of unclothed males" (just suggestions).
  • Does that work? Nude is a specific term of art for this type of painting, so I can't really get rid of it any further. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject:
  • "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam, Michael shows Adam the world after..." Some awkward repetition in that construction. Suggest: "Among the visions of the future the Archangel Michael shows to Adam is the world after..."
  • Yes, that works. This paragraph is tricky, as Adam's vision in Paradise Lost is of events which are in our past but in his future. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure from Genesis 6 that it was the taking of wives that so excited the wrath of God against man that he decided to destroy his creation. After all, there had been rather a lot of wife-taking in the previous chapter, which recounts the ten generations from Adam to Noah. Rather, it seems, successive generations became over-mighty and corrupt, so that "every imagination of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually", and God decided to wipe them out. (Gen. 6:4–7)
  • I don't know—looking at Genesis 6, it does seem fairly explicit that the sequence of events is "taking wives", "bearing children", "wickedness of man is great", "And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth". Our own Genesis flood narrative article seems to concur with this (while I'm normally leery about taking Wikipedia articles seriously, I'd assume the key Christianity articles accurately reflect current thinking as there are so many people who'd jump on any mistake.) ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition:
  • Is it really accurate to say, in the caption, that Etty "reused" the figure of the seated black soldier or, in the text, that this figure had "previously appeared" in the earlier painting? The figures have similarities, but there are distinct differences in posture; one is seated, the other kneeling or possibly climbing aboard the barge.
  • Farr (writing in the 1950s) describes him as "one of the negro warriors first seen in the Cleopatra"; for (I hope) obvious reason this is a case where I don't consider it appropriate to use the original wording. If you consider it problematic it can be removed, as it's tangential at best
  • You say that Etty did not give the picture a title. Can you say who gave it the title "The World Before the Flood", and when? (If I overlooked this information in the article, I'm sorry)
  • I've done some digging in the full catalogue, and there's no date given for the first use of The World Before the Flood as a title. Looking through catalogues for the exhibitions at which it was shown, the earliest reference I can find to this name is at the 1862 International Exhibition; I've added a note to this effect (and broken my longstanding dislike of inserting Google Books links, as this is one case where I can imagine people wanting to check for themselves). ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: No issues
  • Legacy
  • The quoted letter does not form part of "legacy", and I am uncertain whether that is indeed the best title for this section, as there is little in it that might be described as the legacy of this work. I don't gather that the painting had any lasting influence on later painters, which is generally what the word "legacy" implies. What this section really is is the painting's "later history"; whether that's a sexy enough title, I don't know.
  • Yes, that's fine—I tend to use "Legacy" as a default section heading for the "what happened afterwards" final section of articles, but I have no attachment to the term. Changed. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible, perhaps by way of a footnote, to indicate the likely present value of the painting, which I'm sure would make an interesting comparison with the lowly figures quoted in the final paragraph?
  • Not easily, Etty's figure studies come up for sale fairly frequently (generally at around £5000–£10,000 apiece), but almost all his history paintings are in the hands of public institutions so comparable works rarely come on the market. Flipping through auction sites, the most comparable piece I can find which has recently changed hands is A Bacchanalian Revel, which sold for £37,250 in 2009; were this to come on the market it could go for anything from £10,000 to £200,000 depending on who was bidding. Victorian art prices are notoriously volatile (it's not that long since Flaming June changed hands for £50), and tend to reflect whatever the last exhibition at the Tate happened to be, and whether it's a piece Andrew Lloyd Webber needs to fill in a gap in his collection—I'd be quite reluctant to put a price on it in Wikipedia's voice. ‑ Iridescent 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent short piece. I look forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Happy with all responses, no further adjustments needed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—sorry for the delay in replying ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we just need the image licensing checked now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (Southampton).jpg: Image the article is about, putting it in the lead section is clearly OK. Copyright-wise, the painter William Etty has been dead for more than 100 years and thus his works are out of copyright (seems like {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} would also apply but that's just a formality). Our policy is that we consider faithful reproductions of a out-of-copyright 2D work as out of copyright as well, so the license is correct.
  • File:Hill & Adamson – William Etty at easel.jpg: Image of the painter, seems pertinent in the section on the background of the image. Source link is pointing to the image directly rather than a file description page, which makes it harder to trace back the information. Copyright wise Hill & Adamson died long enough ago that their works are out of copyright.
  • File:Etty Cleopatra.jpg: Another painting by Etty, it's discussed in the section that the image appears in. Same copyright considerations as the lead image, perhaps without the 1923 aspect as it may have been unpublished. Also, a word is missing after the "to" in "1922: transferred to from Lord Leverhulme's private collection".
  • File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (York).jpg and File:Etty - The World Before the Flood (Southampton).jpg: Image part of a gallery that illustrates how it was created. Caption based on article text. Same copyright considerations as for the Cleopatra image.
  • File:Nicolas Poussin - Bacchanal before a Statue of Pan - WGA18284.jpg: Image of a painting of a painter that apparently inspired Etty to his painting. This painter lived in the 17th century so same copyright considerations apply as the Cleopatra image. Image is discussed in a different section, seems like.

I've capitalized some of the ALT text (also Large number of semi-naked people for some reason makes me laugh). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For UK artworks, "publication date" is irrelevant unless the creator is anonymous; as long as the creator is known (which is the case for every image here), copyright expires 70 years after their death. The most recent creator of any image used in this article was David Octavius Hill who died in 1870. All these images are well and truly in the public domain. ‑ Iridescent 17:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was specifying that the PD-US-1923-abroad statement would not apply however, but it doesn't make any difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • You might mention that the Poussin was bought by the NG in March 1826, 2 years before the Etty was exhibited. Before that it was chez a banker in Cavendish Sq, but was copied by Henry Bone in 1819 and exhibited in the British Institution in 1816 (per: Wine, Humphrey, National Gallery Catalogues (new series): The Seventeenth Century French Paintings, 2001, National Gallery Publications Ltd, ISBN 185709283X).
  • I don't have the source to check; was it definitely bought by the NG? AFAIK in the 1820s the collection consisted only of John Julius Angerstein's collection, plus some paintings which had been donated by George Beaumont. ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See their basic web page. Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to have more emphasis on the unusualness of a Christian Bacchanal, sources permitting.
  • It would be quite tricky to source without crossing the Original Research line (although one could say something like "artists such as Titian, Poussin and Rubens had previously painted Bacchanals but all were based on scenes from Ancient Greek religion, not on Biblical themes" and allow the reader to put two and two together). ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The World Before the Flood was bought at its 1828 exhibition by The Marquess of Stafford for 500 guineas (about £39,000 in 2016 terms[36]),[37] to add to his private collection of nudes by Titian." - the implication of the wording seems a little unfair to his lordship, who went to considerable trouble to allow public access to his collection, which had many other subjects and artists.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Johnbod, I think this is about ready to promote so pls jump in ASAP if you have more comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although it would be nice at least to see the comment about the Poussin acted on. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, thought I'd already added that. Added. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Bounder[edit]

Lead

  • You mention "Milton" without first name, link or connection to Paradise Lost (or the painting), so it might be worth making the connection and full name/linking him.

Background

  • Is it worth clarifying that The Hull Packet is a newspaper? (I had to have a quick search to answer the question the name raised)
  • Added "local newspaper" ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "flesh tones accurately, and for his fascination with contrasts in skin tones" feels like it's slightly repetitive and could perhaps be re-worked a little?
  • I can't see an obvious way around it, as they're two different elements. That he explicitly tried to use models of different skin colours in his works is directly relevant, as one of the criticisms of this painting at this time was that it showed an ethnically mixed group rather than traditionally pale English women, while "well respected for his ability to capture flesh tones accurately" implicitly shows that this ethnic mix was intentional on his part and not just that he used a darker shade of paint than intended. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "Following the exhibition of Cleopatra, over the next decade" be better reversed to read "Over the decade following the exhibition of Cleopatra"?
  • I'm neutral either way as the meaning is identical—swapped it for "In the decade following the exhibition of Cleopatra Etty tried to replicate its success". ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • Two points on A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Statue of Pan:
    • Firstly, I'm not sure on the naming of artworks, which can be a complicated area, but the National Gallery (who hold the piece) call it A Bacchanalian Revel before a Term.
      • Artworks in this period were rarely given titles, so the name under which they're exhibited nowadays is generally at the whim of the curator. When mentioning artworks I generally try to use the name by which it's referred elsewhere on Wikipedia to avoid confusion (and realistically, whatever the National Gallery may think 99.9% of readers are not going to know what Term (architecture) means and think that "before a term" means they're a group of students celebrating the start of the academic year). I've compromised on A Bacchanalian Revel Before a Term of Pan, which is a valid translation of "Bacchanale devant une statue de Pan", has been used in at least one academic source so isn't pure original research, and is nearer to the title the NG currently use but hopefully less confusing. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Secondly, is it possible to raise the image up from the subsequent section to have the image sitting alongside the reference to it? Either that, or it could sit next to The Triumph of Cleopatra (as you have with the preliminary sketch and final version, below?)
      • No; in my view it's more important that Cleopatra be in this spot as it's more directly relevant to this particular work. Using {{multiple image}} is very much a last resort when two images need to be forced to display side-by-side (as in the case of the preliminary sketch and the finished work here); not only does it force an image width regardless of the reader's thumbnail size preference, but it breaks should any of the constituent images be resized on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

  • A. Should well respected be hyphenated (I have no idea on this, but it feels like it should be)
  • There's no hard-and-fast rule on hyphenation in this case. Since the noun follows the adjective, it's not incorrect to use a hyphen, so in the absence of any reason not to I've added one. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • F. "As of 1844" feels very wrong: surely "In 1844" or "By 1844"? ("As of" looks like it should be followed by a current date, rather than something historical)
  • No, "as of" is the standard Wikipedia phrasing for "we know it was there at such-and-such a date but don't know how long before that". ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? The guideline (and I know it's only a guideline) at WP:ASOF says: "Usually "as of" is used only in cases where an article is intended to provide the most current information available, and will need updating in the future. It should not be used for historical information that will not change." All the use I've seen on Wikipedia (and in more general reading) would think "As of 1844" to be in error if not written in or soon after 1844. – The Bounder (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still consider "as of" appropriate in this particular instance, but reworded "By 1844 at the latest" which should be non-controversial. What I don't want is the give the impression that there's any significance to the 1844 date other than that's when it was catalogued—there are almost certainly sources knocking about somewhere that prove it was on display earlier than that. ‑ Iridescent 15:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References & bibliography

  • A couple of the references and bibliographic sources show pages in the xxx–xx format, while others are in xxx–xxx format.
  • That's an artefact of the mandated referencing style changing midway through the writing of this. I think I've caught them all now. ‑ Iridescent 10:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All very interesting, and I thank you for such an illuminating article: I hope these comments are of some use. – The Bounder (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2016 [5].

Eurasian rock pipit[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This small brown inhabitant of European coasts makes up for its drab appearance by having a territorial behaviour otherwise known only from the African fiddler crab, and by benefiting from the nefarious activities of a castrating parasite Jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Will make full review soon, but until then, I was thinking that this photo[6] of the egg could be shown? I think photos of eggs and juveniles should be shown in all bird articles, if available... And both sexes, if dimorphic. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, thanks. I've added a cropped version of the image. In this species, the sexes are inseparable on sight Jimfbleak (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your crop looks much better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first formal description of this species was by English naturalist George Montagu." Give date? And add "naming" after description?
  • "John Latham was the first to give the rock pipit a scientific name, in 1790" What was this name?
  • Give authorities and dates for the subspecies names.
  • You are inconsistent in how you spell Faroe/Faeroe Islands (incidentally where my mother is from).
  • You could give a date for the old illustration.
  • You are inconsistent in whether you use the full or short name of the bird throughout the article.
  • "pale supercilium" Explain.
  • Date and author of the listed synonym? And what are the circumstances of that name?
  • "The rock pipit feeds mainly on invertebrates" and "Food items are usually invertebrates " Seems repetitive.
  • Is there a reason why you simply link to fiddler crab in the intro but a particular species in the article body?
FunkMonk, thanks for review. I think these edits address most of your queries. The synonym is attributed to Montague, because of the petrosus, but he didn't use it himself as far as I know. I assume it was adopted by authors who viewed it as a ssp of the water pipit A. spinoletta. I don't think, in any case, that we are normally required to do more than list synonyms with an attribution Jimfbleak (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Faeroe/Faroe issue. As for supercilium, wouldn't "eye stripe" be more meaningful than "eyebrow"? Otherwise looks good, will support when you respond. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for Faroe/Faero, I missed the point there, changed to eyestripe (I was in two minds which was better anyway) Jimfbleak (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, many thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, many thanks for copyedit and support Jimfbleak (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, thanks for review Jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • The caption to the tax box picture is incorrect. The photo was taken on Heligoland in the North Sea. See the coords and even the file name. (An IP switch the photo without updating the caption on 26 Oct 2014‎). It is a beautiful photo.
  • I agree, good spot with the location, didn't even occur to me to check! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Eurasian rock pipit until they were separated in 1988.[2]" The source , HBW, has 1998.
  • What happened in 1998 (or 1988)? A publication by the BOU? Explain.
I still don't understand where the "1998" mentioned by HBW comes from. There isn't a 1998 publication in their article's General Bibliography and I cannot find a relevant BOU publication. There is an article by Sangster et al on European birds in Ibis published in 2002 that recommends that the subspecies be promoted. (it isn't part of the official BOU series on British birds): Sangster, George; Knox, Alan G; Helbig, Andreas J; Parkin, David T (2002). "Taxonomic recommendations for European birds". Ibis. 144 (1): 153–159. doi:10.1046/j.0019-1019.2001.00026.x. See p.154. Available here. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Eurasian rock pipit is believed to be closely related to the meadow," I think it would be better to write: ""The Eurasian rock pipit is closely related..." The species form a well-defined phylogenetic clade - see Fig 1 Clade 3 in: Voelker, Gary (1999). "Molecular evolutionary relationships in the Avian genus Anthus (Pipits: Motacillidae)". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 11 (1): 84–94. doi:10.1006/mpev.1998.0555. available from Researchgate. I think you should cite this article.

Subspecies

  • "Anthus petrosus kleinschmidti (Ernst Hartert, 1905)" - by convention the first name is usually omitted.
oops, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anthus petrosus littoralis (Brehm, 1823)" - I don't think the brackets should be included. Brehm has Anthus littoralis see here - and the IOC, Zoonomen and Peters don't have brackets.

Breeding

  • Does a pair remain together from one year to the next?
  • Can't find anything either way on this. Given the short life span of small passerines, I don't know how ell studied this would be Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the male help with incubating the eggs?
  • Does the male feed the female while she incubates the eggs?
  • Are the chicks naked when born?
  • Does female brood the chicks?
  • How long do the parents (or just the male) feed the young after fledging - if at all.
  • How and when do the young birds moult?
I'd fail to notice that my main sources hadn't mentioned moult! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How and when do the adults moult?

I'll have another look tomorrow. Aa77zz (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, thanks for review, all done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - other than not being able to find a BOU publication in 1998 mentioned above, I have no more suggestions. Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, many thanks, I'll try to track down the errant article Jimfbleak (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

With the caveat that I know virtually nothing of biology, I think this is a fine article, with clear prose. Very little to quibble with.

  • Anthus petrosus littoralis Brehm, 1823 --> to be consistent with the others: Anthus petrosus littoralis (Brehm, 1823)
  • Actually started with brackets until another reviewer pointed out that they are incorrect. The convention is that that brackets are used only if the current form differs from the original (eg, Montague used Alauda petrosus), but Brehm's binomial is unchanged. I've added a hidden comment to say it's correct as is. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • body and some wing covert feathers giving them an appearance very like adults --> maybe a comma after feathers?
  • In early spring, late January-early March --> January in spring?
  • For example, the Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden has but a single specimen, a male shot at Dresden in 1894 --> It took me a while to establish why I found this odd, so it's subtle, but I think the order should be "For example, a male shot at Dresden in 1894, now in the collection of the local Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde
  • done, also used English name of the museum Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • possibly link seaweed
  • possibly a full stop after the footnote
  • the External links section seems empty. So remove?
  • London, United Kingdom: Christopher Helm --> I think the United Kingdom is not needed, as you have on the next reference
  • Christopher M. --> inconsistent with the other initials. I prefer M. over M actually.
  • Made consistent. Full stops (and spaces) are a matter of personal preference, so anything from Bloggs, JB to Bloggs J. B. are acceptable, although, as you say, there must be consistency. In general, Americans punctuate more heavily than Brits Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do a spot check of references later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, many thanks for review, I hope I've addressed your concerns Jimfbleak (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all addressed. I just did a spot check of the sources:

  • Jobling, James A. (2010)
  • Williamson, Kenneth (1965)
  • "Distribution of British fleas: Rock pipit"
  • Detto, Tanya; Jennions, Michael D; Backwell, Patricia R Y (2010)

They all check out. I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon, thanks for the source check and your support, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

This has not been open terribly long but the very positive reviews in the first week or so, and lack of any further commentary in the past week, gives me confidence to promote. One thing, Jim, you use "similar" three times in two sentences in the first para, so perhaps one or two of those could be rethought to avoid the repetition. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, thanks. As it happens, I'm going to Lisbon for a few days, and probably won't be able to edit, so the timing is perfect. I've lost two "similar"s, good spot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2016 [7].

Allen Walker[edit]

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the D.Gray-man protagonist Allen Walker. I wish it to become a FA since the Wikipedia Project for Manga and Anime doesn't have one based a character. As a result, I based this article on the recent FA Lightning (Final Fantasy). The article has been copyedited twice and had two peer reviews. Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from PresN
Review by PresN

Tintor asked me to serve as a mentor for this FAC through the new Mentoring project; given that the article has already been nominated, what I'm going to do is to review this nomination, and then go a step further and help out on solving any issues that come up.

Lead
  • The first sentence gets a little out of hand- you want that sentence to directly tell the reader who this person is, but here you're pulling in other appearances with similar names and it gets to be a bit much
  • The second sentence has a different pair of problems: first you say he's based on Robin (who?) only then to aside to who Robin is, and then aside to a visual difference between the character written in passive voice ("hair was lengthened")
  • "Allen's garment was designed to resemble nineteenth-century clothing" - "garment"? That's an odd word choice.
  • "As the manga progressed, Hoshino stated she was pleased with Allen's character development." - neat, but we just had 2 sentences about his physical appearance, so this sentence is unrelated. Also kind of pointless? She writes the thing, of course she likes it.
  • Also, we're describing Allen's clothing and differences from a prior version, and we still haven't told the reader who the heck this person is. And we've mentioned the manga and anime appearances, but there's more appearances at the end of the second paragraph.
  • In the second paragraph, you're using italics for emphasis (don't), and I still don't know after reading it when/where this story is set- the real world? Fantasy world? Space? Looks like it's 19th century Earth, which would explain the clothes.
  • "Allen later learns he is connected to the Noah and might turn into one of them." And... the end. I know that the series is ongoing, but this plot summary just cuts off abruptly.
  • Third paragraph is good enough as it goes.

So if we're going to rewrite the lead to flow better, it would work better as:

Allen Walker (Japanese: アレン・ウォーカー, Hepburn: Aren Wōkā) is a fictional character who appears as the protagonist of the manga D.Gray-man by Katsura Hoshino. He is also the protagonist of its two anime adaptations: D.Gray-man and its sequel D.Gray-man Hallow, and has appeared in three light novels, two video games, and several crossover fighting video games. In the series, set in 19th-century Earth, Allen joins the Black Order as an Exorcist: a soldier able to use a mysterious object known as Innocence to fight demons known as Akuma. While the Innocence takes the form of a giant left arm initially, over time it takes new forms and gives him new abilities. Over the course of the ongoing series, Allen uses these powers to fight the Millennium Earl, who created the army of Akuma to destroy the world, and his super-human followers, the Noah Family. During his adventures, Allen learns he is connected to the Noah and might turn into one of them.

Hoshino based Allen's character design on the shorter-haired female protagonist of a one-shot comic predecessor to the manga, Zone, named Robin. She designed Allen's clothing to resemble nineteenth-century outfits, and gave him a ribbon tie and other accessories to create a "gentlemanly image". She also gave him a scar in the shape of a pentagram to project a scary-looking image, and a calm demeanor different from her typical rambunctious and rude characters. Allen begins the series as a teenager, and matures throughout. Hoshino has stated she is pleased with Allen's character development as the manga's story has progressed.

Allen has been very popular with D.Gray-man readers, usually ranking first in the series' popularity polls. Reactions to him have also been generally positive in manga and anime publications and other media. His character design has been highly praised, with critics noting characteristics atypical of a shōnen protagonist, such as his calm demeanor and mysterious origin. Several pieces of merchandise have been released with Allen's likeness, including plush dolls and figurines, as well as clothing and cosplay pieces.

  • I'll stop there for a bit; I do want to draw your attention to a key point though- the order and details of the writing kept assuming that the reader knew what you were talking about (19th-century clothing when you haven't said that the series is set in the 19th century, for example). You do that as well in at least the next section- you start talking about the Black Order and Exorcists without introducing them first; you can't rely on the lead to inform the reader of all the concepts. See if you can run through the rest of the article as if you were a reader who had never seen the manga/anime, and hadn't read any further in the article than that point in the article, and make sure that everything still makes sense. --PresN 20:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I tried doing that for now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried following your advice of explaining who is who in every section User:PresN. Also, I rearranged the reception a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Carbrera
  • The image in the infobox needs an alt
  • The image under "Reception#Popularity" needs an alt
  • More to come Carbrera (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review and comments from ProtoDrake
  • Image Review
  • Comments
    • Most of the comments I may have made on the lead have already been made above by PresN. But I would raise a different point: the use of "video games" twice in a single sentence grated slightly. You could cut out the second use's "video" and just link it to fighting game.
    • Really not sure about the use of a cosplay image here.
    • "Allen has also been popular with cosplayers.[26]" - Is there any specific cosplay group, or just a general favoring of the character?
    • "She also liked his new abilities, the Innocence Crown Clown and his sword (which was compared with the ones from Final Fantasy VII), also received praise.[39]" - This sentence is disjointed, and needs fixing.
  • May find more on a second run, but that's what leaped out at me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried addressing your points @ProtoDrake:. Thanks for the response.Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tintor2: I've had another look through. It looks like any other points I may have raised have already been raised by others. While I still have some reservations about the cosplay image, it's not a fatal flaw. I'll Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aoba47
Comments by Aoba47
  • In the following line from the lead (While the Innocence takes the form of a giant left arm initially…), should you specify that “the Innocence” in this context is “Allen’s Innocence” as I am assuming there are multiple forms of Innocence through the manga?
  • Please use Allen Walker’s full name when you first use it in the article.
  • Define what “the Black Order” means in the context of this manga. Also define “Exorcist” in the context of the manga. You do a great job of this in the lead, but it is absent in the article itself.
  • I confused by your identification of Zone in the “Creation and conception” section. You identify it as “the D. Gray-man one-shot comic”, but I was under the assumption that the one-shot was created prior to the development of the D. Gray-man series? Would it be more appropriate to just identify it as a “one-shot comic”?
  • @Tintor2: This still needs to be addressed. Once this is addressed, I can add my final comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tintor2: No, I meant that how it appeared in the "Creation and conception" section, but it has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Properly introduce Robin as the “protagonist” mentioned in the previous sentence. You casually mention “Robin” in the following phrase (When comparing Allen to Robin…) without clearly identifying Robin to an unfamiliar reader.
  • What do you mean by “most of them referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters”? If possible, I would expand on this a little bit more on how it relates to the character. If this is not possible, it is fine as it currently stands.
  • Define what you mean by “the previous story arc” in the final paragraph of the “Creation and conception” section
  • This line (Allen is a teenager who grows up as the series progresses) seems somewhat odd. Rather than saying the generic “grows up”, maybe something more specific about how his character develops over the course of the series.
  • Define what you mean with “His body’s age”.
  • Wikilink golem if it is not a series-specific creation. Also, is it necessary to capitalize this word?
  • Define “the Noah family” in the “Appearances” section. You did a great job identifying this in the lead, so remember to do so in the article itself.
  • Use “crossover fighting games” in the “In other media” section as you have done in the lead.

@Tintor2: I know there are a lot of comments, but you have done a fantastic job with this article. Once all of my above comments have been addressed, I will leave my final vote. It is great to see high quality manga articles on here. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Aoba47:. I tried following all your suggestions. However, the series' title is still ambiguous as some friends I have even debate if the "D" stands for "dear" or "dark". My only theory is that in an early chapter, Allen sees the world "black and white" as he is able to distinguish demons from common people. Still, that's pure OR.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: That makes sense, so the statement about the series title is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome work! I can now support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling two users who were present in the second peer review to dig more comments @Garagepunk66: @Crazy runner:.Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Jaguar: since he reviewed the GA nomination.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from AngusWOOF
Review by AngusWOOF

I just had some comments upon reading this article:

  • characteristics: regressing? as in age regression? maturity regression? hair recession? should it be linked?
    • Done.
  • characteristics: teenager who grows up as the series progresses - change to something like: is introduced as a teenage boy. If you want to cover age spans in other media, you can discuss how many years the original series covers, and any notable ages he is for the spinoff / light novels.
    • Done. Well, in the first volume Hoshino said he was 15. In the latest she guidebook, Allen's age is 16. However, in the latest chapters Nea said he should be at least 25 in a confusing way.
Perhaps change "Allen is a teenager who grows up as the series progresses." to "The series follows Allen's adventures starting when he was about 15-16 years old.(reference about 15 in vol. 1, 16 in guidebook) Although most of his colleagues assume he ages normally, his former friend Nea has stated he should be at least 25 years old and is actually (regressing|growing younger).(reference)
Done.
  • characteristics: adjust "becomes white from shock" tense. I thought his hair was white throughout the series and the reddish brown was a flashback? If the entire childhood story is covered in chapter 1 as a present-tense, then retain this, but not if he's already white-haired and then has a flashback of his youth in chapter/episode 1.
    • Fixed.
  • one-shot comic Zone - did Hoshino write Zone? change to "a one-shot comic" to "her one-shot comic". It's not like Zone is a notable one-shot in the magazine's history.
    • Fixed.
    • Done
  • Introduction polls: "usually ranking first" as Walker was the most popular on 2 of the 4 polls for the series, with Yu Kanda topping the other 2. That's not usually. That's 2 of 4 polls, and there isn't any data to show where he ranked in the ones Yu Kanda topped.
This is better. I'd remove usually unless there are more than four polls?
    • Done.
  • Regarding the scar, where is it? On his cheek? Forehead? I can't tell on the cover image. Is it usually visible or covered? I'm reading later on that he has a deformed left arm, cursed eye, and stark white hair. Wouldn't those be just as frightening?
    • Done.
  • In other media / video games - Allen being a playable character. Is he the central character in the game or is he among several players in a party? I'm assuming in the fighting games, he's just one of many fighter options, and that he's the central in the D.Gray-man ones.
    • Done.
Okay, but I'm still curious as to whether in the two main non-fighting games, whether Allen is the central player character (played throughout the game) or just one among many choices in the game.
  • Was volume 1, p. 61 an in-volume interview? Is it in the same page location for both the English and the Japanese version? If so, you can keep this verbiage, but I would be cautious if the interview was placed in different locations across media.
    • The author listed that after the first chapter where she shared info about it.
  • Appearances in D.Gray-man. "All Exorcists are ordered to kill Allen". Isn't Allen an Exorcist? Does he get an order to kill himself? Change to "The other Exorcists are ordered" ? As this happens in 170 but he's already transformed into a Noah in chapter 167? Or is there some number of chapters where he struggles between being Allen and Nea?
    • Done. Allen and Nea became basically enemies to fight to become the owner of the body but lately Mana is winning.
Perhaps this should be mentioned more clearly that the struggle with Nea is an ongoing thing for a good number of chapters? Does that mean he exhibits a multiple personality? And reword that he is being hunted by his fellow Exorcists? It's hard to figure out whether most Exorcists are following orders and whether or not his closest friends are still siding with him regardless.
I'm not entirely sure. Allen forgets what happens when Nea takes control of his body. Also, about his allies, it's quite complicated. Both Johnny and Lenalee keep saying Allen is their friend. On the other hand, Kanda doesn't care, but later decides to help him. Wouldn't that be too much fancruft? Also added, a sentence about Allen's initial transformations.
It sounds like Nea's spirit has remained dormant inside Allen and then awakened to try to take over his body, succeeding on occasion, and then his fellow Exorcists are on alert to stop that if that were to happen? Maybe a rewrite like: "On returning to headquarters, Allen learns that Nea, who had betrayed the Earl and was killed, had implanted his memories into Allen, and plans to take over Allen's body to transform him into the 14th Noah. His comrades, which have been given orders to kill the 14th Noah, start questioning his identity. Allen experiences situations where Nea has taken over and where his Noah/Akuma-attacking Crown Clown's sword starts hurting him." This puts Nea's actions against the Earl in the past tense / flashbacks, as writing that in the historical present tense had me confused as to whether Nea was alive during the main storyline. Also is this the same Nea as his former friend? Perhaps remove that former friend Nea part from the other section as that can be confusing.
Yes, the same Nea. This is the guy who is both the 14th Noa as well as Allen's former friend. In volume 24, Nea wonder why can't Allen remember him as well as why he has not aged.
It's a bit confusing how Nea appears. Is he a separate person Allen encounters or is he inside Allen's body/mind when he interacted with him in volume 24? Is he both? And are they really friends?

@AngusWOOF: Tried to reword it. Nea makes brief appearances during early volumes especially when Allen plays the Noah's Ark piano. He had a body but before being killed, he transmitted his mind to Allen. According Nea himself, they used to be allies but when he saw a recording of Timcampy he said now they would enemies. However, their relationship is still a mystery now that especially since the manga is only published every three months.

  • Criticism in reception section? Should there be a paragraph that critiques the character or says what things weren't that impressive?
    • There are only two criticism about how they compared with cliche characters or deem his original powers simple (in the first paragraph of "critical response"), but reception has been mostly positive. (And I searched a lot). For example, fellow GA Yu Kanda had a lot mixed responses based on his introductions but then got praise for his development.
Fair enough for weight.

Those are my first thoughts. I like the detail on the various sections. Let me know if you need me to explain further. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Thanks for the review AngusWOOF. I tried covering everything you mentioned.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indented with further comments. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @AngusWOOF:. Already tried to fix all issues.Tintor2 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reply above. Also some more:

  • In the third D.Gray-man novel, is Red supposed to be Allen, or a character that is similar to Allen? I'm wondering how that is relevant to Allen's article?
Red is Allen's nickname when he was in the circus. He took the name Allen from a dead dog. Should I reword it?
It could explain how it follows Allen's adventures in the circus when he went under the nickname Red?
Done.
  • Any coverage of Sanae Kobayashi's portrayal of Allen? Was there a reason given for why she was replaced by Murase?
Sadly nothing. The second anime replaced everybody from the cast.
This may need to be explained like "In the anime TV series and related franchise, Allen was voiced by Sanae Kobayashi. In 2016, for the new TV anime series D.Gray-man Hallow, the voice parts were recast with Murase replacing Kobayashi."
Done.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC), add'l replies 14:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss anything @AngusWOOF:? I'm a bit busy today and tomorrow, so I might not work too much in this.Tintor2 (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Child voice actor portrayal. Is it relevant? Do they have a bunch of flashbacks, or is this just an episode 1 kind of guest role? If it's the latter, it doesn't need to be highlighted up front or put in the infobox.
Removed.
Still a bit confused with Nea as a former friend. Were they friends from childhood? Was Nea more of a colleague? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: About Nea it's still confusing since Allen (and thus the readers) don't know the actual truth about Allen's actual past and his relationship with the Earl and Nea. I reworded it to be more consistent with the manga's present rather than the past. I hope it works. Thanks again for the feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, remove the age part since the chapter doesn't say he is 25 years old, and replace with "Nea, who possesses his body later on, suspects he hasn't really aged and could possibly be growing younger." Cite to chapter 215. Or strike that statement altogether as he isn't an authority on Allen's age, whereas the 15-16 is citable to the character profile at the end of chapter 1 and the guidebook. The guidebook also has timelines for each of the characters like at age 9, Allen does (event1). At age 11, (some event2). It also says his age is assumed to be around 15 so go with whatever figures the chapter / guidebook states. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AngusWOOF: Like this? There is a brief timeskip in volume 16 of a year as mostly covered with Lenalee regrowing her lost hair.Tintor2 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but you don't need to say what his age is as it progresses, besides what happens in the introduction. Someone could start at age 15, have some birthdays and so forth and going through school years. You don't need to say that he becomes 16 or 17, unless there's an event worth mentioning like, "on his 18th birthday, he joins the army". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like this?Tintor2 (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think it's clean enough now. Thanks for tweaking that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the "In other media" section, Remove or fix up "As wells as video games," AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and tweaked that sentence. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been addressed. I'm stamping it as a pass. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the magic word for the nominations viewer script is support. --PresN 15:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC), updated 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back from work. Thanks, @AngusWOOF: but shouldn't you change to support according to @PresN:? Tintor2 (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support FA for this article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for coming to this late. I have read through the article and have concluded that the prose now flows much better than it did when I last read it during the GAN, and also everything else has been addressed thanks to other reviewers' input. I think this meets the FA criteria as it is and will support as a result. It's broadly well written, comprehensive, and all of the sources check out (though I only managed to look through the first half due to my poor internet connection at the moment). JAGUAR  14:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

First, let me say I don't envy anyone trying to write a clear summary of the plot points from a speculative fiction series, which can be quite convoluted. Since I'm not familiar with the source material, most of my comments are questions.

  • Lead: "His character design has been highly praised, ... . Still, some writers compared him with other series from the same demographic." The use of "Still" suggests a contrast between the two sentences, but if so that isn't clear. Was he compared negatively to other characters? I didn't get that impression from the Reception section.
    • Changed. There is only one comparison in the DVDtalk review.
  • Conception and creation: "The series' title, "D.Gray-man", is meant to have various meanings, most of them referring to the state of Allen and the other main characters." I'm not clear on what type(s) of "state" are being referenced here. Emotional? Physical? Ethical? I looked at the article about the manga, but it doesn't seem to clarify this point.
    • The author never explained it. She didn't even state was the meaning of the "D".
  • In other media: "As well as being in the manga and anime series, ..." The subsection above is titled "In D.Gray-man", which I initially took to mean it was a summary of the character's plotlines in the original manga. But this lead-in phrase makes me wonder if the earlier chronicle covers the anime also. Are the plots of the manga and anime sufficiently identical for that? If so, it should probably be stated explicitly. If not, it seems like a summary of his anime appearances is missing.
    • The anime adds some filler but they have had no impact on the character's traits.
  • Critical response: "The revelation that Allen was going to be become an enemy from the Order, the 14th Noah ..." Shouldn't that be "an enemy of the Order"?
  • Characteristics: I found this section confusing until I read the Appearances section, because it contains various mentions of plot events that are explained more fully under Appearances. It might flow better to have Characteristics after Appearances.
    • Moved.

I made some small copyedits directly; of course put them back if I messed up something. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Thanks for the feedback. Already tried doing all your recommendations. Ping me again if I forgot something.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: I forgot to mention this but the characteristics section I based it on Ellie (The Last of Us)#Atrributes that was given as an example by another user in regards to how a FA could be made. Also, the first paragraph of Appearances shows the character's backstory. However, more parts about Allen's secret past are shown in later volumes of the series. Do you think's Allen backstory should be told in characteristics or would that be unnecessary?Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: As long as Characteristics comes later, I don't see a need to reprise. At this point I am willing to support with the caveat that it is based only on prose and layout. I spot-checked a few of the English sources, but a lot of the sources are in Japanese, so I can't cover that angle adequately. I assume the coordinators will want someone to speak to that before promoting. Two sourcing comments to help smooth your way with anyone who does:
  • Book sources such as We Love Cosplay Girls should have page numbers supplied, even if you use a Google Books link. Those links are not reliable for all users because access varies by location and whatever other factors Google feels like using. The one for that book took me to a "no access" view.
  • A couple of the items about merchandising are sourced to Amazon pages, I presume selling the indicated item. Since the only thing claimed is that such items have been sold, I guess that is acceptable, but only just. If there is a secondary source that mentions these items, that would be better.
Since I'm not able to check most of the sources, I won't withhold my caveated support over either of these items. --RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: So you'll support me if I remove the url to that book? I'm a nit confused.Tintor2 (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Already did support. I just can't claim to have done any significant consideration of the sources. (A source review request on the FAC talk page might help you there.) The final bullets are simply suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RL0919: Thanks for the review. I'll try to correct that.Tintor2 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review by magiciandude
  • Well now, looks like I've found another anime to add to my watchlist. I'll take a look and so expect a feedback sometime. Erick (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"She also liked his new abilities, the Innocence "Crown Clown" and Allen's sword, comparing the latter to swords from the video game Final Fantasy VII." What does this mean? Now I am familiar with FF7 and all, but as a perspective of a reader who may not be, I think this should be just expanded a little bit. Erick (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work?. Also, this page became huge. Should we make subsections to make it easier to read? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, is it referring to swords wielded by Cloud Strife or a specific sword (like the Buster Sword or Fusion Swords)? I think the change is good, but it just has to be a little bit more specific. Just a little bit. Erick (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude:Allen's sword looks more like Buster one. But still, wasn't it that the Fusion Swords only appeared in the movie Advent Children whereas the Buster one is his initial one in the gam?Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's right. I forgot about. Anyways, I've crossed it out and I'll have another look at the article. As a side note, it is not necessary to ping me as I'm watching this page. Erick (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The foreign-language sources should use the trans_title parameter to translate the name of the site being sourced. Erick (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I now support this article. Good work! Erick (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hpesoj00

I didn't get around to peer reviewing the whole article, so I'll do it now.

  • "he briefly starts turning into Nea across the series to the point Crown Clown's sword starts hurting himself" – This sentence is confusing. The word "briefly" contradicts "across the series", which suggests a long-term change.
    • Changed to briefly. Across sounds like a long period of time.
  • "he sends him to another location" – Who does "he" refer to? The Black Order? Not grammatical.
    • Fixed. Allen sends him.
  • "several other playable characters from Weekly Shōnen Jump manga magazine" – You then list a bunch of games. Do you mean playable characters from games featured in the magazine?
    • No, those are games that collect characters from the magazine. I tried fixing it.

I made an edit to the article myself. Please check I didn't do anything silly. Hpesoj00 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today I'm a bit busy due to work, so I might not be able to address anybody's issues until evening.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Will try to get to this today - might be a few hours though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Walker joins the Black Order, a group of soldiers known as Exorcists. - are we describing an occupation, in which case "exorcists" should be lower case...?

I reworded it a little. Apparently, both the manga and anime use capital letters for Exorcists.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok no probs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When comparing Allen to Robin, Hoshino notes that Allen is a "different kind of boy". - watch for repetitiveness, how about, "When comparing the two, Hoshino notes that Allen is a "different kind of boy"."
Done.Tintor2 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, support WRT comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Source review from Jaguar[edit]

I'll spotcheck every source I can access, but if I can't translate a Japanese source then I'll be forced to skip it: JAGUAR  12:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 4 needs a publisher, and "animationinsider.net" should be in the website field. If "Animationinsider" is the publisher, then get rid of the ".net"
  • Ref 22 also needs a publisher (if you can find it)
  • Ref 34: IGN needs to be in the website field, and Ziff Davis as its publisher
  • Ref 46 and 47's publishers need to be linked
  • The manga volumes below the references should be split into two columns

I spent a while spotchecking every source to see if there were any errors in it matching the article's text, but there weren't any. I was also able to translate every source I came across. Since there are no issues with the sources and the points I made above are minor, I'll support the sourcing side of things. JAGUAR  13:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to fix all the things you mentioned but I don't know to split the manga volumes references into two. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do! Done. --PresN 14:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Everything looks okay, thanks for the hard work! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

I see a few duplinks in the article; I won't hold up promotion over them but pls review -- this script highlights the duplicates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2016 [8].

Cleveland Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a less controversial half dollar than Thomas G. Melish's other venture, the Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar, which commemorated an anniversary that the government knew didn't exist. Thanks to the intervention of Congress, which was getting fed up with commemorative coin abuses, it was a fairly legitimate coin, and isn't that rare today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Brianboulton[edit]

Minor prose quibbles:

Lead
  • "Brenda Putnam designed the coin" – presumably this refers to the latter of the coins just mentioned?
  • "to prevent repetition of past abuses" - a (very) brief indication of their nature, and by whom, would be helpful.
Background
  • "In 1796, he set out a townsite along Lake Erie, that came to bear his name" – as [resently punctuated the sense is that the lake rather than the townsite came to bear his name.
  • "to commemorate an anniversary that did not exist." This wording may be a little confusing; the Cincinnati May Festival existed, and had an anniversary in 1936 – the 63rd by my reckoning. So what was the deception, if that's the right word?
Legislation
  • Second sentence: suggest insert "both" after "honor", to clarify
  • "The bill was reported out of committee..." What does this mean, in layman's language?
  • "drastically amended" becomes "a new version" later. Not quite the same thing.
The new version was the amended bill. I think it can stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Preparation
  • "by a 1921 executive order by President Warren G. Harding" – perhaps change the first "by" to "in"?
Design
  • I'm not sure about this use of "transfixed", the secondary meaning of which generally involves something being pierced rather than merely marked, as is the case here.
  • The word "she" in the final line is unnecessary
Production etc
  • No issues here

All easily resolved – look forward to adding support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. With the exception of the one matter above, I've done more or less as you've suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Refs 11, 14 and 16: same source, but 14 has slightly different format.

No other sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the same document, but are from different stages of the legislation. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for the reviews and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review.–-Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I read through the article and didn't spot any issues worth commenting on. Another fine entry for our collection of articles on coins. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2016 [9].

Don't Say You Love Me (M2M song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut single by M2M, which was also the lead single from the Pokémon: The First Movie soundtrack. Article passed GA, has been peer reviewed and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brandt Luke Zorn[edit]

  • Comment ah, one of the least-guilty "guilty pleasures". This is among my favorite late-90s pop songs, along with "Steal My Sunshine". Here are my thoughts on a first run-through of the article:
  • I see that genre was removed from the infobox with this edit. I think what was there, bubblegum pop, is basically self-evident, but it's surprisingly tricky to pin down a source that uses the word "bubblegum" — a few (this and that) call the band bubblegum, in passing, but not the song itself. But this article at Stereogum, while not about the band, does directly call the song "bubblegum", so there you go. I'd include it in the article body, and then you can put it in the infobox no problem.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also came across this NY Times article that could be used — you may have already seen it and dismissed it, since there's not a lot there not said elsewhere, but it's worth a look.
Thanks for pointing it out but I don't think i'll use it. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not 100% sure about putting two critics' quotes in the lead. It's beautiful to see the famously cranky Christgau call M2M's music "impossibly touching," but still, he's talking there about their songs generally, not "Don't Say You Love Me" in particular. I'd consider cutting them.
I've removed Christgau's comments and left the other one. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sample box caption talks about the lyrics, but not any traits of the sampled recording. You don't need a sample to discuss just the lyrics; fair use of the sample in fact requires discussion/commentary on the portion from the recording sampled. I'd reword the sample caption to talk about the style of the music and the lyrics.
Hmm after reading through the article the best thing I can think of to add is part of the review from Michael Paoletta saying how good the harmonisation is in the song. Do you think something like that would work? And if not, do you have another suggestion? Freikorp (talk) 04:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to put something together while I incorporate the music-sheet info. —BLZ · talk 18:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of, there's almost no discussion of the music itself — only the lyrics. You can glean some basic but useful facts from the officially licensed sheet music (tempo/bpm, what key it's in, the fact that iirc there's a key change), and the rest would likely be a description of genre and production style.
Brandt Luke Zorn: I don't know how to read a music sheet. So this sheet says the song is 100 beats per minute, is that right? What key does the sheet say it's in? Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's 100bpm. The key is either E major or C sharp minor... I could probably figure it out if you, uh, "give me some time". If you buy the digital copy of the sheet music (at $5.50 it's not totally unreasonable), you can send me a copy via email (I've enabled the emailing feature). I'll happily interpret it and draft up a solid paragraph. The music theory doesn't have to be much more in-depth than what you could find in "Under the Bridge", "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or my own "Today", but I do think a song article needs to have some music-theory info where it's available (and since licensed sheet music exists, it is available here.) —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every link in a source should be archived using archiveurl, archivedate and deadurl=no (unless the link actually is dead, of course). I think pre-emptively archiving all source links should be required in FAs because it improves the future reliability of the sourcing and saves a lot of time if links die.
I've archived all the URLs except the google book sources and some of the sources used for charting, which have been formatted in a manner which won't let me add the archiving parameters. Freikorp (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfect. Sources that were originally print don't really need the same type of backup, since in a way the user is lucky enough to be able to access scans online in the first place. —BLZ · talk 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've addressed a couple points and will address the others shortly. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added the basic information from the sheet music to the article. You'll notice I also slipped in a new source that I came across: shockingly, someone in Oslo did their Ph.D thesis in musicology about M2M. I checked Wikipedia's sourcing policy to make sure citing to a thesis is OK, and in this case it seems appropriate; although caution should be taken with theses, they say that it's better if a thesis has been cited by others, and sure enough this one already has been cited, despite being only two years old and in the narrow field of scholarly pop-music analysis. I'm going to add a few more things that I think are useful from that thesis, but for now I have to run and do something IRL. —BLZ · talk 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, i'm really impressed with your work (and both amazed and fascinated to find out about this thesis!) Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've added what elements of the composition and thesis I thought were worth adding, as well as bringing in what there was in the sources about genre. You've done an excellent job with this article. I'm satisfied that this meets FA criteria. Incidentally, I've recently found a site called archive.is which is extremely useful and seems to work for some URLs that archive.org won't save. It should work for at least some of the links that didn't work earlier. —BLZ · talk 05:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

Support

Everything looks good. The article is of FA standard. All images have appropriate licences (two are Fair Use). Consider moving the image of Raven across to the right. I corrected one typo in the text. A minor quibble is that my Australian version of Shades of Purple has The Feeling is Gone as track 14. Anyhow, well done. (As a passing note, I saw M2M at EPCOT in 2000.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye7. That's interesting about the Australia version; despited being an Australian myself I only have a digital copy of the album which contains the standard 13 tracks. Do you think I should add this information about the Australian version in brackets? The American version of the album is already used as a source for one thing; i'm guessing I might need to know serial numbers of something about the Australia version to differentiate it if I used it as a source, or would simply saying it's the Australia version in the reference be enough information do you think? I'm so jealous you got to see M2M at EPCOT. Haha you didn't happen to take any photos did you? Wikipedia is lacking a free image of both members of M2M together at all. Freikorp (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have this version. I think going into this would be drifting off-topic here (although it should be noted in the Shades of Purple article!) I suggest instead just changing the text to say "which were left off the U.S. version of the album." It was pure coincidence that I happened to be there at the time. As for photos, alas, Hawkeye7 is not a photographer, I'm afraid. (I do recall that they sang the album version.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

As is appropriate, I have checked the top 40:

  1. Ok
  2. Added a link
  3. Serious problem: Says 39,000 units sold, not 400,000 [I know i have a source for 400,000 units shipped, looks like I didn't put it in the right place. Hold on while I keep looking for it.] Freikorp (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Update: It took damn forever haha, but I found the correct source and have substituted it in where the incorrect one was. Freikorp (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ok
  5. Doesn't actually say they got a worldwide contract in 1998; wording leaves open the possibility of 1999 [Good point. I've reworded this accordingly.] Freikorp (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ok
  7. Ok
  8. Ok
  9. AGF on offline source
  10. Ok - Pretty amazing that someone wrote a PhD on M2M
  11. Ok
  12. AGF on offline source
  13. Ok
  14. Ok
  15. AGF on off-offline source
  16. Ok
  17. Ok
  18. Can't verify the 11 January claim [I seem to have placed a superfluous inline citation there; the January 11 claim is backed up by the reference in the following sentence.) Freikorp (talk] 23:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Talks about a March 2000 release (as does source 18) [Ref 19 gives a list of where the single was available as of January 11 (most of Europe apparently) under the heading "Debut Single Availability". I note that Ref 18 seems to contradict this by saying the single is "due for release across Europe in March", however I think the official website is a more reliable source for this information than a third party source, and it's also much more detailed, specifying individual countries as opposed to generalising the release to "Europe."] Freikorp (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ok
  21. AGF on offline source
  22. AGF on off-offline source
  23. Ok
  24. Ok
  25. Ok
  26. Ok
  27. Ok
  28. Ok
  29. Ok
  30. Ok
  31. Ok
  32. Covers Finland only. [Removed unreferenced Indonesian claim. I know I had a source for it somewhere but I can't find it now.] Freikorp (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Ok
  34. Ok 33 and 34 cover the Netherlands and Sweden, but missing the UK. [Added an inline citation for the UK chart. Source was in the weekly chart table, just forgot to put it inline in the prose.) Freikorp (talk] 22:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Ok
  36. Ok
  37. Ok
  38. Ok
  39. Ok
  40. Ok
  41. Ok
  42. Ok
  43. Ok
  44. Ok
  45. Ok But the one-hit-wonder tag is a bit harsh IMO. [Personally I thought it was harsh as well, since their follow up single did go gold in the US, but the term has been used, and by more than one source (Ref 46 uses it also) so I thought it would be biased if I didn't include it.] Freikorp (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Ok
  47. Ok
  48. Ok
  49. Ok
  50. Ok
  51. Ok
  52. ok
  53. Doesn't cover the information in the second paragraph of Music Video! [See reply below. Freikorp (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review Hawkeye7, i've attempted to address all the concerns mentioned above. Let me know if there are any additional concerns. Freikorp (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two more. The point on source 53 (above) and the statement in the second paragraph of the "Live performances and covers" section is not supported by reference 1, and is a bit misleading. M2M was a creation of the studio. They disbanded in 2002, but remained under contract, so neither was able to pursue a solo career until it ran out in 2005. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 53 only backs up the statement that the music video was included on the Pokemon DVD. There are no sources for the music video content, or for the differences between the two similar videos. It is my understanding that this information would not require sources, for the same reason that film plot's don't. The music video themselves serve as the source.
As for the second issue - well that's interesting to know, thanks for pointing it out, I never actually realised they were still under contract, though it does explain why it took them so long to release their debut solo album's. Anyway I don't see how it's misleading, or how it isn't supported by the reference. The article stated: 'M2M disbanded in 2002, after which Raven and Larsen both pursued solo careers.' The source states: 'M2M released two albums, one in 2000 and another 2002, and then split, with both halves of the duo moving on to solo careers.' Granted, it does omit the information that they were still under contract, but I don't see how that is misleading. At the end of the day they still disbanded in 2002 and then pursued solo careers. Ravn's debut album came out in 2005, so it's probable that even if she was under contract until some point in 2005 she was writing songs/working on a solo career before then. Anyway to be more accurate i've reworded it to: "Raven and Larsen ceased performing as M2M in 2002, and both went on to pursue solo careers". Does that address your concern? Freikorp (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns are addressed Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96[edit]

  • "There is a slight difference in lyrics between the version used in Pokémon: The First Movie version and the version released on Shades of Purple." - this could be better There is a slight difference in lyrics between the version used in Pokémon: The First Movieand the one released on Shades of Purple
  • "and reached an audience of 5 million people," - spell out 5
  • "The single was released in Norway on radio on 24 November,[17] and by 11 January the single was on sale in Norway" - reptition of single
  • Added a wikilink for NRK Petre to NRK P3
  • "M2M performed the song live at Walt Disney Worlds Epcot" - Walt Disney World's

This article was a nice read. I'm going to admit that I have never listened to this song. MWright96 (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and helpful suggestions. I've made all the changes. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the article again and could not find anything else that stands out. I therefore give my support. I have not spot checked the sources MWright96 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Small point, but I changed it back to "5". Normally numbers less than ten should be represented as words, but forms such as "X million" are an exception. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words. —BLZ · talk 15:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Welcome back Freikorp, best of luck with your degree. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from magiciandude (Erick)[edit]

Hey it's me again! Congrats on the nomination. Anyways a few comments from me:

  • You should mention that Chuck Taylor wrote for Billboard in the lead as you have done in the body, as readers may not know who he is.
Good idea. Done. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SONGCOVER suggests that a cover version should only be included if it the cover itself satisfies WP:NSONGS. What makes Krissy & Ericka's cover notable? Was it released as a single?
WP:SONGCOVER says "discussion of a particular artist's rendition" should only be included if the cover is notable. I'm not discussing the cover, I simply mention it exists with one line. It doesn't say you can't mention it. From looking at other featured song articles it appears commonplace to list, with sources (as I have done), notable groups that have covered the song. The cover is notable because the covering group is notable. It was not released as a single. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the subject of the music video, are there any critical commentaries of the video itself? Did critics (dis)like the video? Was it in a top ten music videos of the year list? This one isn't a huge issue for me and it's alright if you can't find any, but I am curious nonetheless.
I spent a lot of time looking for information on the music video, what's in the article now is pretty much everything I could find unfortunately. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any critical commentaries for the live performances as well? Again, not a huge issue for me. Erick (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. Freikorp (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really unfortunately. The limited coverage of concerts only gives passing mention of overall fan reception, and nothing in particular to this song itself. It's a problem I had in general for the live performances section. For example the 'Angels of Norway' reference, which is used to support that they played the song as an encore in Kuala Lumpur to a crowd of 4,000, also states they played for a crowd of 10,000 in Bangkok, but it doesn't explicitly state they played 'Don't Say You Love Me' at that concert (even though they obviously would have considering it was their biggest hit). I have plenty of sources that M2M opened for both Hanson (band) and Jewel (singer), but again, none specifically states they played this song, even though we know they would have. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. The article is still well-written. I now support this article. Great job...again! ;) Erick (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Coord note[edit]

Have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Ian nobody has done that yet. Incidentally just letting reviewers know I happen to have PDF's of all the offline sources, so if someone wants to check any of those in addition to the online sources just email me and i'll send you copies of them. Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Freikorp -- I'll leave a request for source review at WT:FAC. I know you've had a spotcheck or two in previous FACs so we don't necessarily need it here, but of course if someone can perform that too I certainly won't discourage it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source review (above). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is now completed and all issues raised have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2016 [10].

Chad Harris-Crane[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. The character made daytime television and soap opera history for participating in the first instance in a soap opera of two men simulating sex, and has also been cited as expanding the representation of LGBT characters of color on daytime television. 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. The article has gone through the GAN and Peer Review process I would love to have this article reach the level of a FA to attract more attention for improving articles on this soap opera and LGBT characters of color. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in pretty good shape but I'll leave some things. For now the lead

"which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. Passions followed the romantic and supernatural adventures in the fictional New England coastal town of Harmony" seems unnecessary for the character. Can you replace it with something about his creation?
  • Agreed, removed this from the lead. The link is there for anyone interested in learning more about the show. I am not sure what to add to the lead about the creation of the character, but I am open to suggestions.
"Divins discussed the storyline with his gay friends and researched LGBT culture to better shape his performance. Media outlets were uncertain of the exact nature of Chad's sexual orientation, debating if he was straight, gay, or bisexual." Seems rather redundant. I mean, is there another one?
  • True, revised this by removing the redundant phrasing.

Now moving to Development

It kind of feels like there too many quotes.
  • Agree. Removed some quotes, but let me know if more should be removed.
  • Can the storylines use some references?
  • As I stated in the Peer Review, the storyline section does not require referencing according to this. It would also be extremely difficult or impossible to include references for that section as some sentences cover weeks, months, and (in some cases) years of daily, weekday episodes.
  • I don't find any notable issues with the reception.

Other than I'm satisfied with the article. By the way, I also nominated Allen Walker here. I would appreciate feedback even if he doesn't pass.

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or revise with the article. I will provide a review for your FAC for Allen Walker sometime in the beginning of next week if that is alright with you. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tintor2: Thank you very much for your comments again. You helped me catch a few really really silly mistakes lol. I will make sure to review your FAC in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review as requested[edit]

  • File:Chad Harris-Crane.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as it's a character from a copyrighted TV show. Source information is a bit vague, the scope of illustrating the subject of the article seems legit under WP:NFCI. I'd say it meets the WP:NFC criteria but it needs more source information.
  • Information has been updated. I did not upload the image, but I am very certain that it is a portion of a screenshot from an episode (and given the nature of the show, it would be extremely difficult to identify the episode it was taken from). Let me know if this needs to be updated further.
  • File:ChadVincentSex.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct as they are characters from a copyrighted TV show. The non-free use rationale is much more detailed than in the infobox image. I have some doubts that illustrating a homosexual relationship in the show needs a non-free image, though (WP:NFCC#8) - was this scene explicitly discussed? Also, the article does indicate "mixed reviews" not "generally negative" ones as claimed in the caption.
  • Replaced "generally negative" with "mixed". I forgot to change this during the article's expansion. I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character "made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex", and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic. I completely understand if you believe it should be removed and will do so. I admittedly need to learn more about the usage of non-free images on here, so I would greatly appreciate your input.

Lead image may need ALT text, the other image has already good ALT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have responded to your comments above. I believe that I updated all of the source information for the lead image, but please let me know if this requires further clarification or expansion. I have clarified my intention for using the second image, but I could always remove it (I completely understand your point, and I understand the use of non-free images should be kept to a minimal). Also, the lead image already has an ALT text, but I can update it if you believe it is insufficient. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going solely by WP:NFCC#8 using a shot of one of the complained-about sexual intercourse scenes seems like it would satisfy the NFC policy better, if text discussing these complained-about scenes is present in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the clarification. I do need to learn more about the NFC policy. The comments about the criticism are at the end of the final paragraph of the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have also updated the caption. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just to clarify, did this pass the image review? Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I generally do not explicitly say "passed" or "failed" when reviewing FAC images. However, you can read this as a) the first image is OK and b) the second one probably isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the reply. So just to be absolutely clear, do you think it would be best to remove the second image? I understand your point of view, and was thinking about doing so from your comments, but again, I just want to be clear. I apologize for the trouble. Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it should be removed, unless consensus decides that it is OK to keep it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me, it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47 and Jo-Jo Eumerus, I just saw that File:ChadVincentSex.jpg was deleted (the image was on my watchlist). From my review of the article (seen in the peer review), I found the image to pass the WP:Non-free guideline because of number 5 at WP:Non-free content#Images and WP:NFCC#8. As noted above, the image was used to aid critical commentary about the characters' sexual relationship. Above, Aoba47 stated, "I felt the image was necessary since the article discusses how the character 'made daytime history by being the first to represent two men simulating sex', and there was criticism about the sequences of sexual intercourse between the two characters being too graphic." Those are solid reasons to maintain the image. One could, however, argue that the image isn't needed since readers can easily picture the two in bed together. Still, I think the image enhanced the article, especially since a picture is worth a thousand words. Keeping the image would be similar to keeping the Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer kiss image, which had a deletion debate. But if you both would rather that the "in bed together" image remain removed, I'm not going to drag out the debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I actually agree with you, and felt that the image was very important to visualize as I pointed out above how the sequence made daytime history and became a subject of criticism. However, I was hesitant as I am not as familiar as I should be with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. I would love to upload the image again and add it in if that is a possibility. Thank you for your message, Flyer22 Reborn. Aoba47 (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That image is indeed very marginal. Myself, I am not convinced that two men looking at each other in bed in an apparently sexual situation requires a non-free image to illustrate, but my opinion is not more important than yours. With a good fair use rationale, that image could be restored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Flyer22 Reborn: and @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you again for both of your comments. I greatly appreciate your input, and have put a lot of thought into my decision after weighing both of your arguments. I agree with want to be careful with Jo-Jo Eumerus in that I want to be really careful with using non-free images so I will keep the article as it currently stands as the information is already present though the text. I apologize for being indecisive and going back and forth on this issue, but I am happy with the article as it currently stands. Thank you again to both of you, and I apologize to both of you for any inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just so you know I replaced the previous image in the infobox with a promotional image from NBC Universal Photo that I found on TV Guide. That way, I knew exactly where the source of the image. I am included a detailed summary for the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" as well. I based that around those used for images from featured articles on fictional characters. I just wanted to let you know about the update, and thank you again for the above review! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like my comments on the prior image would apply here as well, save for the better source information of course. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – All my complaints have already been addressed by the nominator Carbrera (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article meets Wikipedia standards and I see no reason to oppose this FA nomination. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I can see no reason to oppose this candidacy. There's nothing really to nitpick over that hasn't been addressed at this point for me. The article is in fantastic shape. The prose is tight and clean, sourcing is good, and it is comprehensive in scope, a most interesting read. Well done and keep up the great work! DAP 💅 17:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

  • No DAB-links - OK.
  • No dead links - OK.
  • Thorough consistent sourcing - OK. AGF on plot information.
  • Reliable sources - obviously not Oxford University Press :), but reliable enough for a soap opera-related article (mostly TV sites, tabloids, specialist blogs).
  • If only I could find articles or books from the Oxford University Press about this character or soap opera lol.
  • I have fixed 2 broken archives, did some other minor tweaks, and removed a few overly detailed personal comments. Of course some relevant personal background details are useful, but the bulk of the article's information should be based on independent sources - not on actors talking about themselves. GermanJoe (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GermanJoe: Thank you for your review and your revisions. Your revisions have helped to improve the article a great deal, and I always appreciate your input. Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments as I go through the article. I'm making some minor copyedits; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • Any reason not to name the actor in the caption to the infobox picture?
  • I was originally using the article Pauline Fowler as a template (since they are both soap opera characters), but I have added the name of the actor to the caption, as I agree that it is important to clarify the actor in the photo for the reader (especially since two actors played the role).
  • "Although Chad was not introduced as a direct member of the Russells, media outlets closely associated him with the family": I'm not sure what you mean by "closely associated". The source just lists the Russells and then mentions Harris.
    This was something I added in the beginning stages of the expansion for the article. I added it to connect the previous sentences about the color-blind casting and the racially diverse families to the specific character (kind of like a transition moving from the general to the specific). However, I do agree that it sounds off, and I have moved the information about Chad's initial role as the "object of affection for Simone and Whitney" to the "Characterization and cast response" section as it is more appropriate there, and cut out the rest as I agree that the "closely associated" part was a stretch and not in the source. Please let me know if these revisions are okay, and if further revisions are necessary. Also, let me know if you think that the information about the color-blind casting is appropriate for this article. I think it fits, but just want to double-check.
    That works; and yes, I think it's fine to mention the color-blind casting -- very relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swaby expressed disapproval of the direction of the character's storyline when played by Divins": there's no implication in the source that Swaby's disapproval is related to Divins himself, so I'd suggest making this "After Swaby left the show, he was disappointed by the direction Chad's storyline took ".
    Agreed, used the revision that you suggested. Thank you!
  • 'He added that the focus was kept on "[t]he underlying drama of what's going on is Chad's denial and coping with [his identity]"': this isn't grammatical; I see what you're trying to do, but the part outside the quote is expecting a noun phrase and you have a full sentence in the quote. How about: "Divins felt that the key element of the storyline was Chad's difficulty in coming to terms with his sexuality?" I'm not sure we need the direct quote here.
    Also agreed with this. I apologize for the sloppy use of the quote, and I have used the revision that you have suggested. Thank you!
  • "He stated the development of the character reflected the increasing visibility of LGBT issues on television and in everyday society": I don't see this in the given source.
    I have revised this sentence so hopefully it makes more sense. In the source, Divins is asking if he had any "fears going into the storyline", to which he responded "No. I mean, there's always concern, but it's 2007. It's a lot more visible on TV and in society", so that is where the whole idea of the increased visibility came from in the sentence. Let me know if this needs further revisions. Thank you for catching this.
    I tweaked it a bit more; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments so far. I have addressed them to the best of my ability. I look forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • I did a little copyediting to the last paragraph in the characterization section, but I'm not sure you're really reflecting the source correctly for the sentence about Brook Kerr. In the source, Kerr says "He was my first true love -- he gave me my independence", but she's clearly speaking to the interviewer in Whitney's voice, not speaking as Kerr. I'm also not sure you can say it's her scenes with Chad that allow her to act the character in new ways; it's the whole storyline, and it sounds as though some of that is with Chad offscreen (e.g. the nunnery, the monk). You can definitely say that Kerry enjoyed the storyline, but that's not all that relevant to Chad. Do you think this is worth including? Similarly, all that Jeanmarie says in the given source is "It's good to know we were even a part of history, you know? Maybe what we did on Passions made it easier for the soaps to do what they are doing today?" I think this is a bit more usable, but I think your paraphrase takes it a bit beyond what the source will support. Jeanmarie is glad to have been part of history, but in context that might just mean the fact that it was the first such scene in a soap. The comment by Ross is more definite. Maybe this whole paragraph could be shortened to something like "Chad's character and storyline were not to every cast member's taste; Tracey Ross, who played Eve Russell, later said she "was never crazy about" the incest plot, though Phillip Jeanmarie, who played Vincent Clarkson, commented that he was glad to have been part of the taboo-breaking story." I think "taboo-breaking" is probably not ideal, but that's the general idea.
    Changed to your suggestion and combined with the previous paragraph. I am okay with the term "taboo-breaking", as I cannot think of another term to replace it.
    OK -- should the character names be linked in the new sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked Tracey Ross, Eve Russell, and Phillip Jeanmarie. Vincent Clarkson was already linked earlier in the section. Thank you for the reminder and I apologize for missing this before. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I changed "plays" to "played" in the suggested rewrite above -- I think since the show is over, anything about the actors and roles (rather than in-world present tense) should be in the past tense.
    I think all of the "Development" section is already in past tense.
    Yes, I think it was just that one place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the discovery of his marriage to Latoya Harris": shouldn't we have heard about this earlier in the storylines section?
    I am not sure what you mean by this. I made the sentence about this storyline as concise as possibly, as I did not believe it was that important to the reader, in comparison to the other parts of the section. It needs to be mentioned in the "Storylines" section, but it was rather short storyline so I am not sure any expansion of this would be helpful.
    I meant that a character's marriage seems like the sort of thing that would be major enough to be mentioned in the storyline section. Was it a secret marriage, since you say "the discovery of his marriage" at one point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, I apologize for misunderstanding you. It was presented as a secret marriage (it was only revealed to the viewer at that time). The marriage occupies an odd space in the character's storyline. It is important (as I assume an marriage would be to a character) and it does take up a majority of the character's storyline for the year 2003, but after that, it is never brought up again and seems to have been dismissed. It was also never discussed before that either or even implied. I have moved the introduction to Latoya to the beginning of the first paragraph in between the first two sentences so that it doesn't come off as a surprise to the reader. Let me if this is an improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The possible incestuous implications of Chad's relationship with Whitney serves as one of his primary storylines on the soap opera": suggest "From this point on, the apparently incestuous relationship between Chad and Whitney became one of the primary storylines on Passions."
    Changed.
  • "who would later be known as Miles Harris-Crane" -- I'd suggest cutting this and mentioning it later in the paragraph at the point in the storyline when the name is given.
    Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK -- how about changing the end of that paragraph to "they decide to raise their son together, and rename him Miles Harris Crane"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the reception and impact section needs some work; it feels a little choppy.
    I am not entirely sure how to change this. I attempted to make this section flow as much as possible, so I am not sure what to improve on.
    I'll have a go at this later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the first sentence of each paragraph expresses the theme, then the third paragraph should be about the sexual relationship and the fourth should be about criticism of it as irresponsible or poorly written, but the last two sentences of the fourth paragraph are praise.
    I included these sentences in this paragraph as I believed that it tied back into the idea of the storyline being irresponsibly done (viewers complaining that the explicit sex sequences should not be shown on daytime television). Where would you suggest moving it if it does not fit here? I would think that it is important to keep this idea somewhere in the article as the viewer reaction should be kept since I have a source for it.
    I have moved it to try and make it flow better. Let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can cut the first three "See also" links; they're all linked from the navbox.
    Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you cut all of them, which is up to you, but I only meant the first three. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I thought I only cut the first three, but I must have cut the entire section by accident. Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Overall I don't think this is quite there yet. Once you've responded I'll go back through and have a closer look at the sources -- I can see where you were getting some of the material I mentioned above, but it was a bit imprecise and I'd like to just check a few more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you for your response. I have responded to your comments above. Hopefully, I can make this work out as I have put a lot of time and energy into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the reception section again, probably tonight. Meanwhile, I see the entire storyline section is uncited; I assume that's because the source is the show itself. Nikki, what's the convention for showing sourcing on something like this? Should each paragraph have a source that points at the show, or is it OK to just leave the paragraphs uncited and assume the reader will understand what the real source is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:PLOT: sourcing is generally encouraged but not required, we need sources for direct quotes, any interpretation requires secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: Thank you for your review. I have addressed the comments above, and thank you for helping me with the "Reception" section. To the best of my knowledge, the "Storylines" section does not need a citation as the show serves as the primary source.The article for Todd Manning does not use any sources for its "Storylines" section, and I believe that it is a part of the Wikiproject for soap operas that these sections are traditionally uncited (given the difficulty in doing so) according to this Aoba47 (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the reception section:

  • Why do we need the quote from Fearn-Banks? It essentially just says that Chad is biracial, which we already know, don't we?
  • The Fearn-Banks' quote is much more complicated than that, as she is discussing how Chad fits within a larger representation of biracial characters on television. However, I have removed it if you feel that it is unnecessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first paragraph doesn't really have a focus -- there's the "sensational" comment, a note about biracial characters on TV, a compliment for Divins, and a comment about the reveal.
  • I wanted the first paragraph to focus on the reception of the character's relationship with Whitney, and the storyline of the two of them as a couple. I wanted to use the first sentence as the topic sentence to unify it together. I believe that the removal of the Fearn-Banks will hopefully make this stronger, and I have edited this a little bit as well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is better; it's focused on the question of Chad's sexuality. I don't think the outlets were expressing "confusion", though; they expressed differing opinions, but none seem confused.
  • 'Soap opera journalist Roger Newcomb of We Love Soaps included Chad in his review of gay, lesbian, and bisexual characters in the history of daytime television, but questioned the character's self-identification. Newcomb said that Vincent's reveal as intersex leads to Chad's heterosexuality being "rescued" as he "was sleeping only with Vincent's female anatomy".' I'd cut this to 'Soap opera journalist Roger Newcomb of We Love Soaps questioned whether Chad was truly gay, arguing that Vincent's reveal as intersex leads to Chad's heterosexuality being "rescued" as he "was sleeping only with Vincent's female anatomy".' I think mentioning the "History of Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Television Characters" would be worth it if it were a substantial piece, but it's barely more than a simple list.
  • I'd cut the last sentence (McHale's "transsexuals" comment) from the end of the second paragraph; quoting it directly seems a bit too detailed, given this is not cited to another source that mentions it, only to the show itself.
  • Rather than detail my concerns with the third paragraph, here's a suggested rewrite, splitting it into two. I've cut and spliced a bit, and done some rewording. Let me know what you think. Do we need the website attributions for these writers inline, or can some be left for the reader to see in the notes? They really slow down the reader, but I know in some cases it's the website that's notable, not the writer, so perhaps some or all should stay.
Passions made daytime history by being the first to depict two men having sex, but the pairing of Chad and Vincent drew less media attention than the gay relationships in As the World Turns and One Life to Live. The complicated incest storyline was described as "insanely convoluted" by Gawker's Kyle Buchanan, who felt it was one of "the most insane things that have ever happened on television"; the plotline was also praised, by Soaps.com, as reflecting the show's "unique perspective and zest for controversy" while challenging the "often too safe and predictable world of soaps". NewNowNext.com's Brent Hartinger approved of the plotline for increasing the presence of LGBT people of color on daytime television, with Ross von Metze of Edge Media Network commenting that the show was "taking risks where other TV shows have failed".
Viewers were divided over the sexually explicit sequences between Chad and Vincent. Some felt the scenes between Chad and Vincent were "appalling" and inappropriate for daytime television, while one viewer praised the soap opera for "continu[ing] their outstanding jobs as they teach the people of today's world about daily life experiences". Soaps.com defended the show by pointing out that graphic sex scenes between men and women were previously aired without complaint.

-- More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you again for your help! I apologize for the added work and inconvenience. I have addressed the comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll follow up tomorrow, but I took out all the sources, links, and formatting while I was working on the third paragraph -- sorry about that! Can you readd as needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, that is an easy fix, especially with consideration to how much you have helped me with this. I have attempted to c/e the fourth paragraph to help with this, but feel free to revert it if you find that I made it worse. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Laser brain, Ian Rose: I'm going to work on this tonight if I have time, but probably won't be able to do much for a day or so after that -- I'm having minor surgery, and though I'll be physically fit after it I may be on drugs that won't make me a very good editor. As it stands I would oppose promotion if you want me to declare, but I think it's not that far away. If this can stay open a few more days I think it'll make it across the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you for your review, and I hope everything goes well with your surgery. I am still trying to learn how to a better contributor on here, so I greatly appreciate your input and apologize for my mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting back to this now. (No need to apologize all the time, by the way, Aoba47; it's very polite of you, and I appreciate it, but reviewing is all about finding problems and agreeing how to fix them. If every mistake required an apology we'd never do anything else but say sorry! We both want to improve the article, so it's a collaboration, not a conflict.)

Re the fourth paragraph:

  • "Chad's relationship with Vincent has been widely criticized by television critics, who believed it was irresponsibly represented": has it really been "widely" criticized? You have three cites for this; I don't think that's enough, particularly since they're just passing mentions.
  • The article by Herndon Davis is about diversity in general; the relevant line in the source is: "In 2005, NBC's Passions introduced Simone Russell as daytime's first African-American lesbian. But unfortunately the same soap recklessly wrote a down-low storyline which involved an African-American man but eventually turned it into an outrageous intersex serial killer storyline." It's not entirely clear what Davis means -- it was originally a reckless storyline and then became an outrageous one? Why "but"? You characterize this as "viewed negatively", which is certainly fair, but Davis's essay is about diversity, not really about this show. I think it would be better to make the context of Davis's comments clear.

How about this rewrite of the paragraph:

Chad's relationship with Vincent received some criticism, with Windy City Times describing the storyline as "reckless" and "outrageous". According to Slate's Ta-Nehisi Coates, the storyline was also disliked by the show's black audience. Mike Perigard of the Boston Herald was critical of the timing of the death of lesbian Rae Thomas following the reveal of Chad's affair with a man; Perigard argued that Thomas's character was removed to reduce the number of gay characters on the show.

I'll have another read through, tonight or tomorrow, and see if there's anything else, but I think this is close now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: I agree with your above comments on the fourth paragraph. I have used your rewrite of the paragraph as it makes the ideas more coherent and clearer to the reader. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last pass:

  • I see you cut all of the material cited to Fearn-Banks; my question was just about the quote, which didn't seem important to me -- do you see a reason for it? Her comment about biracial characters on TV often ending up in traumatic situations seems quite apposite though, assuming she specifically mentions Chad.
  • I originally put the quote during the early development of the page, in which I used any reliable source that I could find regarding the character. Fearn-Banks does specifically reference Chad in the section about "Biracial Characters" from her book, and I thought it might be useful to add more information on how Chad's relationship with Whitney was received by critics. I have removed it as if it is not viewed/determined as important, than it is probably best to remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the blog "Out in Hollywood", which is affiliated with the Los Angeles Daily News": I assume you put this in to make it clear that it's a reliable source. I don't think the reader needs to see this inline, though; I'd move this to a note.
  • What do we get from the reported statement that Divins noted "the characters and their relationship [are] important aspects of the show"? It's a fairly anodyne thing to say; there are no specifics. The next sentence -- "Divins identified Chad's confusion over his sexual orientation as a vital part of the storyline" is more definite; how about cutting the first source and just using that? I.e. the paragraph would start "Despite the controversy, and negative reception of Chad's sexual encounters with Vincent, Divins considered Chad's confusion over his sexual orientation to be a vital part of the storyline."?
  • Agreed, done as suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hartinger called Chad a "closeted bisexual", and Nahmod referred to him as a gay black man": I don't know these media outlets, so I'll defer to your judgement here -- would a soap opera fan be more likely to recognize the name as "Hartinger", or "Brent Hartinger", or would they be more likely to recognize the website, NewNowNext.com? Same question for David Nahman/Bay Area Reporter.
  • The outlets/website would be more recognizable so I have revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same again for "Lesleyann Coker of Soapdom.com" -- not knowing these writers, I'd be inclined to just use the website names, but if you think these are well known to soap fans, can we just have her name? I'd use first and last, not just last, though, unless she's truly famous in the field, and even then her full name should be used on first occurrence.
  • I missed this first time: why "not dead" in the Soup appearance? Was this before the character died on the show?
  • Divins appeared on the show following his exit (the death of his character). Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have made the revisions suggested above; let me know if there is anything else that I can do. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is much improved, and I think it's now up to the mark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for taking the time to provide all of the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2016 [11].

HMS Alceste (1806)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th century frigate which fought on both sides during the Napoleonic wars. It took part in a number of notable actions but is probably best known as the ship that conveyed Lord Amherst on his diplomatic mission to China, following the Treaty of Vienna. Under Murray Maxwell, she was taken on an exploration of the South China Sea where it was discovered, amongst other things, that Korea was in the wrong place. Unlike most of her contempories, she was not ignominiously broken up at the end of her career but wrecked in the Java Sea. Her crew, marooned on the island of Pulau Laut, had to fend off pirates until rescued several weeks later.

Since being promoted to GA in December 2014, I have found additional sources and been able to provide much more information about Alceste’s capture and her previously unmentioned part in the occupation of Madeira. I have also added extra detail on: the Action of 4 April 1808, the incident in the bay of Agay, the raid at Parenza, and the Action of 29 November 1811. Ykraps (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Euryalus
Construction
*capacity of just over 1,097 tons BM - spell out tons burthen in this first instance in the main text, and its worth including the x/94 fraction if available. Also, the BM abbreviation isusually lower case, as it is in the infobox?
*Suggest a wikilink to naval long gun, and dropping the "s" off the end of 9-pounder (ie it's a nine-pounder long gun, not a nine-pounders long gun). The long gun article is woefully confusing, but it's better than nothing.
  • You're quite right about the "pounders"; I hadn't noticed it before. A conversion template has been used here which adds the "s" automatically. I will see if there is any way to over-ride it, otherwise I can write it out in full.--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Pierre Rolland - should this be wikilinked (but hopefully also piped) to Pierre-Jacques-Nicolas Rolland?
  • Done - Thanks. I thought I'd searched for an article but obviously I didn't.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Minor unit of measurement variation - the beam is listed only as feet while the other dimensions are to inches. Is the beam 40 ft 0 inches, or does this exceed the precision of the source (in which case for consistency I suggest taking all the dimensions to feet only).
  • Done - The beam was 40' exactly. I've added 0" for clarity.--Ykraps (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
French service
  • What was the French squadron at Ile-d’Aix intending to do? Currently implies that anchoring there was an end in itself.
    At that particular time they were simply intending to gain protection from the shore batteries but I rather think you're wondering what their long term objective was. I am afraid sources don't say but for some days before Pallas arrived, she was engaged in the destruction of signal towers along the coast. The signal towers were keeping track of the British ships and relaying their movements to the blockaded French ships. I presume therefore that the French squadron was waiting to be told, literally, when the coast was clear so they could make a break for it. With a bit of searching I could probably reference all that but how much do you think needs including?--Ykraps (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that much; if you can say it in a handful of words then fine, if not I suspect it would break up the flow of the section so better left out. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've added a bit. See if it's an improvement or not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could reword second sentence to lead with Pallas being ordered by Thornbrough to go count the ships – the way it is now takes a while to work out who Thornbrough is ordering. Also isn’t clear that Thornbrough has a squadron of his own at his immediate disposal – we only discover this later when referencing Iris and then Indefatigable.
    Done (I think) - I've started the sentence with "Pallas" and also said she was part of a squadron. Is that what you meant?--Ykraps (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph – could reword to indicate Allemande sent reinforcements (the frigates and brigs) to Minerve, ahead of of the reference to the winds and the British withdrawal.
    Okay, I've re-ordered the sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink topsail. We don't have an article on backing the sails, I wonder if most readers will understand the term? No big deal, just throwing it out there for any views.
    Perhaps not. I've added "slowing down" to indicate the result of doing such.--Ykraps (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • “guns jolted from their positions” – assume this is Minerve’s guns.
    The source is equally ambiguous but I assume so based on the premise that Pallas then fired a broadside. I'll see if I can find a more definite source.--Ykraps (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently not. Richard Woodman makes it clear that it was Pallas' guns that were driven inboard by the force, by adding, "Undaunted, Cochrane's gunners discharged so devastating a broadside into Minerve's hull..." I have clarified this in the article.--Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Did Pallas also ground? Assume so because we reference her draft, but is not clear in the article. In passing, interesting that the British vessel is smaller but more heavily gunned.
  • I don't think so, no. She didn't ground because of her shallower draft but she became entangled with Minerve and had to free herself. Sources are not terribly clear on this point but that is my understanding. The official (a) French account says that Minerve didn't ground either but that her anchor fell because the stopper had broken. William James (naval historian) thinks this unlikely as she would simply have cut her cable.--Ykraps (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded this to make it clearer and added the alternative explanation as a footnote. Again, see what think. Pallas was not the more heavily armed, she had 12-pounders and Minerve had 18-pounders. I need to take a look at that.--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's okay. The corresponding articles have Pallas carrying 26 x 12-pounder guns and 12 x 24-pounder carronades, and Minerve/Alceste with 28 × 18-pounder guns, 2 × 9-pounder guns and 16 × 32-pounder carronades (source=Winfield). William James says that at the time of her capture, Minerve was carrying 28 x 18-Pounders, 4 x 8-Pounders and 12 x 36-Pounder carronades. This differs from Winfield because he gives numbers "as built".--Ykraps (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this section becomes occasionally confusing, because it is not always clear what ships are actually engaged or nearby. For example, the approach of the French frigates Armide and Indefatigable is a surprise – we had no inkling they were there until they drew near enough to involve themselves in the battle. Is there any way to detailing the relative forces of each side without this being too much detail for a single extended engagement?
    I'm still thinking about this. When Allemande sent out Minerve and the three corvettes, he also had Armide and Infatigable (not to be confused with the British Indefatigable) cleared for action and standing by. Perhaps if I mention this early on it might clarify things. I'm not sure about listing the squadrons as not all the ships are named and, as you say, it might be too much. Do you think a footnote would help?--Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've had another look at this; moved the mention of Armide and Infatigable further up the page and tweaked the whole paragraph a bit. See if it's any better.--Ykraps (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Capture
  • Obscure one – the lighthouse is more commonly spelled Chassiron (French WP article here.
    Done - Spellings in old sources can be a bit of a problem and there doesn't appear to be a guideline for dealing with them. I usually stay faithful to the source and link it, but because there is no article, I think it's probably better to use the modern spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The forming of line-of-battle seems an unnecessary detail given the order was not actually followed. Should this simply be replaced with Hood ordering the general chase? Also, potentially wikilink general chase.
    Done - I wondered about that myself so I have removed. Good idea about the link.--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Needs to explain the French ships were still together when Monarch drew near. And (minor quibble), “run for it” seems a bit colloquial.
  • Done - Changed to "fled".--Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


British service
*Alceste was the frigate unsuccessfully sent to rescue the Pope in 1808 so that he could seek asylum in Britain. While the rescue failed, it placed this vessel at the centre of what would have been a substantial European event. It would be good to include mention of this in the article.
  • Indeed, it would be very good to include this in the article but I'm afraid I cannot find any mention of it in the sources I have available. Do you have a reference?--Ykraps (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a Mariners Mirror article on it that covers the main points - will work out how to get it across to you. It's not an earth-shattering addition, just think it's worth a few lines. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be this then.[[12]] Unfortunately I can't access the article as I'm not a member. Although £40 pa doesn't seem bad value particularly as it gets you free access to the Royal Naval Museum and HMS Victory.--Ykraps (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a piece based on the above article. Not sure about the length and detail; take a look and let me know what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More
  • British service - Being part of Cochrane's squadron in December 1814 - not so much a convoy as a flotilla of armed boats proceeding to the Battle of Lake Borgne - do we know if Alceste was part of that action?
    The information was added by another editor here.[[13]] As you can see, the first part appeared to be referenced so I left that and removed the reference to Lake Borgne here.[[14]] Clowes Vol VI p.148 says Cochrane’s squadron escorted a large number of storeships and transports carrying troops, to the mouth of the Mississippi on 8 December, and so I took that to be the convoy referred to in that sentence. I couldn't at the time find a reference for the rest; Clowes does go on to say how Cochrane found five American gunboats in the bayou called Lake Borgne and dispatched 42 ships’ launches but the only one he identifies is that of HMS Seahorse. However, I have now found this issue of the Gazette[[15]] which states that Alceste was awarded a share of the prize money for the capture of the gunboats so I guess we could put the deleted sentence back. I'm going to think on this again tomorrow but in the meantime, if you have any thoughts, please share them. Your edits are fine by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm uncomfortable with using the Gazette on its own to say definitely that Alceste’s boats were used. Receiving prize money from a capture doesn’t always mean a particular ship was present. I know for example that frigate captains often agreed to share prizes with each other. What if we say, "In late 1812, Alceste was decommissioned and placed in ordinary at Deptford. Between February and July 1814 she was converted at Deptford into a troopship; in this role, she was recommissioned in May 1814 under Commander Faniel Lawrence, and sailed with troops to North America. (Ref: Winfield, p.178) Alceste left Pensacola on 8 December 1814, in tandem with the 50 other vessels in Vice-Admiral Alexander Cochrane's convoy. (Ref: Marley, p 462) En route to New Orleans, the expedition discovered five American gunboats in the shallow waters of a bayou near the Chandeleur Sound. In what became known as the Battle of Lake Borgne, Cochrane dispatched 42 of the ships’ boats, carrying nearly 1,000 men, to capture them (Ref: Clowes, pp.148-149)"?--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Euryalus, If this [[16]] counts as a reliable source, I think we can say that Alceste's boats were used. Several medals were awarded to members of her crew for a boat action on 14 December 1814.--Ykraps (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some more sources and added a few sentences about the Battle of Lake Borgne.--Ykraps (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image - haven't checked the licensing but in case you need another one there's a nice image of Alceste here. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found that image but decided against its use because of copyright. Although the original image is in the public domain, the NMM's digital copy isn't; British copyright law differs to US copyright law in this respect. See National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. The NMM has released some of its images under creative commons licence but unfortunately this is not one of them.--Ykraps (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Euryalus (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Alceste_at_Bogue.jpg: source link is dead and what are the two authors' dates of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the address I would say that was from the National Maritime Museum [[17]]. I am afraid I'm not an expert on copyright legislation but the book it was published in is in the public domain.--Ykraps (talk) 06:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and here it is.[[18]] This gives the year of McLeod's death as 1820.--Ykraps (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And this says Dubourg died in 1838.[[19]]--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria, Is there something you want me to do with this information?--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please add author dates and source details to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - Although I'm only guessing the source based on the nmm (National Maritme Museum) part of the original link.--Ykraps (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • So far this looks pretty good. To explain my first edit summary from today: I deleted a bit from the first paragraph so that readers would find out sooner that the ship was captured by the British and renamed. The faster they have that information, the faster the article title makes sense, and the less effort they have to expend making sense of it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that makes more sense. It's usual to keep everything in chronological order but in this case I think it's detrimental to do that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just now saw your question at the peer review about that comma. The answer is that in a comma-heavy sentence, it's a common style (and seems to be FAC style) to also have a comma separating the two independent clauses, particularly when there's a comma nearby that might be mistaken, even for a millisecond, for the separation point between the clauses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "40 feet 0 inches": I'm not sure what reviewers are going to say about that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It originally said sinply 40' but someone made the point that it looked odd when all other dimensions were feet and inches. I thought that was a fair point at the time and changed it. Perhaps I'll see if anyone else weighs in on the subject.--Ykraps (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got down to HMS_Alceste_(1806)#Capture. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarastro covered a lot of the things that I was concerned about, so I'm done here, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • A bit hard to imagine how the ship looked, perhaps show a more "neutral" view of a ship of the same type (Armide-class frigate ?) somewhere?
That makes this (unimportant) issue the last one unaddressed. Any comment? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of showing how the ship looked, the illustration in the Armide-class article is very good but I've been wondering how I can fit it in. Images ought to be relevant to the text so the obvious place would be in the construction section but this creates some nasty sandwiching of the text. I toyed with the idea of using it in the infobox and moving that image to where it talks about that engagement but I'm not sure about having a picture of another ship in the infobox when one of the actual ship is available. I've been looking for some sort of guideline but haven't found anything yet. Do you have any further thoughts or Dank, Euryalus? --Ykraps (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 08:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the Armide-class image for the lead - it gives a clearer representation of the general vessel design, and better fits thousands at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Support retaining the other image in the article body, as suggested. -- Euryalus (talk)
Okay, I've swapped the images as agreed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "built to a design by Pierre Rolland for the French Navy as the Minerve" Selflink.
    Removed
  • I'm not sure about referring to the ship by its later name in a section where it was called something else? Perhaps just start with calling it "the ship was built to a design etc."?
    • Yes. SHIPS people tend to have definite opinions on names, and I have to admit I'm not sure how they like to handle this. I'm generally happy with their approach to these questions. If it were up to me, the first word both in the lead and in the first section below the lead would be "Minerve"; "HMS Alceste" would appear (bolded) in the second sentence in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I have done that. I've referred to it as Minerve when it was called Minerve and Alceste when it was called Alceste. Or do you mean something else?--Ykraps (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under Construction and armament you say "Alceste was built to a design by Pierre Rolland". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes that's true but its relationship to Minerve is explained in the very same sentence. As with Dank's reasoning above regarding the intro, it is better that the reader finds out quickly that the ship was captured by the British and renamed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Dank is happy with this, I am too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under Contre-Amiral Zacharie Allemand" Why is the rank in the link? Couldn't that link to something else?
    Linked to Contre-amiral although that particular article isn't very good. Perhaps it ought to link to Rear-admiral?--Ykraps (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps mention what both names were based on in-text, and not only in the infobox?
    I'm unable to find any reference for either namesake and have therefore removed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No namesake in the infobox for Alceste?
    The British couldn’t retain the name Minerve because they already had a ship of that name so they named her Alceste probably after HMS Alceste (1793) which the French presumably named after Alcestis. This is unreferenced original research though, as is often the case in the articles that contain this sort of information.--Ykraps (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and forced her to strike at 15:00." What is meant by strike?
    I've linked this for you.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the crew after capture?
    It's not recorded. They were usually locked in the hold until they could be put ashore either in a neutral port where they were released or in a home port where they were imprisoned.--Ykraps (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to extract his holiness the Pope" I don't think honorifics are to be used.[20]
    Removed --Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which pope are we talking about?
    Pius VII. I've added and linked.--Ykraps (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get date and maybe attribution for the captions of all the illustrations?
    I assume you mean attribution for the illustrations so I've added that. If you mean attribution for the captions, most of them were mine. :) --Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Fort Maxwell bolded in a caption?
    No idea. Now removed, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madeira and La Pomone are overlinked.
    Removed - I think. Let us know if I've not got them all.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Napoleon is not linked at first mention, but way below.
    Removed - a paragraph was added later.--Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The intro seems short for the article length. Little mention of the ship's actions under French control, for example. Should summarise the entire article
    She had only been commissioned a few months before her capture and her only notable action was the duel with Pallas on 14 May 1806 so its inclusion could be deemed WP:UNDUE. There was a short paragraph detailing it in the intro but it was removed with this edit here [[21]]. I have added it back in a slightly different guise to see if I can please you both.--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - every issue addressed nicely. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: Down to the start of the Diplomatic Mission to China section. Looking good. I've done some copyediting; most of it is just punctuation (I'm mildly addicted the mdash, so feel free to replace these) or fairly minor rewording. Just a couple of points so far, but the first one is quite a big one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comma inconsistency: When we start a sentence with dates or adverbials, we need to be consistent whether or not we have a comma. For instance, we have "In 1814 Alceste was converted..." and "At 23:00 the British landed 200 seamen" but also "Two days later, Pallas..." and "On 22 May 1810, Alceste encountered ...". Whichever method we are using, the article needs a good check to make sure we are consistent.
    Ordinarily I would employ a comma because that's the way I was taught, although I think the modern trend is to omit them. Dank is midway through a copy edit so I don't want to put commas in where I suspect he will remove them.--Ykraps (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to include them too; I think the most important issue is to be consistent. If Dank doesn't get a chance before I finish, I can stick a few in here and there. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do whatever looks right to you, Sarastro, I'm sure it will be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been suggested by the British historian James Henderson that this action was a factor in Napoleon's decision to change the direction of his planned eastward expansion in 1812 from the Balkans to Russia": Does anyone else share this view? And how mainstream is Henderson? Is this a controversial theory or a respected one? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I vaguely remember someone else postulating the same thing but currently I'm unable to find where. Are you suggesting it is WP:Fringe? To me it's not an unreasonable thing to think. The army at Trieste was poised to invade the Balkans, the cannon were bound for the army there, and shortly after their capture, Napoleon changed his mind and invaded Russia. Henderson suggests it may have been a factor. I would like to keep it as it's interesting and has been used for a WP:DYK but if it's a deal breaker...--Ykraps (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm not saying it is WP:FRINGE, I'm sure it's perfectly respectable. I'm well aware that top academics can hold differing views from their peers without being dismissed as cranks! I was meaning more along the lines of is it only him that thinks so among historians, or do others share his view? I'd be very slightly happier if others said so too, but the way it is phrased here makes it clear that it is his view, and that makes it absolutely acceptable to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still looking. I thought William James (naval historian) also mooted the idea but apparently not.--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Read to the end now. This is a rather marvellous article! If no-one else tackles the commas before I have a last look, I'll have a go myself, but I'll be more than happy to support when I've had a final read-through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I notice there is a little more about the journey up the Tigris in our article on General Hewett, but I've no idea if it's reliable or not. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Tigris is not a river, it is the Bocca Tigris, Mouth of the Tiger, a stretch on the Pearl River. Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is mainly the work of User:Acad Ronin whose sources are usually reliable and accurate. Is there a particular bit of information you would like to see included?--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absent original research in logbooks, should they survive, my info is only as accurate as the published sources. Please let me know if you have any questions.Acad Ronin (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main bit was this: "Alceste fired several broadsides at the fort and junks that attempted to block her way, and proceeded to anchor at the usual place. Shortly thereafter Alceste received fresh provisions, and General Hewett a cargo. The firing that had taken place at the mouth of the river was officially described as a "friendly interchange of salutes": I particularly like the official explanation! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarastro1, I've added a little more detail as you suggest. The source [[22]] actually says, "publicly announced". I'm not sure that's the same as "officially" so see if you like my wording. Thanks for your comments and support by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The last copy-edit seems to have sorted the comma consistency, and a last glance through hasn't thrown up anything else. I'm more than happy to support now, with the usual copy-editing disclaimer. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Source review for formatting/reliability? You can leave request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Sources look reliable and of suitably high quality. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • For consistency, all the books in the bibliography need a publishing location. At the moment, Lyon and Winfield, Marley and Winfield do not have a location.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs are inconsistent in using p or p., and whether there is a space between p and the page number.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 has spaces around the dash in the page ranges, but no other refs with multiple pages use this.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need consistency over whether we use a full stop (period) after each short citation: ref 54 uses one, but the others do not.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason why The Annual Biography and Obituary for the Year 1832 and Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine are not cited in the bibliography? They are used several times so it would make sense to move them to the bibliography and use a short citation for the reference. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed and done. I think I got everything but let me know if I've missed anything.--Ykraps (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly there but a few last inconsistencies:

  • Refs 8, 38 and 42 should be p. not p for consistency
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 28 has a space between pp. and the page range; the other references do not
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 54 includes 1994, but this is the only work by Hepper so it is not needed in a short citation.
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything fine after these are done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2016 [23].

Turboliner[edit]

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Turboliners were a fleet of gas turbine trainsets employed by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, between 1973–2003. Their usage, especially latterly in the state of New York, was a matter of intense controversy in the US railfan community which previously led to stability problems in the article. I've been improving it since 2012 and it was promoted to Good Article in 2014. I've tried to avoid getting too far into the weeds on railroading terminology. Somehow after all these years this is my first FAC nomination and I acknowledge that the article may be a little short. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were among the first new equipment purchased by Amtrak and represented an attempt by Amtrak to update its fleet with faster, more modern trains. - you've said "Amtrak" three times in the first two sentences. I wonder if the first mention of Amtrak" in this sentence can go....
Removed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe a background section is needed before you launch into the trains - containing some material like the first sentence under the History section on the Amfleet page - just to give some context of how Amtrak was at the time and why they needed the trains. I'd move the first para of the Service section to here.
Excellent suggestion; I've added one. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the formatting right in the last sentence of the Design section?
It is not; fixed. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They were retired from service after one caught fire in Pennsylvania Station in New York on September 11, 1994. - presumably because the cars were deemed faulty? Adding some material here would be helpful on the findings and closure.
Information on the RTG-IIs is scant (or at least not online). Appears to be poor maintenance as much as anything. I've expanded it a little. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional equipment allowed Amtrak to add a frequency in late April - umm,what's a "frequency"?
Sorry, it's transport jargon for a round-trip. I've replaced the usage. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 1998 Amtrak and the state of New York began.. - should "state" be capitalised here...we're referring to the government, right?
We're referring to the state, and apparently per the MOS it should be capitalized. I've changed it throughout. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also are there any turboliners that have been kept for posterity anywhere? Museums etc. Be worth mentioning at the end...
Not officially, no. New York sold all of its RTLs for scrap. Amtrak sold its RTGs in the mid-1990s. I believe there's one out in a cornfield in the Midwest in private hands, but it's not open to the public and I haven't seen a reliable source discussing it. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your feedback, sorry for the delay in responding. Mackensen (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am the one who is late - ok, looking better. A query below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mention in the lead they were sold for scrap in 2012, yet the last sentence does not say "for scrap". Some of the reasons (i.e. storage fees etc.) would be good to add too.
  • Thanks; added a source for the scrapping and for the storage costs. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I think I can tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose. I don't see any prose-clangers outstanding and suspect it is comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article says what it needs to say and no more, which should be a goal for any piece of writing. Two questions and one suggestion:

Is there any information about the riding characteristics of the trainsets?
Is there information about the economics and fuel efficiency of turbine power as opposed to diesel across a wide variety of speeds?
Please consider a statement at the end, or even a clause, such as ". . . ending turbine train service in the United States [North America?], if that is the case.

Kablammo (talk)

  • Thank you. I'm still reviewing the technical documents; I've added David P. Morgan's impressions of the RTG. Mackensen (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder. I'm reading through and intend to leave a few comments but I'm leaving for work imminently so I'll revisit tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How's it looking, Harry? Like to progress this one... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; rough couple of weeks and I've been busy with my own nomination. I have some time this afternoon so I'll get to this now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport (Harry Mitchell):

  • The link on "consist" doesn't work (it's not defined in the linked glossary); I know what it means because I have an interest in railways but I'm not sure the average reader would
    • I've changed the consist redirect to point at a more appropriate location. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the background section. Would it be worth mentioning experiments with gas-powered trains elsewhere? I know of the British project, the APT-E, and according to our article there were projects in France, Canada, and previously in the States (I see the French project is mentioned in passing in the design section).
  • Is it really important how many seats are in the bar/grill coach? And if so, why not mention the seating arrangements in the other coaches?
    • I think it's worth mentioning; absent a picture or floorplan of the bar/grill, it gives the reader of sense of the space. Pier's CMU conference paper from 1975 has floor plans of the Rohr Turboliners which can be described in the main text; I'm looking for a good description of coach seating in the RTGs (Morgan doesn't discuss it explicitly). Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did Morgan find "difficult to navigate" about the vestibules? Are they different from any other vestibules?
    • They differed from North American design; I've added a section explaining their design. Mackensen (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reference at the end of paragraph 2 of the "service" section.
  • The "St Louis" subsection repeats some of the information just above
  • citing inadequate signalling along the route. The new equipment had fallen out of favor given the context, it's not clear that the "equipment" referred to is the train (as opposed to some signalling equipment, for example)
    • Clarified that it was the trains that fell out of favor.

Other than those few quibbles, I don't see any problems. Articles don't have to be huge to be of high quality and as far as I can tell this is comprehensive. It reads nicely and doesn't leave me wanting for more information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from John[edit]

A very fine article. Before I could support, I would like these points addressed.

  • "British Rail began testing the APT-E in 1972; although successful, British Rail did not pursue gas turbine propulsion." There's a grammatical problem there, but there is also a NPOV problem. To claim the APT-E experiment was "successful" is perhaps an oversimplification.
  • "Reflecting the higher crashworthiness standards in the United States, the buff strength of the design was 800,000 pounds (362,873.9 kg)." The meaning of this isn't clear to me. Higher than where? These trains were designed and built in the US. --John (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @John: I've reworded the sentence on the APT-E. Regarding crashworthiness, the difference is between the imported ANF Turboliners and the Rohr Turboliners. Mackensen (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • So did the imported trainsets not have to meet US standards then? --John (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apparently not; see e.g. [24]. Although no source I've seen says as much, I suspect Amtrak obtained a waiver from the Federal Railroad Administration. Mackensen (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Interesting. Thank you. --John (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @John: Found a source confirming my guess; the RTGs operated under a permanent waiver. I've updated the article. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

  • Hi Mackenson, unless I missed it above, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability.
  • Also, as this is your first FAC we'll also want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. These checks can be conducted by people who've commented above or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ian Rose: I'm not an expert but the sources all appear to be reliable (there are a couple that appear to be enthusiast-oriented rather than scholarly works, but I wouldn't say that makes them inherently unreliable and the article isn't built on them), and there's enough bibliographic information to track them down. I did spot checks on most of the online references (footnotes 8, 10, 20, 21, 34, 39, and 46 of this version) and was able to verify the information they were supporting and didn't see any signs of a copyright problem. I also verified that all the ISBNs match the books. Is that enough of a spotcheck or do you need more? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry for my belated reply, Harry -- I think that'll do, tks.
      • Mackensen, there's a fair few duplinks in the article. I won't hold up promotion on that account but pls review; this script highlights the duplicates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2016 [25].

Ontario Highway 420[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which recently passed a long-overdue A-class review should be set for the star. The only significant issue that I expect to crop up is the sel-published source (SPS) that is Niagara Thunder Alley. However, I feel this source meets the reliable source criterion for SPS exceptions, in that it "may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications", of which there are several.[26]. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Floydian: do you mean to transclude this? --Rschen7754 07:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that it's been transcluded, Support per my review at the ACR. I also did an image review. --Rschen7754 01:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Several explosions followed": That's unexpected ... what exploded?
  • "the DHO": What's that?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I hope to see more Canadian highways on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully support all the changes you've made, and have adjusted the text with regards to your comments. Thank you! :) - Floydian τ ¢ 23:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 15:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A tangential point (frankly the note in question feels rather off-topic), but the note distinguishing Cootes Drive from the QEW could be worded better: Cootes Drive connects Dundas with Hamilton which were separate cities at the time, so the inner-city/inter-city distinction rings hollow. Cobblet (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Made some changes to the wording. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Refs good, prose and images good. -- Acefitt 13:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2016 [27].

Hope (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In 1885 George Frederic Watts's adopted granddaughter died, leading to the state bailout of General Motors, drone warfare in the Middle East, and the PRISM program; I may have omitted a few intervening stages, but the basic causality is there. Hope is an artwork which 99% of those who see it consider the irredeemable nadir of Victorian sentimentalist kitsch. However, the 1% has included some disproportionately influential individuals, including back in 1990 a young attorney called Barack Obama. Thanks to Sagaciousphil and Ceoil for cleaning and tweaking. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes:

  • The story as given here doesn't entirely tally with the official version as given by Tate Britain, where this painting currently resides, and the Tate's version isn't used as a source or given as an EL. This is intentional; the Tate's version contains demonstrably untrue comments (e.g. "Watts also omitted the star, the only note of optimism, at the top of the picture" when the star in question is very obviously still present) that I don't consider it trustworthy, and I suspect that it contains intentional errors as a means to track plagiarists. Most of the sources here are either from the Watts Gallery themselves, or impeccable expert publishers like the National Gallery of Art and the Yale Center for British Art, so I'm inclined to follow their version of events.
  • I know long quotes are frowned upon, but I feel the two lengthy quotes from Barack Obama necessary; the first, where he recounts his recollection of Jeremiah Wright describing it, demonstrates that the Hope which inspired Obama is based on a misconception (either Wright misremembering the painting, or Obama misremembering his words) as "the valley below where everywhere are the ravages of famine" doesn't actually exist in the original, while the second makes it explicit that the "hope" of Obama's early speeches and of The Audacity of Hope is explicitly a reference to this painting, not to the abstract concept. ‑ Iridescent 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

  • Comment. Hi Iridescent, this is a very nice article, and I'm enjoying reading it. A couple of points in passing:
  • There's a sentence in the lead that I don't understand, especially "in response to social, economic and religious changes: "An effort to break with traditional methods of depicting hope in response to social, economic and religious changes, it was radically different from previous treatments of the subject.
  • It's a clumsy attempt to summarise the second paragraph of the Subject section in a single sentence, as the lead is already quite cluttered. Basically, the Panic of 1873 had knocked the economy into a slump from which it hadn't yet recovered, church attendance had nosedived (and Watts didn't much like the church anyway), and the emergence of industrial capitalism had brought in what he saw as a culture of greed; Hope was an effort to create something which rejected traditional imagery so that its message would have meaning in a modern society where the iconography of Christianity and the images of traditional English scenes no longer had meaning to the audience. (He can reasonably be said to have succeeded, since—if you disregard the sentimentality—the actual meaning of the painting is as clear to modern viewers as it was in his own time.) ‑ Iridescent 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to summarize. Perhaps try "Radically different from traditional methods of depicting hope, the painting shows a ..."? You could link "traditional methods" to the Subject section or just leave it unexplained. SarahSV (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think on reflection it's easier to just leave it unexplained—that also has the advantage of making the four lead paras more equal in size. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would leave out the two sentences beginning "In light of Obama's well-known interest in Watts's painting ..." unless you can find a better source. The first source is just a suggestion from a party activist and the second is the Daily Mail. SarahSV (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the proposal and the alleged rejection are mentioned on p64 of Tromans's book—the references seem to have been lost in transit, I've now added them. Tristram Hunt isn't just an activist, he was (pre-Corbyn) one of the intellectual driving forces behind the Labour Party in its third term (the period in question) so a public statement from him would have been understood to have been cleared by the party. I included the Daily Mail citation, along with the "According to an unverified report in the Daily Mail", precisely to make it clear to readers that this is coming from a potentially unreliable source. (In this case, I assume the Mail is correct in that Obama was actively avoiding the painting—given his previously expressed interest in it, even were the offer of a loan untrue he would certainly have been offered the opportunity to either visit it at the Tate or have it brought to somewhere he was attending while on a state visit—but I don't really want to be saying it in Wikipedia's voice.) ‑ Iridescent 23:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding Troman. I would still remove the Daily Mail. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of punctuation questions:
  • "In late 1885 Watts's adopted daughter Blanche Clogstoun had just lost her infant daughter Isabel to illness ..." If Blachne was his only adopted daughter, it needs commas around the name; ditto if Isabel was the only infant daughter, though that might not be known.
  • Blanche seems to have been the only one he ever legally adopted; the other girl he tried to adopt (Ellen Terry) he changed his mind about adoption and married her instead (those were different times). Blanche definitely had at least one other child as we have an article on him, but I don't know if she had any other girls. I'm not convinced that this sentence actually needs commas—paging User:Eric Corbett, who's rulings on BrEng grammar are generally definitive, and who was tinkering with this article a couple of days ago. ‑ Iridescent 20:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that commas are necessary in this case, and add nothing. Eric Corbett 21:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This quote needs something around "poor little tinkle", unless the author wrote it without. "Hope sitting on a globe, with bandaged eyes playing on a lyre which has all the strings broken but one out of which poor little tinkle she is trying to get all the music possible, listening with all her might to the little sound—do you like the idea?" I can't see the source, but the Telegraph has dashes around it. SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author wrote it with just two commas (here, p. 2): "I am painting a picture of Hope sitting on a globe with bandaged eyes playing on a lyre which has all the strings broken but one out of which poor little tinkle she is trying to get all the music possible, listening with all her might to the little sound, do you like the idea?" SarahSV (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just double-checked; the formatting and punctuation as used here (other than the spacing around the em-dash) is identical to that reproduced in Tromans's book, which as it's published by the Watts Gallery itself I assume is definitive in the absence of very strong evidence to the contrary. ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No rush—thanks for looking ‑ Iridescent 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iridescent, just letting you know that I won't be on again today, but I'll come back to this. I'm making my way through reading it and I'm enjoying it a lot. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to take so long to get back to this. I read it through twice and I'm happy to support, though I think it would be better without the tabloid source. Regarding the punctuation, this is the original, and he used two commas in that sentence. SarahSV (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Support, as mentioned above, read this before the nom. I had some c/e quibbles, now resolved. Did a scan of the sources and found them to be of the first rank of available scholarship. I didn't notice any logical inconsistencies and the slightly jaundice undertone in the writing is appealing. That said, the painting is attractive to me as whimsy. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—while I do like a lot of Watts's output and think his influence on later artists is seriously underrated, I find it hard to summon up much liking for this particular piece, which to me comes close to Fidelity for sheer earnest mawkishness. ‑ Iridescent 21:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I just have a few comments:

  • Lead
    • We don't paint a chalk reproduction, I suggest "He painted at least two further versions for private sale, and made a chalk copy..."
      • I've removed the chalk copy from the lead altogether, as on reflection it seems to be giving it undue weight given its relative unimportance. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • believed to have been the first such exhibition by any artist: since we later have "In 1882 the Grosvenor Gallery had staged a retrospective exhibition of Watts's work..." can you be more specific as to how this was the "first such" exhibition?
      • It's usually (depending on who you listen to) considered the first 'blockbuster' exhibition-as-an-event. I've removed that line altogether; the only purpose is to illustrate that Watts had a high profile at this time and new paintings from him were considered A Big Deal, which is already done. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • I was curious about the redlink for printsellers: would it be possible to create at least a stub for that, since there is otherwise no indication of what in particular is meant (presumably a historical context I don't know about)?
      • I'm quite surprised it's a redlink as well, given that the term is used fairly often on Wikipedia. (A printseller is exactly what it sounds like; someone who deals in reproductions of pictures.) It's a redlink which ought to stay, as someone will no doubt write an article at some point. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later influence
    • ... on the theme of 'The Audacity of Hope': any reason for the single quotes? Otherwise please replace with double quotes.

Some stylistic points, your call:

  • I would write "Watts' frontispiece for..." etc rather than using "Watts's" since the name ends with a "es" sound (as opposed to "Burne-Jones's" where the terminal is a "zz" sound). Actually it is not as simple as that since I would also say "Mrs Jones' whatever", but I would still go for "Watts' " and "Burne-Jones's".
  • I suggest adding template:clear left at the end of several sections to prevent the left-placed images pushing the subsequent section title to the right with wider window widths.
    • Not done for the moment, as IMO the extra white space this creates is more disruptive than any disruption to the text flow. The issue will become moot fairly soon as the WMF are planning to give Wikipedia a maximum width for the body text. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest setting the width of the Notes columns to 35em for improved readability at some window widths.
    • Changed, although unless the reader is using a screen the size and shape of a letterbox I can't see it making any significant difference. ‑ Iridescent 09:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks (I got three narrow columns on my laptop with the original definition). --Mirokado (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thanks for the responses. --Mirokado (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Dorothy_Dene.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Hollyer_–_platinotype_of_Watts's_Hope.jpg
  • File:Watts_–_Hope_stamp_Jordan_1974_low_res.jpg: suggest using {{non-free stamp}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for the first two. Regarding the stamp, I've changed it to {{non-free stamp}} – per my comments on the FUR, I think this is 99% certain to be PD since the copyright on Hope itself has obviously long since expired (thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, this is a case where we have absolute proof that the design was published in the US pre-1923), and I'm fairly certain that the other elements fall below the threshold of originality, but I'm reluctant to treat it as PD just in case it is actually considered copyright. ‑ Iridescent 20:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • "In 1938 the Tate Gallery closed their room dedicated to Watts, where Hope had been displayed." I can't see this anywhere else, so it seems unreferenced. "closed" seems a bit dramatic - presumably they just hung other stuff there. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you talking about that Hope was hung in the Watts Room, or that the Tate closed it in 1938? If the latter, it's referenced in the final sentence of Hope (painting)#Artistic influence—if the former, I'd have thought it's implicit in "an entire room of the new museum was dedicated to his works", but if you want it spelled out that Hope was in there that's easy enough to do. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (adding) Regarding the room, it vanished in one of their rebuildings and is now a pair of temporary exhibition spaces (labelled "Hockney's Double Portraits" and "Jo Spence" on the current floor plan), but I'm not sure of the date of that. The Tate's own description of what happened in 1938 is "the room was finally disassembled". ‑ Iridescent 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the "closure" which still seems unreferenced, and not the best word. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely referenced ("in 1938 the Tate Gallery closed the Watts Room.[78]"). I'm not sure what better term to use here; what happened in 1938 was that the permanent exhibition of Watts's works came to an end, rather than that the Tate disposed of their collection, but something like "removed from public display" won't be accurate either, as they still regularly showed (and still show) the collection, just not all at once and not as a single entity. "In 1938 the Tate Gallery ceased to have a room dedicated to his works" perhaps? ‑ Iridescent 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok on the ref. Does "dispersed" work?
To me "dispersed" suggests that they broke up the collection and sold it off, rather than hung on to it but put it in storage. "From 1938 onwards the Tate Gallery no longer kept the works donated by Watts on permanent display"? I do think it's important that this be mentioned, since we previously mention that they had a room dedicated to him so readers might otherwise wonder if it still exists. ‑ Iridescent 15:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok; the 2nd mention still has "closed". "discontinued the grouped display" might be a variation. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to "In 1938 the Tate Gallery ceased to keep their collection of Watts's works on permanent display" in the lead and "in 1938 the Tate Gallery removed their collection of Watts's works from permanent display" in the body text, which should hopefully do it. ‑ Iridescent 18:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of 1885 Watts had settled on the design of the painting." "Composition" would be proper art-hist speak. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try to rotate between "composition" and "design" to reduce repetition; there are already four instances of "composition" (five if you count the one in the TOC). ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's never been Director to my knowledge (Perdita Hunt has been Director for well over a decade). He's Curator now, but wasn't at the time he wrote this, and "Senior Lecturer at Kingston" is still his day job. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not easily without losing either Luna, Idle Child of Fancy or Burne-Jones's Hope, which I'm loath to do, especially since those three don't have existing articles so there's no easy way for a reader who wants to see what they look like to get to them (anyone wanting to see Night can just click the link). ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She sits on a small, imperfect orange globe" I think I see how it is "imperfect" but it might be better to explain this.
  • "Imperfectly drawn sphere" is the wording in Tromans, the only source I can find which describes it at all—I can't find any other description more in depth than "globe" or "ball". ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any sources discuss a relationship to the medieval blindfold Synagoga?
  • Only a passing mention in a discussion of the transition from Idle Child to Hope: The youthful personification of Love was traditionally shown blindfolded, an attribute that for the first time in western art Watts gives to Hope herself. Also blindfolded in traditional iconography were the figures of Synagogue (suggesting the blindness of the Jews towards Christ and thus providing a further Jewish echo in Hope) and Fortune. (the "further echo" relates to other artists of the period using Psalm 137 as a metaphor for hope, which I do briefly touch on.) In the absence of further sources suggesting a link I'm a little reluctant to include it, as there's no obvious suggestion in anything either George or Mary ever said that there's any kind of link with the medieval Synagoga. ‑ Iridescent 14:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since antiquity the unstrung lyre had been considered a symbol of separated lovers and unrequited love." Ok, but broken strings a symbol of disharmony, as in Holbein's The Ambassadors (Holbein) (as Waldemar Januszczak was pointing out on the telly a few days ago).
  • It's obviously true, but I'm finding this surprisingly hard to source in the context of English art. I'll see what I can dig up. This section is there purely to indicate that Watts was using iconography not traditionally associated with Hope; I've moved the "since antiquity…" part down into the footnotes, since it doesn't matter to the reader what Watts wasn't using it to illustrate. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "Consequently, later in 1886 Watts and his assistant Cecil Schott painted a second version with the intention of selling it." Second version section: "In mid-1886 Watts and his assistant Cecil Schott painted a duplicate of the piece, with the intention that this duplicate be donated to the nation allowing him to sell the original."
  • Fixed—the body text was correct and the lead wrong, he intended to sell the original from the start. ‑ Iridescent 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not commenting on false titles, but "before being sold to steam tractor entrepreneur Joseph Ruston in 1887." is taking me to my limit.
  • Added a "the" in this case. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Watts's death the Autotype Company purchased from Mary Seton Watts the rights to make carbon copies of Hope" - the link is surely unhelpful here? More clarity on the actual process would be useful. [28] This is sort-of helpful. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astonishingly, I find we have a detailed article on Carbon print, so I've retargeted the links. I don't really want to get into the mechanics of carbon copying of prints, as that means also having to do the same for platinotype and photogravure which are also mentioned. ‑ Iridescent 14:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we have a specific good link, that's fine, though the article isn't all that clear, and there seem to have been a succession of different processes. No typing involved anyway.Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re this, it is exactly because both were in 1886 that this is not "superfluous"! If having an infobox is preventing both a) the display of the image at a decent lead size, and b) its proper identification, then better to remove the box, or put it below the pic.
  • It's not a case of the date affecting the width—I just don't see anything to be gained by "Year: 1886 (2nd version)" given that both versions were 1886, and if anything consider it misleading as it carries the implication that the first version was created earlier. (I considered doing away with the infobox altogether and replacing it with the montage of the four versions currently at Hope (painting)#Other painted versions in a 2×2 grid, but felt that would be too much of a departure from Wikipedia norms.) ‑ Iridescent 17:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The lead is full of talk of the two versions. You must make it clear which is being illustrated, especially as it is not the prime version, and the infobox pic looks pretty different to both 1st & 2nd versions in the gallery below. The infobox would be better gone - as you have it it misleadingly implies (well, states) that there is one painting in one museum. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does that work? The more I think about it, the more reluctant I am to have the first version as a lead image; not only is the second version the famous one, but we don't have a decent-quality image of the first version (and there doesn't seem to be one online anywhere that I can find). ‑ Iridescent 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. I wasn't suggesting using the first version in the lead, just clearly identiying the one used. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we not know where the 1st version now is?
  • "In a private collection" but I can't any reference to who the collector in question is. (Usually for 19th-century British art the collector is either Juan Antonio Pérez Simón or Andrew Lloyd Webber, but I very much doubt it's either of them as they've both staged recent "highlights of my collection" exhibitions and it hasn't been included.) ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My only remaining point is that I still think a picture of Night would be good - possibly this one. There is space either under the infobox or at the end. I don't believe in making a fetish of having pics right next to the relevant text. But I won't delay a support for this. Well up to the usual standards! Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of Mammon could be removed to free up space, but I quite like including it at this point as it serves a double purpose of both allowing the reader to judge for themselves whether it's actually a companion piece, and also is quite a good example of Watts's more typical style in contrast to the much more modern composition of Hope. There is some free space down at the bottom (initially I had Obama's Hope poster there, but then decided the connection was too marginal to justify inclusion), but I'm not sure it would be appropriate to include Night that far down, at a point at which the readers will likely have forgotten it. I'm not of the school that every image needs to be immediately next to the point it illustrates, but this section is so irrelevant to Watts's influences I don't feel it would really be appropriate. Anywhere else in the article would need the removal of one of the images currently there, to avoid clutter; the only ones that are really disposable are the platinotype (which I'd quite like to keep as it illustrates more eloquently than words what constituted a "high quality reproduction" in the 19th century), Watts's photo (which isn't essential, but I think readers often want to see what the artist looked like), and Felix on the Bat (which 1. illustrates how radically Watts's early style differed from his later works and 2. is such a striking image that I suspect it will encourage quite a few random-article skimmers to stop and read a page they'd normally not bother with). Plus, we don't have any particularly good quality images of Night—this, this or this are all we have to work with. ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As indicated, I did some very minor tweaking early on that I don't think were anywhere near sufficient to preclude my support of this quality nomination. I have watched as further tweaks etc have been made and feel this meets the FA criteria. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I finally read this top-to-bottom this morning and really enjoyed it. Well done for finding so much material (and mixing Agatha Christie with Barack Obama and Martin Luther King in the same article is no mean feat!). Two very small and not-important suggestions: 1., the first para of the "Background" section has a string of three "at the age of ... " that jumped out at as a little repetitive; 2., should grace of God be linked? That's theology beyond my comprehension - some people are born into God's grace whereas others not? Anyway, feel free to ignore, and nice job. Victoria (tk) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Reworded to avoid the repetition of "the age of". (2) Given that we already have theological virtues linked in that sentence, it seems like overkill to link Grace of God as well. "Theological virtue" is a less highfalutin concept than it sounds—it's just a fancy way of saying "things which are considered good by the church even though, unlike most good deeds, they have no benefit to others". Traditionally they're Faith, Hope and Love (aka Charity, but the meaning of 'charity' has changed in modern times)—whether you do or don't feel them has no impact on anyone else, but God wants you to feel them. One or the other needs to be linked but both is overkill—it's just a case of whether one considers Theological virtues or Grace of God to be the least terrible article (both are fairly awful). ‑ Iridescent 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I agree but thought I'd mention it. I read it early in the morning and was thinking about virtues and grace and wondering about their differences. For some reason I did not know about that, so I learned something. I thought about the painting today - can't decide if I like it or not - but it stuck with me and that means something. Thanks for writing this. Victoria (tk) 23:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find a lot of Watts's output has that effect—they're often not particularly attractive, and are generally based on a set of moral values which is quite alien and unpleasant to modern tastes, but they stick in your memory more than most of the works of his contemporaries (even the more technically gifted ones like Monet and Rossetti). ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Grace in Christianity seems better, and more appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that works—didn't realise we had a separate article. Linked. ‑ Iridescent 09:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 [29].

Secretariat (horse)[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) User:Jlvsclrk talk[reply]

This article is about the famous racehorse Secretariat, Triple Crown winner and one of the finest racehorses in history. This is a high-importance article for WikiProject Horse racing and one that has has a substantial amount of work put in by many editors, not just the nominators. We welcome a comprehensive review for an article on a topic important to the project. Thank you. Montanabw(talk) 20:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by White Arabian Filly[edit]

I don't think I've ever made more than one or two minor edits here, so I should be able to review neutrally. I have a few comments, some of them sort of piddly:

  • The very first sentence in the lead is sort of a run-on, listing half the things he ever did. Is there a way to split it up?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • The last line in the lead, the one about him being honored many years after his death, reads in a promotional way to me.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk, and a few further tweaks by MTBW
  • The background section uses an awful lot of parentheses, and some of the details, like the mares sent to be bred, can go outside parentheses.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk (minor additional ce by MTBW)
  • On Penny Chenery's quote in the Whitney Stakes section, the closing quote mark is missing.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • Is there a reason why it's written "honoured" in the part about the Canadian International? (Was it done intentionally?)
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think it would look better for the part about the heart weight to say, "(8.5 lbs, or 3.9 kgs)" instead of double parentheses around the kilograms, which looks clunky.
    Can't be helped, the {{convert}} template does that. --MTBW
  • Where it says Secretariat's birthplace is on the NRHP, I guess that means the whole farm The Meadow, but the way it's written now it sounds sort of like the exact spot is what's on the NRHP.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

—White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I chopped the first sentence in two - LMK if it's now too choppy. In what's now the second sentence, I tried to come up with something better than "greatest races of all time" but that's at least supported in the article already. LMK if I should rework further.
    • Think I got the rest of them Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the anatomy photo
    FIXED by MTBW (large enough? It's 1.5x can go bigger if needed)
  • Statue caption should end in a period
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • File:Owner_Meadow_Stable.svg: can we include a source in the description to verify the accuracy of the design?
    Source added [30]. --MTBW
  • File:1973_Kentucky_Derby_Secretariat.jpg: could you add something to the description about point 2, and what do you mean by "connections"? Same with File:Secretariat_1973_Preakness_Winners_Circle.jpg, and having two non-free images with the exact same rationale reduces the justification for including them - suggest expanding or reframing
    "Connections" are the people associated with the horse. I will tweak that phrasing at the image page. I also changed the rationale for the Kentucky Derby image, does that improve matters? —MTBW
  • File:Secretariat_statue.jpg: what is the copyright status of the photo, and are we sure about the copyright expiration? Skeaping seems to have made several later copies of the statue.
    The base of the statue itself says "1974" in the image, so the original work is within the change in the law, but the statue is a 1988 copy source of the 1974 original. As Jlvsclrk stated, s/he took the image. We could replace it with the Saratoga image, but it would be nice if we could keep the Belmont one, because that's the most famous version and a better photo. Given that we are dealing with a 1988 copy of a 1974 original statue, I am going to ping Wehwalt for his take on how we handle a copy where the original is in the public domain. —MTBW

— Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm hoping Montanabw can deal with 1, 3, 4. I fixed 2. re 5 - the photo was taken by me and is public domain. I'm sure I don't understand American copyright law on the statue itself but the original was produced in 1974 and is now at the Hall of Fame. The version in the picture is a replica installed in 1988 as noted in the article. I have a picture of the original too, but it doesn't have the blanket of carnations they place on Belmont Day. The original is one of the few objects at the Hall of Fame that you're allowed to photograph so I'm pretty sure it's fine. Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I answered further questions, let us know if there are further fixes! Thanks everyone for your reviews. Nikkimaria, White Arabian Filly, pinging you Montanabw(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlvsclrk: Could you add whichever of {{CC-0}} or {{PD-self}} you prefer to the photo? Montana, could you add a quick statement re:point 2 on the two screenshots? That will just leave the copyright expiration issue, which is complicated by the "republication". Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think montanabw originally suggested that particular license because of the subject matter. Assuming the statue is fair game, I've changed the license to self|cc-by-sa-4.0 (share alike). Jlvsclrk (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I added the Point 2 rationale to the screenshots, had to tweak the templates a little to make it appear (there was a "commercial" parameter on the images, but it wasn't showing up). On the Secretariat statue, Jlvsclrk added an appropriate photographer's release, but the copyright on the statue itself is held by the artist and I think it's PD-no-notice, so I re-added that template as well, I think we need both. Montanabw(talk) 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We would need tags for both the photo and the statue, yes. I'm not sure though that PD-no-notice is the appropriate tag, and would like to hear from Wehwalt or others on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was published in 1974, I guess the question is, is there a copyright notice on the statue? If there is not, the tag is good, if there is, and it is proper, you're out of luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright notice on the statue. Below the sculptor's name and date on the base of the statue is one more line, cut off in my image, that reads "Gift of Paul Mellon to the National Museum of Racing at Saratoga". Wehwalt, does the fact that the statue in question is a copy (installed at Belmont in 1988, produced who knows when) affect matters, or is it the date of the original (or the mold with which both copies were created I suppose) that matters? Just want to be sure! Jlvsclrk (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't think so, if they are exact copies. It's original publication before 1978 without a copyright notice that creates the lack of a copyright. Are we confident the original lacks a copyright notice?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to a picture that shows the full statue - no copyright notice. (Another pic showing the reverse angle, no notice on it either. Original has identical wording. Jlvsclrk (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I think the tag is proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we'll go with that then. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had a fair number of comments at the peer review and did some editing myself. Seems an excellent article on a significant figure, both in the sports world and culturally. One of the earliest sports events I remember watching was the Belmont that year. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the GA reviewer. It is very well-written, and worthy of being a FA. The GA review was a bit more stringent than customary but whatever needed tweaking beyond that appears to have been handled. After GA promotion, it went through yet another review by Wehwalt. If it needed any further tweaking, I figured it might be in the citations images but it appears Nikkimaria did a good job with that part of the review as she so often does. Atsme📞📧 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Atsme, I looked at images and not citations here, is that what you meant? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my apologies. My brain tripped over an archived memory. Atsme📞📧 03:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's well-written. A few comments on the lead and first few sections (disclosure: the nominator is a fellow member of the Signpost board).

  • Being new to this topic, I'm unused to seeing "he" and "who" used to refer to the horse; I guess so.
    Standard in the horse world
  • Isn't it an indictment on the Foundation's engeering and products division that we still have to put up with ugly, clunky, large fractions in inline text. I suppose the guideline for conversion to international units doesn't apply (?). There are inches in the table, unconverted.
    I was wondering about that. FIXED by Jlvsclrk
    • The {{frac}} template sometimes helps. MTBW
  • "United States" should definitely not be linked. "$" is linked ... that's not normal, and as a reader I'd rather know that it's "US$" than have to hover over the $ to find out. Also, the dollar symbol hangs below the line.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "possessed" ... "had" wouldn't do?
    "had" just feels like a weak verb to me. Will change if it bothers you but "possessed" just seems more appropriate to me. *shrug*
  • "In order to"—please, "To".
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "wind up with" ... slightly informal, and twice in a sentence.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • I think MOS wants "In spring 1989", and "fall 1969".
    that really doesn't scan right to me. Could replace "the spring of 1969" with the "the 1969 breeding season" if that reads better.
  • as-yet-unborn
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "and the as-yet unborn 1970 foal of Somethingroyal; the latter foal turned out to be Secretariat"—could it be just ", which turned out ..."?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "nursed" means "suckled", I guess.
    Yes. It's also a widely used term in the horse business. ("Stands and nurses" is often the point at which stud fees become payable)
    • And in US English generally, we nurse our human babies too. --MTBW
  • "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes.
    first part FIXED by Jlvsclrk. Second part - not sure what the error is
  • "Chenery got her first look at the foal and made a one word entry in her notebook:"—maybe, but it's on the informal edge of the envelope, I think. Hyphen. "Chenery first saw the foal and made a one-word entry in her notebook:"?
    Did you mean it would be better if we replaced the colon with a hyphen?
  • Autumn, or fall? We have both.
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk
  • "the latter"—isn't that applicable where there are two items? "the last"?
    FIXED by Jlvsclrk

Tony (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

see interspersed comments above. Should we also add meters when mentioning race distances? Do you think 9.5 furlongs reads better than 1+3⁄16 miles? As a North American horse racing fan, I find the former odd, but if it's easier for non-horseracing people to understand, I'm all for it. Jlvsclrk (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have the conversion table, we do a three-way conversion of {{hands}}. We could add 9.5 furlongs 1+3⁄16 miles (1.9 km) too if someone wants us to, but there does become a point at which it is pretty clunky. Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a "conversion of racing distances" chart (based on the one in the American Pharoah article) for the racing statistics section.
  • @Tony1:: Have all your concerns been addressed? Montanabw(talk) 22:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the upper sections, yes. I'm unsure about conversion rules and conventions, but was just pointing it out. "The colt soon started distinguishing himself from the other foals."—would this be ok? "The colt soon distinguished himself from the other foals." — "not sure what the error is" ... more words than necessary. Tony (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Tony, I did your suggested wording change - agree it reads better. My question was on the later part of the bullet where you said "Just after, there's a comma before closing quotes." That's where I'm not sure what the error is - the comma I see is followed by a 'he said' construction. Jlvsclrk (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jlv, MOS gives this example: "Fish are friends, not food", said Bruce., and says it's irrespective of the variety of English. Tony (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Huh, I've been doing this wrong for my entire life. Spot checking, so are most of the sources. Learn something every day. Will fix this and a few other uses in the article. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Jlv, it's been the subject of bitter disputes at MOS, but whenever someone proposes to change the rule, there's a groundswell of opposition. You'll find most US publishers use the inside-the-quote-mark method. Many news outlets outside the US also use it. Direct quotations in novels are rendered that way before "she said", etc, by many publishers everywhere. The US Council of Science Editors insists on outside the quotemarks (the so-called "logical" method), to avoid "misquoting" the punctuation where it wasn't in the source. Normal UK and Commonwealth practice is outside the quotemarks ("logical" method), to avoid "misquoting" the punctuation where it wasn't in the source. Please don't change your personal practice outside WP! Tony (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tony (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for a spirited article on a wonderful creature!

  • I'd mention both his parents in the lead, or at least a bit sooner in "Background". Came as a little surprise to me who his mother was, after the coin-tossing stories. Or is that intended? - I should have looked at the infobox where they are ;)
    • LOL. The background section on his breeding has sometimes read like a mystery novel. Fun to read but... LMK if it reads better with the new opening sentence in the background. I don't know if we can add something to the intro without disrupting the flow and maintaining the interest level. - Jlvsclrk
  • The quoted poem is nice, but I don't see the connection.
    • The poem, which was written in the 1930s, is about the yearning in horse racing to see another great one come along. Sheer coincidence that Secretariat, like Man o' War, was "a chestnut colt, and he's got a star"
      • Could you make this explanation part of the image caption? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added an endnote so as not to clutter the poem itself. Does that work? Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, good. What do you think of putting the reference behind it, - or combine the two? I'd like people to read it note, more than the ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "croup" should be linked the first time.
    • FIXED - jlvsclrk

Need to go for now, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Appearance and conformation": I could imagine the image higher, to have the table less squeezed on a small screen, - also good to have the image where the terms are mentioned first.
    • On my screen, moving up the horse anatomy chart runs into the quote box in the preceding section, our intent was to have the table and the chart side-by-side. Open to suggestions for improvement, but I'm not quite sure if there is a solution...
      • OK now
  • In "Belmont Stakes": In the quote box, I think no quotation marks are necessary, but a full stop (or three, if it's not the end of the sentence).
    • FIXED - jlvsclrk

That's all. Good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. Jlvsclrk (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt I think we've addressed your concerns. Montanabw(talk) 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, support! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Any suggestions who we can ping for that, Ian Rose? Seems the usual suspects aren't around (Nikkimaria? Can you double check that images are now good and citations are OK? Montanabw(talk) 08:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can leave a note among the other requests at the top of WT:FAC if Nikki can't do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Might be worthwhile to source some of the superlatives in the lead, such as the "icon" phrase
    • everything we say in the lead is supported in the body of the article. The icon phrase comes from the last paragraph before the start of the Belmont Stakes where it talks about him becoming a cultural phenomenon.
  • Blood-Horse should be italicized in article text (Belmont section)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • "equivalent to $7,019,357 in 2015" - per the note at the top of {{inflation}}, not sure it's appropriate to have this unsourced here
    • I'll just remove. not sure it adds anything. jlvsclrk
  • "The Sanford was the only race in his career in which Secretariat was not the betting favorite" - source?
    • The past performance table posted on secretariat.com (but sourced from the Daily Racing Form) indicates if a horse is the favorite in a given race with a star by the odds (shown as *.40 for example), and the Sanford is the only one where he wasn't. Is it synth to turn this coding into the comment used? I suppose a more direct translation of the chart data would lead to the comment "Secretariat was the favorite in every race except the Sanford." Alternatively, I could add the stars to the table with a note at the bottom on what it means. Any suggestions.
      • I fixed this to put a source in the note, the rest is simple analysis..Nikkimaria
  • Use a consistent date format
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Be consistent in whether books include location of publication - some do, some don't. If you do include them, be consistent in how you format state (eg. Ky. vs VA)
    • fixed (though seems to be a problem with the ISBN database)
  • FN8 needs page number. Same with FN20, 57, 140
    • FN8 - I don't have access to the book originally used as source, so I changed to use Bill Nack's book. Also clarified that it was two mares being sent, not necessarily two foals being produced (since this matters in the paragraph that follows)
    • FN20 - now split into 3 refs to get appropriate page #s. FN57 - "Sham..." don't have access to this book and unfortunately the bit is not in the sample online chapter. Should I delete the sentence, or change to something like "..., Secretariat's chances in the Kentucky Derby became the subject of much debate in the media." Can reference this to Woolfe and Nack. FN140 - don't have access to the book. I found a few skeptical online sources to use though
      • Yes. I'm not sure that the sites added since the last review would qualify as high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume this is regarding the sources for the last paragraph about the X-factor theory. Some background here first. The "pro" X-factor club are online and vocal, while most breeding professionals seem dismissive (thinking it grossly over-simplistic) to the point of not writing much about it. So we feel it necessary to include since its something that some people feel VERY strongly about (as montanabw puts it, if we take it out, they'll just put it back in), but at the same time express the doubt. For alternate sources, I first looked at wiki's Circulatory_system_of_the_horse#X_factor, which uses two sources on the doubt side, one of which addresses the topic vary narrowly and is useless in our context, and the other which can no longer be found. Such is the internet! So I went looking for other sources and believe Porter writing in his column at the bloodhorse is a very high quality source - he's a professional pedigree analyst speaking in an area of his expertise. The Sophia Stallions site is for a professional breeding operation and the article is very well written so I thought it okay to include. I just found another profound dissent from "pedigreegoddess" Anne Peters (she really is an expert, though the URL is pretty funny). http://www.pedigreegoddess.com/PedigreeTheory/X%20Factor.htm - would this latter work better?
          • The book cited was added by someone who apparently had a hardcopy, I can't recall who, but without a page number and as we can't access the snippet view, we have to go with what exists. The Blood Horse cite is solid. The other isn't great, but itself does cite third-party sources. I agree that Anne Peters' site is a professional page, not just someone's random blog and as such an RS; that said, she doesn't cite her source material for her "debunking" claims, which limits the degree to which we can use it. Montanabw(talk) 17:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you include "www" in website names, other times not - suggest consistently not doing so
    • fixed jlvsclrk
      • Fixed a couple more --MTBW
  • Find-A-Grave is not a high-quality reliable source, nor is IMDB
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Check your use of |publisher= and |work= and synonyms throughout - some things are italicized that shouldn't be (eg Bluefield College, FN18), while others are not that should be (eg The Atlantic, FN84)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
      • Not entirely. Generally speaking, if things aren't actual publications they shouldn't be italicized. Examples include Arlington or Meadow Event Park. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • wiki markup automatically italicizes website= , so I'll change these back to xyz.com
  • FN46: news.google.com isn't the work, it's a republishing service - include the original source details, and then if you want to you can use |via= (but if you're going to, that should also be done consistently)
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed or useful for Google Books, but you should be consistent in whether you use them
    • fixed jlvsclrk
  • Sometimes you use New York Times, sometimes The New York Times - either is fine but again should be consistent. Same with Blood-Horse vs The Blood-Horse, etc
    • think I got them all jlvsclrk
  • FN51 is italicizing date and shouldn't, and publication title is missing
    • fixed
  • AP should generally be credited using |agency= not |author=
    • fixed
  • What makes ilovehorses.net a high-quality reliable source?
    • snort. removed since wasn't needed - everything was in the other source, but it was a very interesting article!
      • As an aside, its primary value was that it had a photo of the horse. In case anyone doubted it... MTBW
  • Is there a difference between news/periodical refs that use website name )eg. latimes.com) and those that use the actual publication title? If not, should be consistent, and I'd suggest doing the latter.
    • I've changed to the latter, unless the website itself uses ".com". For example, thestar.com is titled as such as the page, and you only see Toronto Star in the end section. wonder if its a legal thing?
      • I went ahead and added paper name, even there, as for some reason all the papers are doing that... --MTBW
  • FN75 and 78 are to the same website so should have the same formatting
    • fixed
  • FN136: would make sense to cite the original source directly
    • changed source
  • FN138 should be converted to a template to match the rest of the book citations
    • done
  • FN151 has a doubled archival statement
    • now FN152. fixed

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some web sources include both access dates and publication dates, others do not - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Access dates - used for all. Publication dates - added a few that were originally missed, but not applicable in many cases (eg, equibase is a database) or not given (eg, FN14 ESPN.com article has no date). Jlvsclrk (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Nikkimaria and Ian Rose: I think we have addressed everything. Is there anything we have missed? Montanabw(talk) 02:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two remaining concerns on my side - some persisting italicized publishers (such as the two examples mentioned above), and I'm not sure that this is a high-quality source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could have sworn I'd changed those already. website= paramater automatically italicizes so I've changed Arlington Park to arlington.com for example. The website is a publication, is it not? To be safe though, I changed the sources for the sections on the Meadow Event Park and Secretariat Centre to newspapers. As for truenicks, it really is a very high quality source. Here's a link to various articles written by Porter at the Blood-Horse. True Nicks is both the name of his business and a column he writes for the magazine. Jlvsclrk (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Anything else? Are we ready to promote?
There are quite a few duplinks in the article. I won't hold up promotion over them but pls review and see what you can do without (use this script to highlight the duplicates). Also for the block quotes I think we can do without the {{prettyquote}} template and just use {{quote}}. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2016 [31].

Eega[edit]

Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eega is a 2012 Indian film whose protagonist, a murdered man, reincarnates as a fly and avenges his death. Due to some personal reasons, i withdrew its first FAC. Dr. Blofeld, Baffle gab1978 (GOCE), Mike V. Christie have helped me in making this a better article since then. I look forward for some constructive comments from anyone interested to make this a better article, and eventually a FA.

Yours Truly, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have read this and made some straightforward fixes. It reads well enough to me that I can't see any prose glitches remaining. And comes across as comprehensive. Thus I tentatively support it becoming a featured article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas Liber. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

I have read until the end of Filming and post-production; I am not finding much to criticize here as it has had enough commentators (and if I recall correctly, I took part in one of its peers). Here are a few to begin with.

  • "Eega (English: The Fly) is a 2012 Indian, bilingual, fantasy film" - what's with the commas? Are they necessary.
  • Removed.
  • I can understand the opening one-line paragraph of the plot section, but what's with the ending one?
  • It began as a bedtime story, and should end like one.
  • "Indian screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad" - do we need his nationality?
  • A suggestion by SchroCat. It may be helpful for non-Indian readers.
  • " tailor-made for the roles" - are we talking about clothes here? The "tailor-made" word is not very clear or maybe it's just me.
  • Changed it to "apt"
  • "Rajamouli's brother, S. S. Kanchi" - does a link within Wikipedia exists about him? – FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few others:

  • "R. C. Kamalakannan and Pete Draper of Makuta VFX supervised Eega's visual effects,[45][46] while Rahul Venugopal was the film's set supervisor and matte painter" - supervis.. in close proximity.
  • Changed the first to "oversaw".
  • "he compared the battle between the fly and Sudeep, which the underdog wins" - who's the underdog here - the fly?
  • Yes. I've mentioned it.
  • I am counting "in an interview" six times. I am also seeing xx of xx quite a lot.
  • I agree that there are many. But, i feel it important to do so as someone is publishing a person's opinions on a film here.
Yeah, but some of them can be rephrased. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a few. Hope it looks better now.
  • Themes: There are a few examples of "saidism": using words like "wrote" and "called" to avoid the repetition of "said". It's quite hard to overuse "said", but even when "said" isn't the best choice, there are usually better ways out of the problem than substituting this sort of word.
  • I don't know whether there is a word like "saidism". :) I do not have particular ideas to do so. If you can provide an example, it shall be very helpful.
I don't think such word exists either that's why I have given it in quote. What I meant by that is the you used words like "wrote" and "called" to avoid the repetition of "said", as in "he said," "he wrote" "he called", but upon rereading they don't seem to be a lot. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are suggestions from me you can adapt or dismiss. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All constructive comments are welcome, FrB.TG. Please do revisit this candidate and help me solve those issues. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it - thanks for working on it. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments. I hopefully resolved all of them and am hopeful that it meets your expectations. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - sorry for the delay in finishing this review, but I decreased my workload in the featured area sometime during this. Anyway, other reviewers might or might not find issues, but to my inexpert eyes the prose reads well enough to be considered for FA promotion. Good luck and I do hope that more reviewers review it. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vensatry[edit]

After having a quick run through, I feel that the article meets 1 (b) and 1 (c) of WP:WIAFA. However, I have some reservations about the prose. Not that I'm an expert, but still:

  • "K. K. Senthil Kumar was director of photography, M. M. Keeravani composed the soundtrack and score, and Kotagiri Venkateswara Rao edited the film." This needs to be rephrased (and possibly split) as the first two bits constitute a comma splice error. Also why there is sudden tense shift - the previous sentence reads, The film stars Sudeep, Nani, and Samantha Ruth Prabhu? It's not just this article, but I've observed this in a majority of our film articles. Is there a strong reason behind it or I'm missing something here?
  • Thanks for pointing out about the tense shift. The technical crew's work is not explicit, though you can sense it throughout; the cinematography is a good example. That was why past tense has been in use. I've hopefully fixed the comma splice error.
  • I'd suggest you to keep the cinematography and editing bits together. —Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "Rajamouli revisited the idea after finishing ..." Not keen on 'revisited'. Maybe something on the lines of 'reconsidered'?
  • Reworded.
  • "The film received generally positive reviews" This! Aren't we experiencing a problem with critical response summaries of Indian films?
  • Removed the line. Hope the new one sounds good.
  • "It was screened at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, the 2013 Shanghai International Film Festival, and the 2013 Madrid International Film Festival." Why not mention the year (or edition) of the first one?
  • I've mentioned it. Thanks for the heads up. :)
  • Why eighth Toronto, but 2013 Shanghai and 2013 Madrid? —Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If i did mention it as 2013 Toronto, i felt that it would be a case of close repetition. I've numbered the Shanghai festival and left Madrid festival as it was.
  • In that case, simply mention the names of the FFs by means of piped-links. —Vensatry (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piped all the three FFs.
  • "The idea for the film originated in the late 1990s when during a conversation with his son S. S. Rajamouli, Indian screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad joked about a housefly seeking revenge on a human" It's better to split this one into two.
  • I'm afraid that the continuity would take a beating. I have no clue where to break it.
  • Kinda agree, but the level of detailing seems too much for one sentence. But we can make use of semicolons. —Vensatry (talk) 11:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried doing that. Hope the result looks better.
  • So what happened to the English film?
  • The source suggests that the English film might have been shelved. But, making a change based on such assumption may be a case of WP:OR. What say?
  • "After completing Maryada Ramanna (2010), Rajamouli revisited the concept after thinking of directing a film that was distinct from any other" Sounds a bit vague. By 'any other' you mean films of the same genre/concept?
  • According to the source, Rajamouli said that he wanted to try something which "had never been tried by anyone".
  • Is there an explanation given by the director as to why he decided to film the project in two languages?
Rajamouli was asked the same question by Rediff. Slide 4 of the interview quotes him as saying, "From the word go it was a bi-lingual. The fly, the protagonist, doesn't speak so there is no dialogue half the time." Kailash29792 (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apt is more of a showbiz cliche. Something like 'suitable' would be apt for the given context.
  • Done.
  • It's worth clarifying the language in which Bhakta Prahlada was made.
  • Done.
  • By 'styled the cast' you mean makeup?

—Vensatry (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source says "styling of the film". Changed it to overall styling. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my past experience (Magadheera), i learnt that Rama Rajamouli basically looks after the costume designing (much like Nalini Sriram for Roja). I hence take the liberty to change it to costume design only.
  • Are you sure it refers to costume designing as far as this film is concerned? There are artists who can do art direction, costume designing and make up. —Vensatry (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the film's opening credits and could understand only one thing. That is, Rama Rajamouli has been credited for "Styling" and Krishna (?) has been credited for the costumes. I am clueless what to do when things are this vague but important. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks for the comments; they were very helpful. I hopefully have resolved the current ones and am looking forward for further comments if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments after re-visit

  • Wikilink matte painter appropriately.
  • Done.
  • "When Bhasmasur tries to touch Shiva's head, Vishnu assumes the form of Mohini and makes Bhasmasur touch his own head, killing him" Is it connected to the plot in anyway? If not, it's a case of WP:UNDUE.
  • It surely is connected. I'll try to keep it simple here. The sorcerer instigates two birds to kill the fly on the behest of Sudeep. The fly makes one of them hit a switchboard and a short circuit happens. The fly escapes, and due to the security systems, all the doors and windows are closed. In the ensured smoke, the sorcerer is accidentally killed by Sudeep. This is similar to Bhasmasur's fate as per a reviewer. Rather than just ending it as Bhasmasur, i added the sentence for non-Indian readers as a note there would definitely look awkward.
  • That Gachibowli is a suburb of Hyderabad should be noted, or simply use Hyderabad.
  • Done Opted for the former option; i firmly believe that there are more than one such academies in the city.
  • "The Central Board of Film Certification issued the film a U/A certificate,[72][75] resulting in a levy of entertainment tax on Naan Ee at the rate of 30% by the government of Tamil Nadu." Is it really because of the U/A certification?
I think not, because these days entertainment tax exemption is given by TN government only to "U"-rated films with Tamil titles. The source does not mention the certificate, but says, "Naan Ee in 50 days, has grossed Rs 24,46, 33,483 (24.46 Cr) and has collected a share of Rs 8.5 Crore after deduction of entertainment tax (30%), theatre share and commissions paid to distributors fromtheatricals alone." The previous source mentions that the film was rated U/A due to some smoking scenes. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the whole thing. But, i retained the 30% tax thing; i find it material enough.
  • Done.
  • "Its 2013 nominations include Best Film, Best Supporting Actor (Sudeep), and Best Cinematographer (Senthil Kumar)" Which award are we talking about?
  • Good catch. Addressed this.
  • "Sudeep received national recognition and respect ...
  • Done Removed.
  • Not sure parodies belong to legacy.
  • It is too small to warrant a separate section like "In popular culture". But, it is also not so trivial to drop from the article, as we see the film's influences on others being listed in a Legacy section.

—Vensatry (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done Removed.

@Vensatry: Thanks for the additional comments. Looking forward for your reply and further comments, if any. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check from Jaguar[edit]

Due to my temperamental internet connection at the moment, I only managed to spotcheck all of the sources leading up to 91. So far so good. However, I did spot one discrepancy:

"Makkhi's television-broadcast rights were sold to STAR Gold for ₹80 million" - neither ref 89 or 90 mentions it being sold for ₹80 million, unless I read it wrong. This was the only issue I could find so far. Very good work overall, I'm leaning to support.

JAGUAR  14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ref 89 reads "Rs 8 crore". That is ₹80 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was my bad! JAGUAR  12:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I spent a while checking through all of the sources I could access and couldn't find any issues in them. Everything seems to be in order and is well written, so I think it meets the criteria. Good work! JAGUAR  12:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar, I think you're not done yet. You must be familiar with the fruit of the poisonous tree concept here, which states, "If information from a reliable source (the "fruit") traces back to an unreliable source (the "tree") then that information is unreliable as well." The Times of India cites it's sources most of the time, so you could check that. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was only making sure that the sources backed up all of the content in the article, as well as ensuring that there was no original research. I'm not aware of any unreliable sources as I'm unfamiliar with the publishers. I'll check The Times of India now anyway. JAGUAR  12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar and Kailash29792: Thanks for pointing out. I have replaced the TOI source with Hindustan Times and am hoping that the problem has been solved. Please go through the sources once again and let me know if there are some issues i must rectify/address. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any issues with the sources themselves, but then again I'm not sure what is reliable or not. They all seem fine to me. JAGUAR  19:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I was asked for a review on my talk page, and here's what I found:

  • "and the visual effects were praised by the critics upon release." Don't think the second "the" is necessary here; "praised by critics" just sounds tighter.
  • How about "received critical acclaim"?
  • The abbreviation SIIMA should probably be spelled out.
  • Done
  • Plot: There are a few needless links sprinkled in here. Do fireworks, bedtime story, or cannon really need further explanation in other articles?
  • Done Removed them.
  • The last paragraph is stubby at only one sentence. Is there any chance that it can be expanded or merged elsewhere, so that its lack of size doesn't stand out?
  • Since it is a bedtime story and began like one, i also want it to end like one. But, considering that many editors now and before have pointed out the same, i feel it makes sense to merge it.
  • Filming and post-production: "Senthil Kumar had to use special lens with a minimum f-stop of f8.0". Was this meant to have "a" before "special lens"?
  • Done Added.
  • Visual effects: "The animators found the sequences between Sudeep and the fly much more difficult to execute because it had to...". "it" should be "they", since "sequences" is a plural and "they" works much better with it. Actually, from the next part it seems like "it" refers to the fly. If so, the article should state that because I was confused at first and can imagine others not picking up on it at first.
  • Done Rephrased
  • I went and edited it further. Hope this is okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music: "Keeravani said because of the film's theme of revenge and the protagonist are universal concepts". This read awkwardly to me; try removing the first "of", which should improve it.
  • Done Removed.
  • Home media: Can I suggest that TRP be spelled out? I wouldn't have a clue what that is without cheating and hovering my cursor on the link.
  • Done As suggested.
  • Critical response: Very minor, but the comma after "criticized the performances and music" looks like it should be a semi-colon instead.
  • Done As suggested. And, going through the review, i realised that it was the opposite. Wonder where it went wrong. :)
  • Radhika Rajamini, Rediff awarded Eega..." → "Radhika Rajamini of Rediff awarded Eega..."?
  • Done As suggested.
  • Accolades: "year" is missing at the end of "becoming the second Indian female actor to win these awards in both languages in the same."
  • Done Added.
  • All caps in refs 42, 106 and 125 should be fixed.
  • I managed it for 42 and 125, but i have no clue about 106. Can you please help me?
  • As this was my last remaining issue, I took care of this for you. Take a look at the edit, and it should show you what to do in the future. It's as easy as modifying the ref title. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems reasonably well-written overall, but some of the issues I found do detract from the quality a bit. If they can be fixed, I can see myself supporting the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Thanks for commenting. I hopefully have resolved the current ones and am looking forward for further comments if any. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 04:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I jumped in and fixed a couple of remaining bugs. With that, I now think the article meets FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all good but you need to provide alt text for them. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: All the images, both free and non-free, are provided with appropriate alt text. Thanks for the notice. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

I was invited on my talk. It's no subject I know anything about but I always claim that a certain distance is actually helpful for a review. I am intrigued by certain similarities to Kafka's Die Verwandlung, where a person is turned a vermin.

  • Plot: nicely told, but I think the last line, "The young girl is impressed with the story of the fly her father narrates." should be a new paragraph, even if short, as no longer the bedtime story. Perhaps also a past tense ("narrated") because it's over?
That line used to be a separate paragraph. Many suggested me to merge it, and i did. But, somewhere i felt that it needed to end like one. So, i am making it a paragraph again.
  • Origin ...: "screenwriter and director K. V. Vijayendra Prasad's mind" - can that be said simpler?
Changed to filmmaker.
  • I could imagine a few lines about reception in the lead, added to the accolades.
I'm afraid that it would pose a problem to the lead. And, the opinions were like too similar to make note of something rather than summarising the elements praised.

These are so few and minor points that I support right away. Good reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review. That was surely helpful. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2016 [32].

Neal Dow[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Neal Dow, the "Napoleon of Temperance". Dow was a politician and orator who spent his life in pursuit of a single goal: banning the consumption alcohol. In the process, he made and broke political alliances, alienated neighbors and friends, and generally made himself obnoxious to everyone he encountered, but he was (briefly) successful in imposing the first statewide prohibition law in the United States. I hope you enjoy the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Interesting article on a figure I didn't know much about. My usual quibbles (part 1):

  • Should his state legislative service be included in the infobox?
  • Yes? I don't usually bother with the infoboxes (they tend to sprout on their own). But I'll add it if you want.
  • "Dow retired from the military " I would say resigned as you do in the body.
  • Fixed.
  • "and the daughter of a prosperous Maine family headed by her prominent grandfather, Hate-Evil Hall." Leaving aside the breathtaking cognomen, "daughter' and "grandfather" don't mesh well.
  • changed to "a member"
  • "Friends school" possibly the term "Friends" as an alternate for Quaker could be introduced in a way that makes it clear they are synonyms. Also, I'm not sure you "attend" "further schooling".
  • Done
  • Can we have a year that Dow entered the work force by getting his hides tanned?
  • Ha, done.
  • Can steam power really be described as "new technology" in the 1820s? Even in Portland?
  • One the one hand, it had been developed a long time before, but on the other, no one else in Portland was using it for tanning. I just cut the word "new".
  • "out of a Quaker belief in pacifism." I would strike the word "a" to make it clearer this was a widely-held view in the religion.
  • Done
  • "now a museum administered by the local chapter of the Women's Christian Temperance Union" I would say inline what the museum is memorializing.
  • Done
  • 1832 presidential election. Did JQA really run? Our article says he wanted to but was too unpopular to get a nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, and the source mentions Clay, not Adams (Dow disliked Clay for his reputation as a dualist!). Fixed.
  • "In the 19th century, the average American" isn't the entire century a bit of a broad brush to be painting with?
  • Clarified that this was meant as an average (I was trying to avoid using the singular).
  • A brief sampling of the evils the prohibitionists hoped to prevent might not be a bad idea. The fact that workingmen got paid in rum isn't sufficient.
  • I added some details.
  • "who made their own organization" possibly "formed" for "made"
  • Done
  • "a similar law ... they continued to be defeated". Tense mismatch
  • Fixed
  • "and came to detest the Democrats as the tools of the alcohol industry" I would strike the "the" before "tools"
  • Fixed.
  • "prosecutions were deferred" possibly "halted" for "deferred"
  • I changed it to "deferred indefinitely," which seems to be what Byrne is getting at.
  • " he lobbied the state legislature ... They did so" tense issue
  • Fixed
  • "He and his detractors engaged in anonymous newspaper campaigns against one another," maybe "both Dow and his opponents engaged in anonymous newspaper campaigns against the other,"
  • OK, changed.
  • "Maine Temperance Society, William P. Fessenden." I might give him the false title, "future senator"
  • Done
  • "promised effects" better, "promised benefits"
  • Done
  • "Dow had backed some of Peck's borrowing" I would say "guaranteed" for backed if this is like I suspect a McKinley 1893 situation.
  • Yes, it is. Didn't know if guarantees were too technical. Changed.
  • "In September 1860, he declined to run for re-election" Wasn't that when the election was held (As goes Maine ...)? Presumably his decision had to be at some point before that?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified.
  • OK, I'm finished up to here. Thanks for the thorough review so far! --Coemgenus (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming
  • "outbreak of Civil War" why the caps? And why no pipe? There's no link to the war in the area.
  • Fixed.
  • "He also confiscated property from nearby planters, including those who supported the Union, and tried unsuccessfully to claim salvage rights over Confederate military property abandoned in the river.[70]" salvage rights on his own behalf or on the U.S.'s?
His own! I clarified.
  • "In October 1862, Dow was given command over the District of Pensacola, and moved to join other units there.[70] He immediately earned the troops' disfavor by placing Pensacola under prohibition" He was provost marshal for Pensacola or what was his role?
  • The source just says "Dow received Butler's order to take command of the District of Pensacola". I'll see if I can find something more specific.
  • Not really necessary. I wasn't clear on the chain of command. I'd make it clear it was Butler's order, that explains how Butler could countermand.
  • "Butler soon countermanded the orders" for what? Prohibition or the slave liberations/property confiscations?
  • Confiscation. I clarified it.
  • Link US Grant.
  • Done
  • Dow's travels as a prisoner were wide enough to make me wonder how he was taken. Train?
  • Wagon and train, according to Byrne.
  • Did Dow give any sort of parole?
  • The source doesn't say so. I think because he was exchanged, he could have returned to the fighting if he wanted to. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1874 UK election, did he give speeches? I'm not clear on what his "effort" was.
  • Yes, speeches and some "organizing" (not terribly well defined in the source). Added it.
  • "Maine's legislature strengthened the weak prohibition law there by banning distilling in the state" the last state of play was repeal. For the sake of continuity, you might want to say something like "Maine's legislature had enacted a weak prohibition law in 18xx; thanks to Dow's influence ..."
  • I think the last thing I wrote on the subject was "Maine passed a new, much milder Maine Law in 1858..."
  • "and disappointed at their failure to enforce Reconstruction in the South" I'd say, if possible, what specifically disappointed him.
  • Byrne is not much more specific ("failing to protect the rights of Southern Negroes") but I added that.
  • "James Black's request that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1880 convention." Two issues. James who? and "his" is uncertain.
  • Fixed (Black is linked in the previous section).
  • "The convention that met in Cleveland that June welcomed delegates from twelves states" typo (doing this offline)
  • Done.
  • "Dow himself did not attend, staying home with his ailing wife" well, this was hardly unusual, and the reader should probably be told that in that day, candidates stayed away from the convention. Although you do more work with the minor parties than I do and perhaps things were different.
  • I think it was different--Weaver attended the Greenback convention that same year (so did Garfield attend the RNC, of course, but that's different since he was a dark horse). Still, it's worth noting.
  • Are there sites etc in Portland or elsewhere with a Dow connection worthy of mention?
  • Other than his house, I don't think so. I'll double check, though.
A most interesting article on someone I'm glad to know more about.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Dow is an interesting, quarrelsome man. I enjoyed learning more about him, myself. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: G'day, I took a look after your post on the Milhist talk page. Not really my cup of tea, especially given he was a Prohibitionist... ;-) Bad jokes aside, overall the article looks quite well done to me. I believe it is up to snuff, but have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • is there an OCLC number or ISSN for The New England Magazine?
  • in the lead, " Shortly thereafter, thanks in large part to Dow's efforts..." --> " Shortly thereafter, largely due to Dow's efforts..." (would this be smoother?)
  • in the lead, "As mayor, Dow enforced the law with..." --> "As mayor of Portland, Dow enforced the law with..."
  • "...American consumed on average more than three times the alcohol of his modern-day counterpart..." --> "...American male consumed on average more than three times the alcohol of his modern-day counterpart..."?
  • " required militia musters..." --> perhaps link to Militia (United States)
  • "granted Dow a colonel's commission..." --> link to Colonel (United States)
  • link for electoral college --> Electoral College (United States)
  • that's it from me, thanks for your hard work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • AustralianRupert, thanks very much for the review and the suggestions (and I agree with your take on prohibition, for what it's worth!) These are all fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2016 [33].

Heavy metals[edit]

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article surveys the field of heavy metal definitions; discuss their properties, origin and abundance; and sets out their many uses.

The first unsuccessful nomination (here), attracted commentary, support, opposition or contributions from User:R8R, User:Nergaal and User:Graeme Bartlett; and User:Nikkimaria provided an image review.

With subsequent considered help from User:YBG, I believe all outstanding issues have been addressed, and the article is the better for it. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of work done, but I am surprised that we now have archive2, as I thought that the work to get it up to scratch never stopped from the archive1 point! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by R8R[edit]

I gladly support the article and its promotion. If FAC1 failed but yielded this quality, it wasn't for nothing. (Note: I also reviewed the article during the first FAC, at which I was a little pickier as there were more problems to point at.) There article now reads very well and there's nothing I want to add.--R8R (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the article. Note that I reviewed the article during the FAC1 and I eventually supported it after my concerns had been addressed. The article, however, has apparently continued to change since then, so I'll perform another review.--R8R (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "it was described" -- I think this falls under WP:WEASEL
    I moved the citation to show that the "it was described" comes from a properly attributed (and reliable) source.
  • "The term later become associated" typo
    Fixed, and 10/10 for spotting that one.

From what I've read so far, the article is great. There's nothing I have questions against or (at the moment) find missing. Very, very well done. Note for self: take a look at FAC1 comments and see if they can provoke any further critical analysis.

Thank you!
  • "Some heavy metals, especially chromium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead and thallium are" should there be a comma after "thallium"? (you're the native speaker, of course; just asking)
    OMG we have our own article about this. MOS allows either style. I oppose the mandatory style, so will leave the comma out.
    Including the serial comma would give "Some heavy metals, especially Cr, As, Cd, Hg, Pb, and Tl are". I think what R8R is suggesting is instead "Some heavy metals, especially Cr, As, Cd, Hg, Pb and Tl, are": I think this is indeed better because it makes clear where the parenthetical listing of the heavy metals being discussed ends (although I can understand its omission – I kept forgetting it when writing Fe, because you tend to forget it for very long asides). Double sharp (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I think it's looking OK now. Sandbh (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the serial comma, that paragraph now contains two lists, one of which includes the comma and one doesn't ("lead and thallium", "tin, and antimony"). I know the comma is a separate issue and is not strongly bound to anything (engvar and so on), but uniformity must take place anyway.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've checked and eliminated all serial commas apart from the ones needed to eliminate ambiguity and those in reference titles
  • "Some heavy metals, especially chromium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead and thallium are potentially hazardous due to the toxicity of some of their combined or elemental forms.[n 12] Hexavalent chromium, for example, is highly toxic as is mercury vapour and many mercury compounds.[54] These six elements have a strong affinity for sulfur" text flow is a little weak in that the third sentence mentions "the six elements" mentioned in the first sentence, and it would go much better if that sentence immediately followed the first one, or perhaps the second one was parenthesized or maybe even removed. (I wasn't being picky, this simply interrupted me reading the article.)
    I'll look closer at this one.
    Have made some adjustments to the first two sentences; see what you think. Sandbh (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general note, it's common for humans to first discuss ups and then downs, so I would swap Toxicity and Biological role
    Agree. Given the subject matter and that most people associate HM with toxicity I thought it would be better to list the information in a more natural way?
    Sure, as long as you're confident in your choice (as this is a tiny question that affects little to nothing).--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(see next section)" also, you wouldn't have to refer to material as the reader would have already read it.
    Oh, I see. Let me have another look at this.
    I've left the order as toxicity, and then biological activity, so as to match the lead, which mentions toxicity before essentiality (as do all applicable definitions that I can recall). Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take a break here and will continue as soon as possible.--R8R (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • For fairness's sake, I'll say that apart from being toxic, permanganate has been sold in crystals in drugstores as a good antiseptic (not sure if you should react in any way)
    I can vaguely remember this was the case. Emsley suggests it's no longer available so I didn't say anything about this application.
    I see your point. Though I'll say it is very well-known among common people, at least those around me. (It was, however, outlawed in common drugstores five or less years ago after someone learned how to use it to make home-made drugs.)--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was initially sceptical about the table, but good disclaimers around it make up for anything I was unsatisfied with.
    Yes, it caused me quite a bit of stress which is why it wasn't there the first time round.
    Normally, I would try to do that in a piece of readable text. Not saying your solution is worse or anything; just different.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "platinum the most ubiquitous given it has been said to comprise 20% of all consumer goods" this bears some distrust. How come platinum, one of the rarest metals, is ubiquitous?
    Emsley says, "Indeed, this metal is involved in oil refining, car exhausts, fibre optic cable, computer hard disks, fertilizers, paints, jewellery, anti-cancer drugs, laboratory equipment, and pacemakers.
    I am still worried. Just in case, I checked a dictionary on the word "comprise" and I think the phrase should be reworded. Surely this can be worded in a way that doesn't raise my eyebrow.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I've edited this bit to make it clearer. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, much better.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, wow. This read like a perfect article and on the top of my head I can't think of any significant issue with that. I'll re-read the comments that came from the FAC1 and immediately after that and think once again. Right now, the article seems absolutely great to me. Maybe I'd reorder the sections, but that's about it.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your gracious feedback. Sandbh (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in question.[38] as at" one superfluous period
    Fixed. I owe you an eagle eyes award (and a non-English native, at that---I'm impressed). Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was carefully reading what I said I would review, no big deal. :) --R8R (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod, leaning oppose[edit]

  • I really don't like the title, which strongly implies, if not states, that there is a chemical element called "Heavy metal". Somewhere you need at least one "s"; there are various possibilities. Heavy metals (group of elements) might be one way. But it seems they are not all elements on some definitions?
Yes, I've had some on-again off-again reservations about the title. How about Heavy metal (science and engineering)?
  • The lead is way too short. The first sentence isn't really a definition, or a scoping-out of the area within which the different definitions lie. At least the first para of the next section should probably be added, plus more of the article summarized. You can read all the existing lead & know only 3 examples. Roughly how many are there, on maximal and minimal definitions? As someone with very little knowledge of chemistry, the parts of the article I've read raise more questions than they answer. Try to imagine your reader is a not especially bright 16 year-old, at least at the top of the page.
OK I'll revisit the lead. I appreciate your input as a non-chemist. Sandbh (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've augmented and edited the lead. The first sentence is unchanged as it captures the nub of what a heavy metal is, and anything more specific wouldn't be representative (or would be too detailed). As you suggested, I added some words from the next section so as to give context to the "definition". There are now 16 examples of heavy metals, plus indicative lower and upper boundaries. There's also a paragraph about their properties. The only section the lead doesn't touch on is the Etymology and usage section which I suspect can be left to the main body of the article. How does it look now? Sandbh (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your comment re the lead section. When I intend to read the whole article, I often "cut to straight to the business" and skip the lead (which, of course, I shouldn't have done here). I just read the lead now, after you had added your comments and they had been responded to, and the lead does a fine job of introducing the concept to the reader. Maybe one thing we're missing is a pre-text template {{not to be confused with}}:
Not to be confused with Heavy metal (music).
I don't think this is necessary as the title of the article makes its scope reasonably clear. Sandbh (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't insist; yet I'll note another wikilink is normally good as interlinks are good in general and make articles less alienated.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that is Heavy metal music in fact. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the template in light of R8R's reasoning. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is certainly much better now. There is still room for some more, and the sections: 5 Formation, abundance and occurrence, and 6 Properties compared with light metals, don't seem to be represented. I wondered if there is too much emphasis on the question of toxicity. Is " is often assumed to be toxic..." in the 1st sentence actually referenced anywhere? I'd be inclined to cut that. Surely, few think iron is toxic, but maybe many don't know it is a heavy metal. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnbod. Section 5 is represented in the lead by, "Heavy metals are relatively scarce in the Earth's crust." In compressing this section down to nine words I was guided by MOS:LEAD where it says the lead serves as a summary of the articles most important contents. I personally find this section to be quite interesting, and it takes a while to explain the subject matter, but it's not that important, almost in the same way that section 2 (Etymology and usage) isn't that important, and hence is not mentioned in the lead. I can, however, say more about section 5 in the lead if you feel its importance warrants this.
Section 6 Properties compared with light metals, is summarised in paragraph 3 of the lead.
The reference to heavy metals being assumed to be toxic is taken from the widely cited paper by Duffus (2002) who says, "There is also a tendency to assume that all so-called “heavy metals” have highly toxic or ecotoxic properties. This immediately prejudices any discussion of the use of such metals, often without any real foundation." So in the lead I say that heavy metals are often assumed to be toxic. I haven't gone as far as Duffus by saying that such assumptions are often unfounded, because (a) I think that an "assumption" calls itself into question well enough; and (b) paragraph two of the lead gives a fair summary of the toxicity question (and only mentions iron as an essential heavy metal, after first discussing the more notable toxic metals, rather than saying anything about its toxicity). The only mention of the toxicity of iron, if it's taken in excess, occurs later in the article in the toxicity section. Does this see reasonable? Sandbh (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But what else would I want here. Do you find that something is missing now? (As for the title, I won't judge. It seems to me that this is too minor a question to seriously discuss. If you think this is causing problems (not think this could cause problems for someone; for you), then let's just do it. Otherwise, you may be overthinking the problem. (we also have titles for other groups of elements in singular forms: alkali metal, group 4 element, noble gas, etc.)--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just Heavy metal, there would not be a problem (of that sort), but I'm not sure this can be claimed to be WP:PRIMARY. Heavy metal (chemistry) would be better than the present title (oddly, that redirects to Toxic heavy metal, which should surely be fixed!), or I think "Heavy metal (science and engineering)". Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HM (Chemistry) now redirects to Heavy metal (chemical elements). Sandbh (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! I really don't agree with the previous reviewer. But then he's a chemist.

Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not a chemist. Though I've been writing articles in Wiki for five years or so and am pretty familiar with this now.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, apologies! You had me fooled anyway. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll start this point again, as the above has got lengthy. I'm still not keen on the first sentence "A heavy metal is generally defined as a metal with a relatively high density, atomic weight or atomic number, and is often assumed to be toxic." - that is to say including the part after the comma in it. It reads oddly, and means that your opening definition essentially breaks down to two statements: a) "I can't exactly say what a HM is", and b) "you might think they are toxic (but you're wrong)". This is unsettling for the reader, especially if they had no assumptions about toxicity, which will often be the case. It would be better to move "often assumed to be toxic" to the start of the next para - I still can't see that this wrong assumption is a sufficiently fundamental point to include in the initial definition. People expect the opening sentence to provide a clear and concise definition, and while it may be inevitable here that the first part is unable to do this, the additional confusion the 2nd part introduces seems unnecessary.
I've relocated the toxicity assumption from the end of the 1st sentence to the start of the 2nd as you suggested. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still (mostly) on the lead, the article does not include, or stress, key points to enable non-chemists to understand the subject. Take the following statement:
"All native metals are (generally agreed to be) heavy metals."

- is this true? More importantly, why don't I know if it is true or not after reading the article?. If it is true, I'd urge you to put something like it in the lead. If it is not, at least explain/qualify/discuss it lower down. It's a pity the term native metal is not generally known to non-chemists, and other more familiar terms such as precious metal and base metal should be brought in, or references to metals suitable to metalworking. As far as I can tell from reading the article, a working layman's definition of what a heavy metal is might be "all the substances you think of as metal, plus another bunch you've never or hardly ever heard of, but which might be used in tiny quantities in making your pc, mobile phone etc." I ought to be clearer on this after reading the article, but I'm not.

I can't find the statement, "All native metals are (generally agreed to be) heavy metals." anywhere in the article. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, THAT'S MY POINT!! It should be there, if true. If not true, say why not. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the reference to native metals---more trouble than it's worth. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The high densities of native metals such as copper, iron and gold may have been noticed in prehistory." This is a rather ridiculous statement, given the massive metalworking industries that dominated later periods of prehistory, in Eurasia anyway. I've no idea what your reference says, but we can be entirely sure they were "noticed".

Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence now reads, "The advent of metalworking, at the end of the stone age, may owe its origin (in part) to the observation of the high densities of native metals such as copper, iron and gold." I hope more clearly conveys the intended meaning. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's worse. Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "Awareness of the high densities of naturally occurring heavy metals such as gold, copper and iron may have contributed to the advent of metalworking, and the end of the Stone Age.
No, that's also terrible. People did not go to the vast trouble of metalworking to make dense objects. It's very clear from the archaeological record what they were doing. They wanted strong tools with sharp blades, from base metals, or beautiful and long-lasting jewellery from precious metals, and in making these materials that could be melted and cast in moulds, or softened and hammered, or worked in other ways, were very helpful. Equally, they could hardly fail to be aware of the density, but that was incidental. Metal was far too valuable to use for weights (looms, fishing nets), where stones or sometimes ceramics were used (this is pretty much true long after prehistory, until the Early Modern period). Note how very rare prehistoric use of lead is, until they needed it for plumbing. Maces are made with stone until historic periods.
Oh dear, I didn't intend to give the impression that early metalworking revolved around attempts to make heavy objects. I was trying to say that, in prehistory, the heaviness of native metals may have served to distinguish them from other objects in the environment. The rest of the section then continues the theme: thousands of years of all known metals being relatively dense; the shock discovery of light metals in 1809; and Gmelin's subsequent distinction between light and heavy metals. Anyway I've renamed the section to Terminology as per your suggestion, and edited it to try and make my intent clearer. Sandbh (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look at this article, the less happy I am. I don't know much about most aspects of the subject, but the bits I can judge easily are not done well. I understand the subject lacks a clear definition, which causes problems. It seems to me that the important things one can usefully say to explain the subject to non-chemists should begin with saying that all the "historical" metalworking metals, both base and precious, are HMs. At the moment I can't even work out from the article whether this is actually true, and I really should be able to. With the exception of aluminium (already noted), all the metals commonly encountered as the main component materials of everyday objects are also all HMs - or are they? I don't know from the article, and I should.
I've added a hopefully helpful hatnote to the article explaining which elements, for the purposes of making the article easier to follow, are presumed to be HM. I thought about saying something about this in the article proper but the content seems more appropriate/efficient as a hatnote. There is now a paragraph in the lead picking up on your suggestion re base and precious metals. I didn't use the term base metal given its multiple definitions. Re all domestic metals being HMs. The end of the lead says HM are present in many [i.e. not all] aspects of modern life, and gives several examples. In this light I don't understand the need to say that all the metals commonly encountered in everyday objects are not HM. Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, the hatnote is gone, now incorporated into the lead and main body of the article, further to the comments from Vanamonde and edwininlondon, below. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Etymology and usage" - actually nothing is said about the etymology of "heavy metal" (probably nothing needs to be said). The only info as to first use is pretty weaselish - does nobody know in what language and when it was first used? Incidentally, I can't find the term at all in the original OED (under "heavy") - perhaps I missed it. I'd change the title to "Terminology" maybe, and try to establish the origin properly.
Gmelin's density-based use of the term heavy metal in 1817 (and its corollary light metal) is the earliest I've been able to find. To this day it's the most popular of the more specific definitions. The earliest quote in the OED dates to only 1864: "Jrnl. Chem. Soc. XVII. 126 In support of the view that thallium is one of the heavy metals, the following reasons may be given." [see the OED entry for "heavy", a.1 (n.)] Worse still, Duffus's widely cited International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) paper was only able to trace scientific use of the term back to 1936. Since low density metals were only discovered from 1809 onwards I doubt the heavy metal/light metals distinction, as a science-based concept, would have an origin predating these times.
In the context of the above I think it's reasonable to say, "An early use of the term "heavy metal" dates from 1817, when the German chemist Leopold Gmelin divided the elements into nonmetals, light metals and heavy metals." Certainly, it's better than relying on Duffus' 1936 assertion or trying to do something with the OED.
I like your suggestion to change the section title to Terminology. I just need to square away your earlier comments about pre-historical awareness of metals as dense substances. Sandbh (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of this section seems very important, and needs expansion, even its own section. Unfortunately it currently begins very badly with the prehistory bit, which I discuss above.
This paragraph may be better now, following the changes discussed above. Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first periodic table image needs a caption explaining it better - perhaps quite a long one, or specific explanation in the text.
A caption is possibly not now required, given the new hatnote at the top of the article. Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Formation, abundance and occurrence" - out of my comfort zone, but seems ok. Somewhere something should be said about how the less common ones are extracted/processed. Numbers of the other heavy metals are presumably rare and very expensive; it would be good to say something about this.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uses" This is the section that really worries me. It mostly reads like a random selection of snippets off the internet. The density section has a long para all about sports! The "Strength-based" one is one far-too-long para, the start of which is very wide-ranging (and much better in itself) but it is wholly unreferenced until the toys, which won't do at FAC, however basic the statements. More below.
I'm not sure what is surprising about the sports paragraph—the examples given seem clear enough. It's a bit longer due to the mini-story at the end about hammer throw hammers. The strength paragraph has now been split into smaller paragraphs. I've added citations to the uses examples. I would've liked to have fewer citations however the literature on these kinds of very specific uses of heavy metals is scattered. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is lead doing in the "Strength-based" section? Is it especially strong in alloys? Since it isn't in pure form, this should perhaps be explained.
I've changed the section title to "Strength- or durability-based" to make it clearer (much clearer, I hope) why metals such as lead are included here. This is also elaborated in the paragraph.
  • "Home electrical systems, for the most part, are wired with copper wire for its good conducting properties." - well, nobody is arguing with that, but it hardly does justice to the role of HMs as electrical conductors, and for long the only practical ones. Gold and silver as specialized conductors should be mentioned.
Silver and gold are now mentioned. Sandbh (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is never any attempt at explaining in chemical terms why HMs are the most suitable for their uses - for example in the "Nuclear" section. Surely plenty could be said here? There's just lists of uses, and it is where these are familiar (density and strength in particular) that they seem randomly collected. Which makes me worry about the unfamiliar bits.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, since the definitions are so variable, some sort of complete list of HMs should be given. That, plus a definition, is probably what people are looking for in such an article, not stuff about weights in sports, and I think they may have to be given it. There are various ways to arrange it. One might start with the ones everybody agrees about, and work outwards in groups. I suppose this information can be extracted, with some difficulty, via the periodic table diagrams, but few non-chemists can work with these.
The definition issue has hopefully now been clarified; I'll see if I can address the "complete" list as part of edwininlondon's comments, below, along the same lines. Sandbh (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that the hatnote I've discussed above has addressed your last dot point. Sandbh (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I've read your responses, but I'm away at the moment & will assess changes & respond mid-week. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnbod. There are three o/s dot points I'll see if I can tackle before then. Sandbh (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nergaal[edit]

  • There could be some nitpicking done,but the article looks much, much better than the last time. Also, I suggest having the title styled as "HM (chemistry)". Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Nergaal. Before I saw your post I changed the title to "Heavy metal (chemical elements)" as I thought that would capture the subject matter and have the least amount of anchoring to any field. Sandbh (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there other "XXX (chemical element)" articles? Plus, when a biologist or physicist refers to HM he implies chemistry. Anyways, I think no parenthesis at all is the best. The disambig page can jsut have (disambiguation) in the title. Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      There are no other "XXX (chemical element)" articles that I could find. I agree that a biologist would be implying chemistry; I'm not sure that a physicist would, nor would a metallurgist, astronomer, mechanical or electronic engineer—the latter four would at least be implying chemical elements (maybe also alloys, at least for the metallurgist). For that reason I'd be reluctant to call it "HM (chemistry)" whereas the current title captures the subject of the article quite nicely. What did you mean by your last sentence(?)—I didn't understand it. Sandbh (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Much as I am somewhat loath to admit it, I daresay the musical genre has a pretty good claim to be the main topic as well, so I think both need disambiguations. Although I would point out that the parenthesised text is meant as disambiguation, and Nergaal's suggestion "heavy metal (chemistry)" works perfectly well and is as concise as it could possibly be. Even though they are important in other fields, are they not defined by being chemical elements? Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My suggestion in fact. I still think it preferable. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it to HM (chemistry). I may need some admim help to tidy up things. Sandbh (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll say a word as well. I don't think "(chemistry)" is a right specification. The article currently mentions three main criteria, and "heavy metals" can be defined with any of the three: density, atomic mass/number, and chemical behavior. Only the latter can unambiguously be shown as related to chemistry, but neither atomic numbers nor density are. The fact metals are chemical elements is best shown by the current "(chemical elements)" specification.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about "Heavy metal (science and engineering)"? Sandbh (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy metal isn't really a term relevant to engineering, I'd have thought. But it's unclear to me why density and atomic mass/number are not "related to chemistry". Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh well explained why density isn't as closely related to chemistry as to engineering. My first idea was that the science closest to the density aspect was materials science, but that's pretty close to engineering as well. As for atomic numbers, these definitions are usually used in the context of nuclear reactions (radioactive decay or nucleosynthesis), which is covered by nuclear physics rather than chemistry.--R8R (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to at least cater for some of the density based applications of heavy metals such as to provide ballast in, for example, racing cars, planes and ships. This has more to do with engineering than chemistry. Sandbh (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Heavy metal (science and technology)" might work too, as something broader. Sandbh (talk),
Both "Heavy metal (science and engineering)" and "Heavy metal (science and technology)" are great. Certainly better than the current "Singular (plural)" title. Perhaps I would choose the one with "technology," though, of course, "Heavy metal (science and engineering)" is also fine.--R8R (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the damned title to Heavy metal (science and technology). Sandbh (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanamonde[edit]

This is an interesting read, well done. I have not previously participated at an FAC, so I think I'm going to limit myself to leaving comments, and not actually support or oppose (unless I find exceptional reason to). Here's some comments to begin with. Vanamonde (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments.
My apologies for my comments coming all over the article: this is partly because I'm new at FAC, and partly because the article itself has undergone so many changes. Anyhow, here's a few more suggestions. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • Is the hatnote above the article necessary? Surely it could be incorporated into the lead, and make the article aesthetically more pleasing that way?
Done. Yes, I agree and have merged the hatnote into the lead, and adjusted the definitions section. I was feeling the same way myself. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay that's a lot better, but I don't think you need the "sometimes" in the "sometimes quoted as..." "quoted" does not imply "universally." in my mind, at least.
"Is quoted" sounds too authoritative. Given Duffus describes heavy metal as an effectively meaningless term I think the "sometimes" qualifier strikes the right tone. Sandbh (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions
  • "In metallurgy, for example, a heavy metal may be defined on the basis of density,[5] whereas in physics the distinguishing criterion might be atomic number,[6] while a chemist would likely be more more concerned with chemical behaviour.[7]" This seems a rather over-qualified statement, does it not? Why not "In Metallurgy, a heavy metal is defined..." etc.
I'd like to do that but there is no consistency within these disciplines. For example, in metallurgy heavy metals are sometimes referred to in terms of their high atomic numbers, and in chemistry in terms of their densities. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there at least evidence to go with "In metallurgy, heavy metals are frequently defined on the basis of..."
No, there isn't  :( Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 2002 it was described..." by whom, and in what context?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chemical behaviour or periodic table position are known or have been used" perhaps better as the simpler "have historically been used." or some such.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "definitional looseness"; better as "uncertainty over definitions?
Partly done. Changed to "uncertainty around definitions" Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atomic weight definitions have been expressed as, for example, greater than sodium (22.98); or greater than 40;[n 4] or 200 or more." this is an awkward construction, IMO. How about something like "Definitions based on atomic weight can range from elements heavier than Sodium (atomic weight 22.98); or greater than 40" etc.
Done. I hope the new version is better. Sandbh (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next sentence is somewhat contradictory with this one.
Yes, there is not necessarily any consistency in the literature when it comes to density, atomic weight and atomic number definitions. Sandbh (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I might incorporate what is now footnote three into the text. It is fairly relevant, after all.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the test described as "metallic impurities that are colored by sulfide ion" is not very clear. Surely it does not mean that an element is a heavy metal if impurities caused by said metal also contain sulfide? But that is what it reads as.
Done. Edited to make meaning clearer. Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the latter figure is 3.6 times that of lead (at 11.35 g/cm3)." Hardly controversial, but still should have a citation.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the term metalloid later acquired a completely unrelated meaning." There's no source at the end of this sentence. Does it need to be duplicated from someplace?
Done. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The heaviness (and malleability)" might be better as "The weight and malleability". I know that "weight" has a technical meaning slightly different from its colloquial usage, but I think it still works in this context: "heaviness" sounds really odd.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if the very last paragraph of the "definitions" can be appended to the third-to-last paragraph. The material just seems a little scattered at present, and I'm thinking of ways to tighten it. Not sure this would work, but it's a thought.
Done. It was a good thought. See how the section looks now. I did have to bust out the origins and use of term subsection into its own section, but I think this is justified. The two sections now seem tighter and more interesting to me. I'll have to add a few citations about element 118, which I'll do shortly. Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a rather clunky title, but better. Let me see if I can think of a better one.
OK. Sandbh (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Terminology
  • The "terminology" section seems not very distinct, content-wise, from the previous section. Could the two be merged, with perhaps a sub-section being created for "history of terminology" or something like that?
This section was originally called Etymology and usage but I changed in light of Johnbod's comment. How would you feel if I changed back to that title and made it a subsection of the prior section, as per your suggestion? Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would indeed prefer that.
Done. But I changed the title to "History of the term and usage" in light of Johnbod's previous comments about Etymology. Sandbh (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biological role
  • Personally, I would prefer the "biological role" section to come prior to the "toxicity" section. In my mind, at least, it makes more sense to understand what the role of a metal is under normal circumstances, before learning what happens when things go wrong (broadly speaking).
Ordinarily I'd agree. In this case I put toxicology before biology in light of the strong association of toxicity with "heavy metals". Does that seem reasonable? Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toxicity
  • I think the subsections of the "toxicity" section could do with a little bit of expansion. I understand that the section is merely a summary of a full article, but it seems a little brief. The "heavy metals of concern," for instance, could at least mention the different ways in which those metals are toxic.
Done. At last. Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the rest of the section says that something is toxic several times, without mentioning why or how. We don't need too much detail here; but just as you've mentioned DNA damage for V2O5, it seems appropriate to mention the outcome for Germanium, Indium, and so forth.
Done. Ditto. {rechecking of sources to follow, in the background) Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no source for the toxicity of copper sulfate (or is it the emsley source? In which case, I would duplicate it, as they are superficially disconnected statements).
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "insoluble uranium compounds, radiation aside, are poisonous" This is an odd construction. perhaps something like "insoluble Uranium compounds are poisonous to [insert target here], in addition to the dangerous radiation they emit."
Partly done: I left out mention of a target. I think it is safe to say that something is poisonous, and only clarifying this if "targets" other than people were intended. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heavy metals can cause environmental problems" this is rather vague. Could you be more specific?
Done. Edited to make the meaning clearer. Sandbh (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wondering if we can find a better sub-section title than "heavy metals of concern." If they're toxic, surely they are all of concern?
Done. I've added a short contextual paragraph to the start of this section, and beefed up the subsection title so that it's now called "Heavy metals of particular concern." Does that help? Sandbh (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wondering if Minamata disease deserves a mention in the last subsection: it's a highly notable example, after all. Entirely up to you, though, I'm sure there's a number of such examples.
Done. A highly notable example, as you said. Sandbh (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Formation, etc
  • "Heavy metals up to the vicinity of iron" might not be very clear to a non-chemist; perhaps add "in the periodic table" so that folks know what you mean.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stars lose much of their mass when it is ejected late in their stellar lifetimes, and sometimes post-ejection as a result of a neutron star merger,[79][n 18] thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium." This sentence is rather confusing (and, I believe, ungrammatical) as it stands. Could you please clarify it?
Done? Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better.
  • "They constitute" should not be the opening line of a paragraph, though. Likewise for the nest para.
Fixed.
  • Excellent work on that figure: but I'm wondering why Technetium, Polonium, and some of the Lanthanides and Actinides are missing from it.
Thank you. The missing "ghost" elements have abundances much less than one part per trillion. In discussing the composition of the figure with another editor, and looking at some similar figures in the literature, we concluded that they were not worth showing. This was explained at the end of the figure, in note 14. Since this note was a bit out of the way I've merged it into note 13, right next to the table title. Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should do it. One last followup: I wonder if there's an easy way to format the numbers that label periods and groups, so that they look different from the elements they are next to?
I've bolded the period and group numbers. I'm not sure I like it but let me see if can get used to it. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer this; it's a lot more readable.
  • "Rather, they are largely synthesised by neutron capture" I might add the clarifying phrase "from elements with a lower atomic number" after this, for clarity.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the slow process stop at Bismuth?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done.
  • "as the most noble of metals" I know that "noble" is linked, but I still think you should clarify the usage there with "noble, or corrosion resistant" or something like that.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "Stars lose..." is not tied in to the rest very well. I'm not sure how to fix it, because I'm not certain of the intent. Are you trying to describe how heavy metals get from stars to planets? If so, it should be made clearer.
Done. It should be tied in better now. Sandbh (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the last paragraph is also rather disconnected at present; trying to think of a good way to shuffle the content to make it flow better...
The three paragraphs before the last paragraph talk about the occurrence of HM in the crust. I though it would be OK to finish the section with a few words on the situation below the crust. The penultimate paragraph, with its discussion of siderophiles, presages this. Sandbh (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From a whole of Earth perspective, some other..." ungrammatical, and not entirely clear. Why should affinity change depending on whether you look at the whole earth? The same comment could be applied to the note as well.
Fixed, I hope. Reworded to try and make things clearer. Does it read better now? Sandbh (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a bit confused, tbh: the linked articles suggest siderophiles are those that sink to the core: how, then, can you only assess that for the crust?
OK, if you're still a bit confused then this bit needs some more work. Siderophiles tend to be concentrated in the metallic core. In the crust they're mostly found in chalcophile ores, with the exception of gold which mainly occurs in native form. I've edited this paragraph some more. How does it seem now? Sandbh (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes this is better. final quibble, I hope: this fragment "but only at the whole of Earth level" is clunky and ungrammatical, could you do something with it?
Done. I hope. Sandbh (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it's currently phrased, the last sentence of the section could be parsed to mean that the heat generated drives the magnetic field. This is obviously not the intent, so wondering if you could rephrase.
Done. Qualification and note added. Sandbh (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Properties
  • The "more reactive" entry for light metals has no source
Done. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lithophile" links to an article which I don't think is the article you want...
Done. Thank you.
  • You need to clarify what the sulfides and hydroxides are soluble or insoluble in, I think: or is it assumed to be water? I'm not enough of a chemist to know whether this is a serious issue.
Not done. For a chemist and most science professionals this would not be an issue since water is the standard solute for conducting "wet" chemistry, as opposed to "dry" chemistry e.g. when gunpowder explodes. I presume a more general reader would interpret "soluble" to mean soluble in water, unless otherwise indicated. For example, the definition of soluble given by the Oxford Dictionary is, "(Of a substance) able to be dissolved, especially in water". Sandbh (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay.
Uses
  • "platinum the most ubiquitous given it has been said to be found in, or used to produce, 20% of all consumer goods." This sounds complicated, and is not quite grammatical. How about making it a separate sentence, and then replacing "it has been said to be" with "that it has been"?
Fixed. Split into two sentences. I can't say, "given that is has been" since even Emsley only goes as far as saying, "It has been said that…". Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Density-based" is an odd section title: though slightly redundant, might "density-based uses" be better?
Fixed. I changed it to "Weight- or density-based" which I think may be easier on the brain. Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "density based" hangs by itself without a source. While I would agree that it is an acceptable summarizing sentence, I would prefer it being merged with the paragraph below.
Done. Against my better judgement (I think) but let me mull on it for a while. Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sink rate" is a rather jargon-ish term
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in situations requiring maximum weight in minimum space (for example in watch movements)" This fragment is confusing: you start the sentence discussing its use in ballast, and then say this stuff about minimum weight: but surely metals are not used as ballast is watches? I'd suggest simply breaking it up into separate sentences.
Fixed. I rearranged the wording so that ballast used are mentioned first. Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd hardly describe military artefacts as being a part of "everyday life." wondering if you can just break the military uses into another sentence, which would also avoid the rather odd use of "civilian".
Fixed. Trimmed the ref to everyday life.Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the "respectively" works in the sentence "as are (for example) nickel, copper, indium and cobalt in, respectively, white, red, blue, purple, green and black gold." might it not be easier simply to link "colored gold" and omit the "respectively?"
Done. I'll miss the purty colours. Sandbh (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chemical production (bismuth)," chemical production seems rather general: wondering if you could make is specific, or break it into its own sentence.
Done. Sandbh (talk)
  • I wonder if Catalytic_converter#Construction could be worked into this anywhere, possibly in the "palladium" fragment, possibly elsewhere. It was considered a notable example when I studied chemistry, and I'm sure it still is.
Done. Nice. Sandbh (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that the colored compounds and complexes that allow metals to be used as coloring agents are a property of partially filled d-orbitals, which would mean most transition metals. Is it still true for Uranium?
You're right. It's also the case for actinides such as uranium. See the table called Approximate colors of actinide ions in aqueous solution, at the end of the properties section in the actinide article. Sandbh (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think it might be worth explaining the chemical mechanism (electrons that get excited at the appropriate energy levels) here, because that is both interesting in and of itself, and also explains how they can be used to give color in so many different ways (in flame, in solution, etc).
Not done (kind of). There's an outstanding item raised by Johnbod along the same lines re why heavy metals are most suited for their uses. When I fix that one, I'll incorporate your good suggestion into it. Sandbh (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the entire first chunk of Electronics etc sourced to ref 181? (which is fine, just checking)
Fixed. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another paragraph beginning "They have been used..."
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if "permanent magnets" would be a useful link to have.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nuclear shadowing" is a redlink, so I'm wondering if a brief phrase of explanation would be appropriate.
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In nuclear science, accelerated nuclei" the use of "accelerated" is rather odd here, and almost superfluous, I think.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think that's all I've got. Good job with the article. As I mentioned when I started the review, I'm relatively new at FAC, so I'm not going to go "support" or "oppose": I've let my comments, nearly all of them have been acted upon, and the coords can judge for themselves what that contributes to consensus. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting topic and it generally reads well. A few comments just to get started. More later. One thing that strikes me as missing, given all the different criteria, is a table that shows which ones are indisputably heavy, which ones are heavy in metallurgy in its least strict definition (density > 3.5 gr per cm3), etc. That would visually show 2 things: which elements we're talking about and the variation in definition.

Thank you very much for your comments. The table at the start of the Definitions section shows metals and metalloids according to their density. The middle five colour categories cover those having a density of 3.5 gr per cm3 or more. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I meant was that the article doesn't tell me which elements are indisputably heavy, no matter which criterion used. Actually spelling out the names of the elements. Followed by a list of elements that are sometimes called heavy. Right now the reader has to do a lot of work to figure this out.
There are no metals that are indisputably regarded as heavy metals. With careful wording, this is perhaps the best that could be done:
(1) list mercury, thallium, lead, bismuth, radium, actinium, thorium, protactinium and uranium as being likely to meet most definitions;
(2) list the 70 other metals counted as heavy metals in this article, including polonium and astatine;
(3) list the dozen other metals also regarded as HM by some definitions.
Would that help? Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Including the statement that no element is considered HM unanimously.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • I like the new title Heavy metal (chemistry) much ore than the old ones
Sorry, the title is now HM (Science and technology) following the discussion in the Nergaal comments subsection, above. How does this look? Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better
  • density in the lead should be linked. Yes, there are many links already, and normally wouldn't need a link, but when placed next to atomic weight and number, it should I think. Likewise, metallurgy, periodic table, and all of the elements mentioned. If this results in a sea of blue, then de-link things like mining, lead-based paint and golf clubs. A user who lands here is more in need to get to a page of an element quickly.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption of the tungsten image is too long. Stick to the essentials
Done. I deleted the etymology bit. Hopefully only the essentials are left. Sandbh (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All metals known up to 1807 --> This is not a well known set, so I'd rephrase it. Something along the lines of "The metals that first were discovered were all heavy: iron, ... In 1807 the first light metal was discovered, ..., followed by ... Later discovered heavy metals include ... By the way, the year 1807 only appears in the lead.
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2002 it was described[8] --> any particular reason why the [8] isn't at the end of the sentence?
Fixed. Old habits etc. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quantitative criteria used to define heavy metals have included density, atomic weight and atomic number. --> feels repeating previous paragraph
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • are mainly the heavier transition and post-transition metals _-> do we end up with a circular definition here? Biochemstry's definition of heavy is class B. Class B are mainly the heavier transition and post transition metals.
I don't think so? Or are you saying that "heavier transition and post transition metals" tells someone no more than "Class B" does?
Yes, you've just changed one thing I've never heard of with another.
This sentence now reads, "…all the metals in periodic table columns 3 to 16 that are in row 4 or greater, in other words, the transition metals and post-transition metals." Does the reference to periodic table columns and rows make it clearer, given the periodic table at the start of the section? Oh, and I'm now worried about terms like lanthanides and actinides and, in the preceding paragraph, s- and f-block metals. Sandbh (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the term "heavy metal" --> inconsistency with "the name heavy metal"  : italics or quotes?
Done. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heavy metals essential for life (see next section) --> consider swapping the Toxic and Biological role sections, so we don't need this awkward forward reference.
Done. In response to multiple requests. Sandbh (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • selenium (antioxidant functioning and hormone production). --> Looks like a source is missing. I looked at [53] which is the first reference, but that doesn't have a page number.
Done. But see next dot point. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • bacteria for metabolic processes.[38][52][55] --> adding 3 references seems unnecessary. One should suffice
Provisionally done. I rearranged the paragraph up to this point, and trimmed a couple of references, to facilate paragraph bundling. This is provisional response because Emsley currently has no page numbers, as discussed in my response at the end of this thread. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purple permanganate ion MnO–4 is toxic. Ingesting .. body --> source missing
Done. Sandbh (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heavy metals can degrade air, ... paints; treated woods --> source(s) missing
Done. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be quite a few statements in the Formation, abundance and occurrence section without source. I don't have the sources that are mentioned, but missing for instance seem to be: via stellar nucleosynthesis, would consume rather than release energy., being the s-process and the r-process, faster than nuclei can decay, thereby increasing the abundance of ,
Done. These statements are largely derived from Cox's book on the elements, their origin, abundance and distribution, as cited. He discuses nucleosynthesis in stars at some length, pp. 73 to 89, especially. I don't normally cite each sentence in a paragraph, if they are all sourced from the same reference. I place the source at the end of the last applicable sentence. I did however add another cite from Cox re "would consume, rather than release energy", as I missed a few of the applicable pages in the other Cox citation. Sandbh (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-metals or nonmetals?
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • as lithophiles or chalcophiles. Lithophile (rock-loving) --> I'd explain it right away: as lithophiles (rock-loving) or chalcophiles (ore-loving). Lithophile ..
Done. Good. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference [86] has 3 sources, Sanders 2003; Preuss 2011; Wohlers & Wood 2015, but none have page numbers to indicate the exact place. One with precise reference would be better
Partly done. The first two references are university media releases on the web, hence readily accessible but having no page numbers, discussing different aspects of the subject matter. The last one is a journal article which I have now deleted. Sandbh (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • tensile strength --> wikilink
Not done. It's linked in the immediately following table, along with hardness, and it would look a bit odd to remove the links from the table. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I always link first use in lead, in body, and in table, since tables are likely to be consumed separately by scanning users. But we all have our own style.
I like your approach and will adopt it. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is relatively easy to distinguish .. colourless complexes). --> needs sources
Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In underwater diving, .. in handicap horse racing .. of competitors. --> needs sources
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the quote "The higher the projectile density, the more effectively it can penetrate heavy armor plate ... Os, Ir, Pt and Re ... are expensive ... U" --> making the elemnts links makes it easier for the reader who doesn't know these elements by abbreviation
Done. Good idea. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and armour piercing projectiles --> needs a source
Done. Sandbh (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • coinage and jewellery. --> source
Done. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • of either zinc carbonate; tin oxide; or --> the semicolons look odd here, why not commas?
Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have been used in batteries.. button cell batteries. --> needs a source
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • [155] (using lead, bismuth, thorium or uranium in the latter case). --> should the reference not come at the end?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 9 Google recorded 945 citations for the paper in question[37] as at 19 April 2016. --> A link to the Google Scholar results page would count as a source
Not done. I tried getting rid of the note and turning it into a non-date specific linked source to Google Scholar but the result looked awkward: one citation after "frequently cited"; another one after "proposal". As well, nothing is gained by a link to the Google Scolar search results page beyond what is already conveyed by the current note. Well, at least I hope I interpreted your comment right. Sandbh (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just looking at it from a point of being an easy to verify claim.
Right, I'll keep the note and add a link to the Google Scholar page. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not element 118, the heaviest in the noble gas group, is a metal remains to be seen. --> source?
Oh, the sentence to which this note is attached says, "Elements from atomic number 104 (rutherfordium) onwards are sometimes called superheavy metals" and cites Loveland (2014). Since nobody knows for sure where 118 will be on the metal--nonmetal spectrum, and I haven't been able to find any decent (i.e. relativistic) predictions addressing this question, I think the Loveland citation needs to have a qualifying note pointing out that E118 may or may not be a metal (and hence may or may not be a superheavy metal). As an editorial caveat there is no source. Sandbh (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see sources attached to a statement about the uncertainty being a metal or not. To be an FA it has to adhere to the highest standards, not much room for editorial caveats.
If I include a university web link showing 118 as a non-metal, and a Royal Society of Chemistry weblink showing it as a metal, thereby illustrating confusion as to the status of 118, would that work? While the Loveland-sourced statement is fine at face value, I feel a duty of care to raise an eyebrow wrt 118. Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 15 source?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 18 source?
Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 21 source?
Not done. This one is an cautionary editorial note concerning how the uses section was organized. As such it has no source. Sandbh (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do a spot check of references later, but i can see already quite a few that have no page or page range. For instance, Emsley 2011 is used many times, without page references but is a 700 page. Check all others for page numbers.
My standard practice is to give precise page numbers, unless the whole reference e.g. a journal article is relevant [Addendum: or if the reference has no page numbers e.g. it's on the web; or if it's very short]. Emsley is organised alphabetically by element and each entry is organised the same way so is easy to look up. I have used him as a major source and I didn't want to add a whole lot more unnecessary citation clutter. Sandbh (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think being easy to verify is more important than citation clutter, besides there are ways to reduce citation clutter. Same with the whole journal article making the point: it is likely to be in the abstract then, so why not give the abstract's page number? Take Duffus 2002. Referenced 5 times. But [b] is really specifically covered on page 798, not the whole article. These are just examples. For me to meet FA criteria the referencing overall needs to be better.
This is fine be me; aside from Emsley, I'd expect there wouldn't be too many sources without page numbers so I'll look again at these. Noting my approach to Emsley, would you be looking for page numbers for him, too? Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sandbh (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration time
Only three two of your items still to address (list of HM's; wikilinks in lead-body-tables; absent page nos). Sandbh (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've made some changes to the references, but leave it for you to decide and act upon this:
  • inconsistent ISBN format: some are ISBN 10, others 13. Choose 1. You can convert with this tool: http://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter (I didn't know this either but was asked to do so when I did my FAC nomination.)
Done. Sandbh (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will check some sources next. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of outstanding items[edit]

There are only a few things I still need to address:

Johnbod

  • how less common HM are extracted/processed and say something about the HM that are rare and very expensive
  • why HM are most suited for their uses
      • The article has been greatly improved while at FAC. Actually, I still find "The weight (and malleability) of naturally occurring heavy metals such as gold, copper, and iron may have been noticed in prehistory and led to the first attempts to craft metal trinkets, tools, and weapons." very irritating - poorly worded and misleading - can the source really support that? Better to just drop it, & move the link to "naturally occurring" elsewhere. The paragraph lengths could do with some adjusting. Some are much too long, and others rather short. You're using US English, no? If so "artefact" needs changing. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Johnbod, long time no hear.
The source says:

It seems unlikely that we will ever know where or when metals were first used deliberately; but it is possible to speculate about how early man first became aware of metals as a particular class of substances. In all probability it was a gradual process, incidental to his continuing use of other materials. To begin with, it may have been simply the observation that some stones or pebbles behaved differently from others, in that they seemed 'heavier', did not crack or chip when hammered, and in some cases could be beaten into any desired shape. <New paragraph> Such would have been examples of the so-called 'native' metals -- that is, metals not combined with other elements in mineral ores but existing in more or less pure state, lying about on the ground or exposed in mineral outcrops. Those most obvious to early man would have been gold, copper and iron; platinum and silver also occur as native metals, but much more rarely.

I've done some paragraph adjusting. There are still a few below 50 words and a couple marginally above 200 but I don't see a succession of very short ones, nor are there any very long ones (for me that's more than 300 words). I hope it's OK now.
No to US English; the article's written in Australian English. Sandbh (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Usually such passages include melting/glowing when fires were accidentally lit over nuggets. "Trinkets" is ridiculous language, wholly unjustified by the source, and you still imply that weight was significant in a way I don't think the source intends. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Johnbod. Yes, the source discusses smelting on the following page. On the page before the passage in question the source uses the word "trinkets" in reference to the earliest known human-made metal items. The chapter in which the source mentions these two points, and discusses heaviness (and malleability) as a possible impetus for the first use of metals, is called From stone to copper the contextual significance of which seems plain.
Here are more supporting extracts from the source, including the two paragraphs I quoted previously re heaviness:

The only older man-made articles ever found are four copper pins or awls from Cayonu…and a few small copper trinkets [underline added] from Iran, including a pierced pendant…

*****

Once the particular properties of metals and their ores began to be recognised they must have become important trade goods…and this raises the question of what it was that led man to begin using metals in the first place. Almost certainly, it was not the compulsion to make better tools or weapons. That imperative would only have produced more improved techniques of working flint and obsidian, in the tradition of millions of years of tool making.

Cyril Stanley Smith, Professor Emeritus at...MIT and a renowned authority on metallurgical history, has pointed out that 'necessity is not the mother of invention—only of improvement. A man desperately in search of a weapon or food is in no mood for discovery; he can only exploit what is already known to exist. Innovation and discovery require aesthetically motivated curiosity; they do not arise under pressure of need, although of course once new properties of matter become known they are available for any use.'

All the evidence we have of early metallurgy supports this opinion. Because of the unusual character and initial rarity of metals, they were first used for decoration rather than utility, for ornaments rather than knives. Their wider use had to await the emergence of receptive and economically advanced societies which were able to grasp and exploit the potential of metals. (p. 8)

*****

It seems unlikely that we will ever know where or when metals were first used deliberately; but it is possible to speculate about how early man first became aware of metals as a particular class of substances. In all probability it was a gradual process, incidental to his continuing use of other materials. To begin with, it may have been simply the observation that some stones or pebbles behaved differently from others, in that they seemed 'heavier', did not crack or chip when hammered, and in some cases could be beaten into any desired shape.

Such would have been examples of the so-called 'native' metals—that is, metals not combined with other elements in mineral ores but existing in more or less pure state, lying about on the ground or exposed in mineral outcrops. Those most obvious to early man would have been gold, copper and iron; platinum and silver also occur as native metals, but much more rarely. (p. 9)

*****

There were, to begin with, no obvious paths to follow from native metals to smelting. (p. 10)

Sandbh (talk)
I've edited the opening sentence of the Origins and use of the term section so as to place more emphasis on native metal malleability. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's an improvement, but trinkets is still a very silly word to use. It is defined as " 1. a small ornament, piece of jewelry, etc., usually of little value., 2. anything of trivial value.", whereas all the indications we have as to the status of very early metal objects is that they were rare and understandably highly valued. There is no reason not to use the accurate and non-pejorative "jewellery", and avoid your source's misguided informal vocabulary. It's pity you haven't used more and better sources here. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd question the need for more and better sources. The coverage and pedigree of the source appears to speak for itself.
The author notes that they drew on a world-wide collection of materials on the history of metals, physical evidence, and archaeological sites compiled by Willard C. Lacey, a practising mining geologist before becoming Professor of Geological and Mining Engineering at the University of Arizona, and later Professor of Geology at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland.
The manuscript for the source was read by a panel of academics and scientists including: Judy Birmingham, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology, University of Sydney; Professor Geoffrey Blainey, Dean of the Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne; Christopher Davey, Senior Lecturer in Mineral Engineering, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Professor Ted Ringwood, Director of the Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University; and Doctor Howard Worner, former Professor of Metallurgy, University of Melbourne.
On the use of the word "trinkets", other sources use similar language such as "trinket metallurgy", "trinket technology", and "copper age trinkets".
While "trinkets" may be an accurate descriptive word from a modern perspective I agree that it can have a misleading connotation, as you have explained. "Jewellery" also seems to be a less than suitable term to refer to the earliest decorative metal objects given its common association with gems. For these reasons I've deleted "trinkets" as I think "ornaments", which is already in the same sentence, says enough (and is appropriately descriptive and objective). Sandbh (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

edwinlondon

  • wikilinks in the lead-body-tables
  • pages numbers for citations lacking them (mainly Emsley)

--- Sandbh (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All outstanding items have been addressed. Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still not happy with the lead. The reader should be told there is no single element called heavy by all criteria.
Done. Mercury, lead and bismuth are in the spotlight.
  • The first periodic table doesn't work for me either. The reader expects to be able to see which elements are heavy, but can't. The caption should at least help.
Done. Yes, I hope its heat map successor hits the mark.
  • Why is there no periodic table for definition by atomic number and by chemical behaviour? This will help visually convey the whole point of messy definition.
Done. There are now.
  • Source check: I'm not sure where the data for the first table comes from (e.g., where I can see that Vanadium has density between 5 and 6.9). Can you enlighten me?
Done. Citations and refs added.
  • Otherwise all 7 spot checks I did checked out fine.
Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There is a little bit of work I need to do in the background, including checking that my new i's and t's are dotted and crossed. Sandbh (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sandbh (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Did you have any other concerns? Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. Much improved in last 2 months. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

I have a degree in chemistry and i wouldn't think of tackling such a large and difficult topic, brave effort. I think the earlier reviewers have made a good fist of improving it, just a couple of comments, more to show I've read it than anything else.

Thank you Jimfbleak.
circuit inks in circuit boards, first "circuit" looks redundant
Fixed.
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that references should end with a full stop (easy enough to search/replace if you accept that
All references now end with full stops. Sandbh (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

  • Several images added or changed since the last FAC so we'll need a new image review.
@Nikkimaria: would you be able assist please? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a harv error at FN61 that suggests the citation doesn't correctly point to a reference -- this script highlights such errors.
Yes, I noticed this bogus error some time ago. The citation is correctly pointed to a reference. I suspect the "error" arises because the ref name is called up in the main body of the article, but is named earlier in the article in a footnote. NFA required from what I can see. I'll ask Ucucha to have a look at their script. Sandbh (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also have several duplinks so pls check if they're really necessary -- this script highlights the duplicates.
Thank you Ian. This was discussed under edwininlondon's comments. This editor advised that they "always link first use in lead, in body, and in table, since tables are likely to be consumed separately by scanning users." I though this was reasonable and adopted that practice. I've been checking to see that the article is consistent with this policy. I'll check it again. Sandbh (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I found and removed two redundant duplinks. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the X-ray tube image slightly so the labels can be easily read
Done. Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Osmium_crystals.jpg: confused by the licensing terms here, as they seem to contradict each other - the first would not allow derivative works (and therefore would not allow the image to be used on Wikipedia), but the second and third tag would. This applies also to File:Chromium_crystals_and_1cm3_cube.jpg, File:Cadmium-crystal_bar.jpg, File:Lead_electrolytic_and_1cm3_cube.jpg
Hmm, despite the apparently contradictory licensing terms all four images were been pictures of the day which I presume means they were regarded as freely licensed? Sandbh (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Fertilizer.jpg: this appears to be a reproduction of a 2D label, which would mean the originating company (or their designer) and not the uploader would be the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relaced with an image of cerium(IV) oxide. Sandbh (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria: how do you see my comments against point 2 above re pics of the day, and will the cerium(IV) oxide image pass muster? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 2, it doesn't appear that the licensing issue was discussed in the featured picture candidacy of any of those images. The other image is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if an image has three licenses then another user could use that image under the conditions of any one of those licences, which would mean these images should be fine. I'll see if there's a forum somewhere that I could ask for a review of this question. Sandbh (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Have asked the question here (at the Media copyright questions page). Sandbh (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather liked File:Fertilizer.jpg. It says "Trace Elements" and all those element symbols are a nice touch. Any chance of contacting the manufacturer and getting permission? YBG (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll contact the manufacturer about this. Sandbh (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This could take a while however, so in the meantime I'll retain the cerium oxide image for FAC purposes. Sandbh (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • About File:Osmium crystals.jpg and the other pictures of the day, the same file can be licensed under as many licenses as the copyright holder wishes and only one of them (but at least one must) has to be free - see commons:Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. The additional non-free CC-BY-NC-ND tag simply means that people can reuse the image under that license as well (if they are reusing it in a non-free collage, for example), it doesn't make a difference for us. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jo-Jo. 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: G'day Ian. With the above advice from Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe all the items listed in your Coord notes have now been addressed. Sandbh (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N[edit]

The article looks much better.

Thanks Nergaal. Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just a bit puzzled by the heat diagram image. I think N 1 needs to be expanded to explicitly list the 10 criteria. My thought is to have a second column in the caption with 10 bullet points: density; atomic weight; atomic number; chemical behaviour; US Pharmacopeia; ?9?; biochemical classification. Also, maybe merge 0-1, split 8-9, and change the 2-3 from blue to something like a darkish gray. (Also, you think having * as green and ** as yellow in the table would help?)
Partly done. I've reworded the first paragraph of text under the heat map, and added a note spelling out, in condensed form, what the ten criteria are. I haven't merged 0-1, or split 8-9 as I don't see any advantage in doing so. I haven't changed 2-3 blue to darkish gray as I don't see the point; the blue-green-yellow-orange-red sequence looks fine to me. I think having * as green and ** as yellow would make them harder to read. Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thought process was that the difference between K and Na is pretty irrelevant to this article, but maybe 8/9 might be more interesting. As for the blue, I personally don't like it because it stands out and gives the impression that say Rb is pretty HM, when in fact it passes at most 3/10 of the criteria. Nergaal (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I merged 1 and 2–3 into 1–3; and I broke out 8–9 into 8, and 9. I tried replacing the blue with a darker grey, but with the new colour categories all the dark grey boxes shouted out the rest of the table. I think the blue—it's actually pale cyan—is OK now. Sandbh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the change, and it seems that there were changes other than the splitting/merging mentioned. I counted the colors (before and after) and they match the totals, but the totals indicate that something else was done, no double unintentionally.
before edit categories
counts 		8-9
18 		6-7
50 		4-5
16 		2-3
5 		1
3 		0
4 		nm
19
change +3 -6 +3 +1 -1 =
after edit counts
categories 		5
9 		16
8 		44
6-7 		19
4-5 		9
1-3 		3
0 		19
nm
Here's where I think the problems may lie:
Before After Elements
   6–7
   9
Cu, Cd, Sn
   6–7
   4–5
Ge, Se, Te
   8–9
   6–7
Hf, Ta, W, Re, Os
   0
   1–3
Mg
YBG (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you YBG. These changes were what I had in mind when the edit summary said, in part, "correct [fix] heat map". Either I had the colour wrong on the chart, or in my own papers. I've now checked the colour category allocations twice and will do so again tomorrow. Sandbh (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! YBG (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Checked again, definition by definition, element by element, made some final corrections and adjustments. Note the mixed shading among the lanthanides as they go below and above a density of 7 gm/cm3. See also the near-perfect symmetry of the numbers of elements in each of the HM colour categories. Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a summary of all the changes. I fixed one total (55→56)
old categories 8-9 6-7 4-5 2-3 1 0 nm
before edits counts 18 50 16 5 3 4 19
changes 1st edit
2nd edit
cumulative 		+3
-2
+1 		-6
+12
+6 		+3
-5
-2 		+1
-5
-4 		-1
=
-1 		=
=
=
after edits after 1st edit
after 2nd edit 		5
5 		16
14 		44
56 		19
14 		9
4 		3
3 		19
19
new categories 9 8 6-7 4-5 1-3 0 nm
YBG (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that looks good. Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I still don't know what you mean by " class B and borderline metals" and since this is redlinked it is a big problem. Do you mean Pearson's hard/soft classification?
Fixed. I added a note explaining the connection. Sandbh (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between the biochemical A/B separation and Pearson's HSAB theory. Nergaal (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're each derived from the work of Ahrland et al. (1958) but whereas Pearson treats Ti to Mn, Fe(III), Ga, As, and In as hard, Nieboer and Richardson say they're borderline; Bi is borderline v class B; Cd is soft v borderline. Nieboer and Richardson comment on Pearson:

Two different terminologies have arisen for this classification. We follow the original terminology of Ahrland et al. (1958) for reasons detailed elsewhere (Williams & Hale, 1966). In this convention, metal ions are separated into class A, class B and borderline. Pearson (1963, 1968a,b, 1969), while adhering to the general principles developed by Ahrland et al. (1958), refers to class A metal ions as 'hard acids' and class B metal ions as 'soft acids'. A number of recent chemistry texts (e.g. Huheey, 1978, pp. 276-88) include an account of these concepts, usually under the title 'hard and soft acids and bases'. However, such considerations are restricted to inorganic reaction systems and the implications for biological systems are not treated. Similar limitations apply to recent bioinorganic texts which provide information on these ideas (Angelici, 1975; Ochiai, 1977, pp. 56-7).

Nieboer E. & Richardson D. H. S. 1980, "The replacement of the nondescript term 'heavy metals' by a biologically and chemically significant classification of metal ions", Environmental Pollution Series B, Chemical and Physical, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–26 (5–6), doi:10.1016/0143-148X(80)90017-8.
Sandbh (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "An average 70 kg " sentence should be expanded to say that about 5g, most of the 1% is iron. I don't recall how much the others add up, but I almost suggest having a stacked bar diagram on the right would help since there aren't that many in Composition_of_the_human_body#Elemental_composition_list.
Done. I didn't take up your almost suggestion of a stacked bar diagram given the large number (52) of heavy metals in the human body, aside from the three now mentioned in the sentence in question (Fe, Zn, Pb). Sandbh (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe has bars like I was thinking (no need to show numbers though). And Mineral_(nutrient) lists like 10 of them. IMO only the essential/useful HM should be listed, while the remaining ~40 that-exist-without-a-function should be ignored. Speaking of which, why is there so much lead? Just unintended ingestion? Nergaal (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All the essential HM are listed in the table, either individually or in the note referring to the other 45 heavy metals. Pb has a note re its relatively high occurrence. Sandbh (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since lead is one of the most notable element with the "HM" label attributed to it, I think you could mention, lead paint and leaded gas. One very interesting factoid that I do actually think it can me mentioned is a study noticing that banning of leaded fuel was observed to lead to drop in violent crimes 20 years later - your call.
Done. Paragraph added to the Toxicity/environmental HM section. (Lead based paint is already mentioned in the lead; paint as a source of HM is already mentioned in the Exposure sources section). Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2016 [34].

Weird Tales[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Tales was the first magazine to focus on horror, fantasy, and science fiction; it's three years older than Amazing Stories, the first pure sf magazine. This is the longest article I've ever nominated at FAC, but I think the length is justified -- it's one of the most influential genre magazines ever published; and it has an inordinately complicated publishing history as well. I'd like to thank Bruce1ee and Josh Milburn, whose reviews at PR significantly improved the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (but I am watching the page for any issues I may have missed). I had my say at peer review, and found the article incredibly engaging, despite its somewhat niche subject matter. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Josh! Much appreciated, as was the PR. I keep finding little niggles myself and fixing them, so no doubt others will find more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the content – I haven't checked the sources, and many of them are offline. As I said in the peer review, it's an interesting article illustrating Weird Tales' turbulent history. It still is quite long, but I'm happy with it. —Bruce1eetalk 07:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! And thanks again for the PR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Actually, nothing prose-wise stands out that needs fixing. Looks comprehensive so support, an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will this stay open? I just found this nomination and maybe I can add my 2 cents shortly. Hekerui (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hekerui, it will probably be open for a bit longer at least since there's been no image review yet. Please do add any comments you have -- thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mike, my cold prevents me from doing this properly, I'm sorry. Hekerui (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I shall perform an image review later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, shame on me for the delay:
  • File:Weird Tales March 1942.jpg: Free image. Putting the cover of a magazine at the top of the article for that magazine seems pertinent to me. I see a copyright registration that apparently refers to this magazine as well as some entries referring to this magazine on the pages linked here. This is a very complex aspect of copyright; I sort of want a second opinion on the status of this image.
    The first link is to a listing of the original copyright; it was definitely copyrighted, but it wasn't renewed. The second link shows (as far as I can tell) individual items in the magazine having copyright renewed, but not the cover. Some of the magazines were renewed and some were not -- there's a list on the article talk page I made when I searched all the renewal books. I think that means this one is OK. You ask in several places below what was done to verify the copyright tags; in each case I relied on the 28-year copyright renewals, so I won't reply below to every separate question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Weird Tales May 1934.jpg: Free image on Commons. I am not sure why the image is being listed in that section, the only thing it has in common with the section is the time described. Seems like the copyright renewal, if it existed, is not in an online accessible place.
    Yes, the time matches -- I wanted to illustrate the look of the magazine at that time. Rather than respond individually below to your questions about particular significance of image choice in certain cases, let me just say that the free images that don't illustrate specific discussions were chosen to illustrate the time period. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Weird Tales March 1923.jpg: Free image on Commons. Seems like it is pertinent to show the first cover of the work when the story is explicitly discussed in the section.
  • File:Weird Tales September 1937.jpg: Free image on Commons. There is a section farther down which explicitly discusses the nudity that this author employed, so it seems pertinent.
  • File:Weird Tales December 1936.jpg: Free image on Commons. Is there some special significance to this image that it has been included?
  • File:Virgil Finlay Weird Tales October 1938 Horns of Elfland.png: Free image on Commons. The author of this image is specifically discussed in this section, as is the image, so it seems pertinent. What kind of research was done to validate this copyright tag?
  • File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg437 Homocidal Diary.png: Free image on Commons, derived from another file. It's a bit unclear why this cover is in the article. What was done to verify the copyright tag?
  • File:Weird Tales January 1938.jpg: Free image on Commons. There is discussion in the section about content involving nudity, so it seems pertinent there.
  • File:Weird Tales November 1941.jpg: Free image on Commons. Does this cover illustrate something specific about that era in the magazine's history?
  • File:Weird Tales May 1952.jpg: Free image on Commons. Does this cover illustrate something specific about that era in the magazine's history?
  • Gallery in the Legacy section: Free images on Commons. Mayhaps this gallery should be supplemented with some discussion on what it illustrates. How were the copyright tags there verified?
    The artists are all mentioned in the discussion of interior art, so I thought this would be a useful gallery. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WeirdTalesv30n4pg419 Shunned House.png: Free image on Commons derived from other file. Seems a bit decorative there. What was done to verify the copyright status?
    It's decorative there, but there was white space and I thought an interior illustration would be a nice way to fill it. I picked this particular illustration because Weinberg quotes a Lovecraft collector who regards the illustration as the finest magazine illustration for any of Lovecraft's stories, but I don't think the collector is a notable individual so I didn't mention that in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:US and Canadian Weird Tales November 1935 Brundage.jpg: Free image on Commons. It shows differences between US and Canadian editions, in a section about that topic so it seems pertinent. What was done to verify the copyright status?
In summa, (tracking down) copyright registration is a black spot for me so I can't definitively comment on the copyright status of these images. I wonder, did any of these issues have a copyright notice? Non-copyright wise these images need ALT text for accessibility reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the ALT text and note here when I've done it. Thanks very much for doing the image review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus: ALT text now added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus: pinging; not sure if you saw this first time around. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone will have to write up a page on Commons on how to verify renewals and the like, I still haven't worked out that yet. Otherwise the explanations on why you used the images seems good to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GermanJoe: would you mind taking a look? I know you've got some background in these renewals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, Jo-Jo Eumerus, as my response got rather lengthy and is mostly general advice about image renewals outside the scope of this specific FAC, I have posted it at Mike Christie's talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GermanJoe. Jo-Jo Eumerus, what GermanJoe outlines is the procedure I followed. I actually checked every year up to 1954, so I'm fairly sure all the images are fine. Is there anything else you need to complete this image review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only a check for copyright renewals on all the images, but that will have to wait as I have other projects today. Someone else can perform the renewal check, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check for copyright renewals - all OK (GermanJoe)[edit]

I added a short notice to these images to indicate the renewal check. Considering the lack of "Weird Tales" renewals for periodicals, I'll AGF on the other images with already noted renewal checks by experienced uploaders - it seems clear that renewals for the magazine itself were not done in the given period. GermanJoe (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2016 [35].

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a hiatus at FAC, I'm back with another article on a German warship, this time a battleship that served during World War I. The article passed a Milhist A-class review back in October 2014, and has waited for a shot at FAC since then. Thanks for all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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) 18:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:SMS_Kaiser_Karl_der_Grosse.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source does not say, and it would be unlikely to be able to track it down, but given that it's a photo from Arthur Renard, who sold his photos to the public in the age of navalism, it was available to the public from the time it was taken. See for instance, this advertisement posted by Renard in 1900. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • See also, for example, this similar photo - ONI routinely acquired photos of foreign ships in commission for intelligence and recognition purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll add comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse (His Majesty's Ship "Charles the Great")" and "Charlemagne (spelled Karl der Grosse in German)" Why do you give two different English versions of the namesake?
    • "Charles the Great" is the more direct translation, but I guess that's unnecessary.
  • "aground in the lower Elbe." Perhaps add "river" for clarity. You also link the river twice.
    • Good idea
  • "Charlemagne (spelled Karl der Grosse in German)" It isn't really a different "spelling" as such. Charles the Great is spelled Karl der Grosse, but Charlemagne is a different version of the name, you could say.
    • Charlemagne is just the French spelling, so it's arguably correct, but either way I think it's redundant, so I removed it.
  • "in the Jade." What does this mean?
  • It doesn't seem that the Danish town and area Skagen is referred to as "the Skagen" anywhere outside this article?
    • The word now refers to the town, but it used to refer to the peninsula and the surrounding waters, and it is used elsewhere - see for instance this book or this one. Wikipedia tends to favor current usage, but it's not wrong to
  • "By 1908, the new "all-big-gun" dreadnought battleships were entering service. As the ship was completely obsolete" None of this is stated in the article body.
    • Yeah, that bit got lost when I rewrote the article. Thanks for pointing that out.
  • You there, Parsecboy? FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah - it was Labor Day weekend here in the US, so I wasn't around to take care of things here. Should all be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks good to me then, happy Labor Day (if that's what you say)! FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ykraps[edit]

Feel free to ignore anything here. I have only commented on two FACs before and on one of those my remarks were not well received. Some of the prose issues I've highlighted are the same things I have trouble with so apologies if my alternative suggestions aren't any better.--Ykraps (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "11,785t" Is that tons (imperial) or tonnes (metric)?
    • "t" is the symbol for tonnes, but linked for clarity.
  • "Normal crew" sounds odd. What about usual complement?
  • Not sure about construction coming under service particularly as she wasn’t commissioned until 1902 so strictly speaking not in service. What about having the previous heading as design and construction?
    • Narrative-wise, it makes more sense to talk about it with the service history, since it's all part of the life of the ship. And I don't generally like splitting off single paragraphs into their own section.
      Okay, I guess that's a reasonable argument.
  • "She was ordered under the contract name "B" as a new ship of the fleet. The ship's keel was laid on 17 September 1898 at the Blohm & Voss in Hamburg under yard number 136.[1][4] She was the first capital ship to be built by the yard, and the second warship of any type..." Two sentences together starting "she" sounds awkward.
    • There's actually one between them that starts with "The ship's..."
      Okay, missed that.
  • I appreciate the ship went on a lot of manouvres but, "Autumn maneuvers, which began in the Baltic..", "The maneuvers concluded in the North Sea...", "The autumn maneuvers consisted of a blockade..." Can we substitute manouvres for "operations" or "excercises" anywhere?
    • There are already a few "exercises" and "operations" in that paragraph - there's only a limited number of words to be substituted, so some repetition is going to happen, one way or the other.
      Agreed. It's something I find a problem too. Just thought it was worth another look.
  • And, "Kaiser Karl der Grosse participated in an exercise in the Skagerrak from 11 to 21 January 1904. Squadron exercises followed from 8 to 17 March. A major fleet exercise took place in the North Sea in May", uses excercises three times in a row. What about, "Kaiser Karl der Grosse participated in an exercises in the Skagerrak from 11 to 21 January 1904, with her squadron from 8 to 17 March and with the fleet in the North Sea in May."? Or similar?
    • That sounds fine to me.
  • "The I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day. There, the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. The I Squadron remained in Vlissingen until 20 July, when they departed for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet. The squadron stopped in Molde, Norway, on 29 July, while the other units went to other ports". What about, "The I Squadron anchored in Vlissingen the following day where the ships were visited by Queen Wilhelmina. Departing on 20 July for a cruise in the northern North Sea with the rest of the fleet, the squadron stopped in Molde, Norway, nine days later while the other units went to other ports"?
    • Works for me.
  • "The fleet undertook a heavier training schedule in 1906 than in previous years. The ships were occupied with individual, division and squadron exercises throughout April. Starting on 13 May, major fleet exercises took place in the North Sea and lasted until 8 June with a cruise around the Skagen into the Baltic.[17] The fleet began its usual summer cruise to Norway in mid-July. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and the I Squadron anchored in Molde, where they were joined on 21 July by Wilhelm II aboard the steamer SS Hamburg. The fleet was present for the birthday of Norwegian King Haakon VII on 3 August. The German ships departed the following day for Helgoland, to join exercises being conducted there. The fleet was back in Kiel by 15 August, where preparations for the autumn maneuvers began". Half the sentences here begin, "The fleet..." which sounds a little repetitive. What about, "A heavier training schedule than in previous years was undertaken in 1906. The ships were occupied with individual, division and squadron exercises throughout April. Starting on 13 May, major fleet exercises took place in the North Sea and lasted until 8 June with a cruise around the Skagen into the Baltic[17] followed by the usual summer cruise to Norway in mid-July. Kaiser Karl der Grosse and the I Squadron anchored in Molde, where they were joined on 21 July by Wilhelm II aboard the steamer SS Hamburg. The fleet was present for the birthday of Norwegian King Haakon VII on 3 August then departed the following day for Helgoland, to join exercises being conducted there. The German ships were back in Kiel by 15 August, where preparations for the autumn maneuvers began".
    • This is similar to the issue with maneuver/exercise/operation above - one of the things I've been trying to avoid is "follow/ed/ing", which is already in that paragraph once (and several other times throughout the article), and you rewrote one of the "the fleet" bits to include a "followed". In any event, I've removed a couple of "the fleet"s - see if that works for you. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, just a suggestion. Your recent edits are an improvement.
  • "In 1903, the fleet, which was composed of only one squadron of battleships, was reorganized as the 'Active Battle Fleet'". I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Are you saying there was only a single squadron of battleships within the fleet, or are you saying the squadron of battleships was the fleet?
    • In a word, yes. The fleet also included cruisers, torpedo boats, and such, but in terms of what counted, the battleships were the fleet. See if what I added helps with clarity. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's much clearer, thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Ykraps (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from auntieruth[edit]

  • In typical high-handed fashion, I've made three minor grammatical corrections (commas and changed an adjective to its different form). If you are unhappy, easy to revert.
    • All seem fine to me, thanks Ruth.
  • I could not find the (linked) reference to Kiel, only the link to Kiel Regatta. There are several references to the city, and I think it should have a link.
    • A good idea.
  • Very fine article and I was pleased to read it. I'm wondering now if there should be a push to make that arms race thingie that Kaiser Bill and the English went through into a Featured article....
    • Yeah, we probably should at some point. I wonder if Sturmvogel would be interested in working on it with me, having written a number of articles on the British ships. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll do an edit on it if you want. For the big picture..... auntieruth (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support auntieruth (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

  • There's more detail in the body of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • with two exceptions, all sources are within the last 25 years of publication. Th 1913 source was sited once. The other, the Treaty of Versailles, simply stated the fate of the vessel. The principals sources are standard resources for these ships. auntieruth (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks Ruth. Just on formatting, Nate, I'd usually expect the citations to match the references, i.e. German Naval Manoeuvres and European War Notes in quotes rather than italics. Also I don't think we need OCLCs when we have ISBNs. These are minor though so I won't hold up promotion over them... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2016 [36].

Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the reconnaissance unit of the 2nd New Zealand Division. Kges1901 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this at PR. It seems very comprehensive and the prose is clean and professional. I haven't looked at sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, nice work. Not sure if I am eligible to support this one, given I've done almost 50 edits on this article, although I think they were largely minor copy editing (or similar type edits). Regardless, I will recuse myself from supporting. Nevertheless, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Div Cav was relieved on 6 May by a battalion of the 363rd Infantry Regiment of the US 91st Division": does the source say which battalion?
    • No. The 363rd has a regimental history which might contain that information, but it isn't available online. Kges1901 (talk) 11:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the References, the link for Zaloga's Staghound Armored Car 1942–62 work appears to be dead: [37]
  • inconsistent presentation "Auckland, New Zealand" v. "Auckland, NZ". Same same "Matamata, New Zealand"
  • if possible, I suggest left aligning a few more of the images.

Comment: suggest scaling up the size of the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: There are sufficient citations are to reliable sources and they are formatted correctly. Only one minor change is needed: the Latimer 2002 book was published in Cambridge, MA, not MS. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article. I could find nothing that requires improvement, but one minor point:

  • "Major Arthur Nicoll received a promotion to lieutenant colonel..." I think "Major Arthur Nicoll was promoted to lieutenant colonel" reads better, in that it focuses the action on the verb "to promote" rather than "to receive". Whether you decide to change it or not, I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 [38].

Pallas's leaf warbler[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been nearly two years since I nominated here, but I'm back with the charismatic "seven-striped sprite". This is a Siberian bird species, common in its homeland, but a treat in Europe. I hope the rules haven't changed too much, and that my submission doesn't show too many signs of rust Jimfbleak (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Support -- A facinating article, Jim, and one I've no problems in supporting:

  • "The English name of Pallas's leaf warbler commemorates the German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas, who discovered it on the Ingoda River in Siberia in May 1772, naming it as Motacilla proregulus in 1811". -- Why did it take nearly 40 years to name this species? I'm also not keen on the +ing. Would it be impertinent of me to suggest splitting the last part of this sentence with a semi-colon and saying: "named it Motacilla proregulus in 1811"? Also, after "Pallas", but before "who", is there really any need for the comma?
  • "In the case of the former subspecies of Pallas's leaf warbler, even though they differ only slightly in plumage, the southern forms are very distinctive vocally, with songs and calls differing markedly from those of the nominate race, and DNA analysis has confirmed these forms to be sufficiently distinct that they are now treated as separate species, namely." -- This is a little too long for comfortable reading. It split this off when you speak of the DNA.
  • "In Asia, it can be distinguished..." -- If this were a biography about a person, the noun would be preferred at the start of a new paragraph rather than a pronoun. Why is this article any different?
  • "It has therefore been proposed that once the warblers reach northwest Europe, they then reorientate to a south easterly direction." -- who "proposed" this?
  • "Pallas's leaf warbler is not shy, but its unobtrusive arboreal lifestyle makes it difficult to observe. particularly in thick foliage." -- Check punctuation here.
  • "It is widespread, common and locally abundant in Russia and NE China." -- The "Pallas's leaf warbler" would be better for a new paragraph.

All fixes at your discretion. CassiantoTalk 17:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cassianto, many thanks. I've made these changes. It took Pallas decades to finally publish Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica which has the formal description, and I've tweaked the text a little to reflect this. Otherwise I've followed your comments. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cassianto, many thanks for your support. This has always been one of my favourite birds, and Andy Stoddart's book convinced me there was enough material for an FAC Jimfbleak (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Great to see you back at FAC!

  • "the German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas, who discovered it" Presumably it was known to peoples native to the area before he "discovered" it. Perhaps this could be rephrased?
  • That's actually arguable, given the similarity of these species, even to professional scientists. The UK's members of this genus were only finally resolved in 1840, and willow tit was even later. Nevertheless, changed to "found"Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you attached to your dashes? They look non-standard. Are they permitted by WP:DASH? Your style seems to alternate; compare "0.5–10 metres" with "12 – 13 days" (though I allow that I may just be confused here).
  • "trill" is undefined jargon. (As, for that matter, are "song", "call" and "rattle".)
  • Now linked. I think the meanings of the other three are self-evident enough Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the one-line paragraph at the end of the description section could be merged with the previous? You could more explicitly join them with "by contrast" or "in contrast" or similar.
  • Is "shy" the right word? "particularly cautious" or "overcautious" may be better?
  • The two vertical pictures in a row perhaps aren't ideal; they look a tad cluttered.
See below Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any description of the eggs themselves? (I see now that it's mentioned with the cuckoo; maybe it could be moved? And perhaps the cuckoo should be mentioned with predators/parasites; any information available?)
  • Moved description. I couldn't find anything on predators (although there are obvious candidates like the Eurasian, Chinese and Japanese sparrowhawks) or parasites. There may be something tucked away in an obscure Russian or Chinese publication, but I have doubts whether this small Siberian waif has actually been studied in that detail. I was pleased to find the cuckoo to be honest. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very readable. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for the review and kind words, all done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Cautious) Support. The article seems very strong, but I will leave as an open question whether there are any sources/key facts missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing significant in English missing, and a Google Translate-assisted church found nothing obvious in Russian or Chinese. If there is something in those languages, it doesn't appear to be referenced in English sources. I found sources in French, German, Swedish and Latin, most of which I didn't need to use, but nothing in the Asian languages Jimfbleak (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • I thought we only needed the status on our Florida servers, added template as suggested now Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant home country, not host country. We need the image to be PD in its country of origin and in Florida for Commons; on enwp, it needs to be PD only in Florida. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks fine, but I repeat my comment about the two vertical images giving the article a slightly cluttered feel. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see the problem, not sure what to do about it, though. The other unused Commons images of the warbler adds nothing to those already there, and I like the Gould image, which is clearly very relevant. Should I dump the habitat image? Thanks for image review Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Glad to see you back. The article looks good and there isn't much to quibble with.

  • Thanks for that, not the first time I've confused relatives, amended in text. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for interest - I'm not suggesting you include the info in the article but John Latham had already described the species in his A General Synopsis of Birds published in 1783 but he didn't provide a Latin name and a formal taxonomic description. Latham is cited by Pallas. Latham's brief description is here (n. 61): Above greenish: beneath pale-coloured: on the crown of the head a pale streak: over the eye a stripe of yellow. Inhabits Russia. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand this. The entry is marked Yellow-browed W and appears to be describing that species rather than Pallas's. There is no mention of a yellow rump, the most striking feature of Pallas's and an obvious distinction from yellow-browed. Also, although it's more ambiguous, "on the crown of the head a pale streak" sounds a better description of a feature often found in yellow-browed than the more obvious yellow of Pallas's (HBW actually uses "pale" to describe the stripe of yellow-browed, whereas Pallas's is "warm buffy yellow anteriorly, paler yellowish or whitish at rear"). I may be missing something, but Latham appears to be describing what he says he is, rather than Pallas's warbler. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, thanks for kind words and for reviewing this article. I'd be grateful for any further clarification of your second point Jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only reporting the content of the two primary sources. I agree that Latham's description suggests the yellow-browed warbler - but his use of the name is probably just coincidence as the species now known as the yellow-browed warbler presumably wasn't generally recognised until described by Blyth in 1842. (in his report Blyth doesn't specify an English name). Latham is notoriously unreliable (see the wiki article) but if he were working from a drawing, then the yellow rump may not have been apparent. I notice that neither of the two photos in the article shows the yellow rump. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31 Snow & Perrins 1998 - why is there p. 1324 and p1337–1339?

I've add some urls in the references. The links should be stable - they are to the Biodiversity Heritage Library and to British Birds.

Support - an excellent article. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and help, particularly finding links I missed. I've fixed the errant pagination in Snow & Perrins, some of which appears to have transfered from previous use in Common Chiffchaff. Thanks for the explanation for Latham, I'm inclined to not include it, given the confusion it adds, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now:

It is similar to several other Asian warblers, including some that were formerly considered to be its subspecies, but its distinctive vocalisations aid identification. - should there be a "for" after the "but" in the last clause?

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, thanks for review. but for its distinctive vocalisations aid identification. seems ungrammatical unless there is a "which" too, as but for its distinctive vocalisations which aid identification.. I've just changed "but" to "although" for now, but if you prefer the but for... which... version, please change it, it's no big deal, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I scanned the sentence incorrectly and didn't see the verb. Still, I think "although" is better than "but", hence no prose-clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and support, Jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Jim, long time no contact. A few points:

  • "It is strongly migratory, wintering mainly in southern China and adjacent areas of southeast Asia, although increasing numbers are found in Europe in autumn." ... Is it ambiguous? That is, do you mean that numbers increase every autumn in Europe (as a normal part of migratory oscillations), or that increasingly we're finding them in Europe in autumn, like, per climate change?
  • Perhaps add "of" to make it flow grammatically (without "of" might be ok in a table header or section heading ("short texts"), but it's awkward in full prose): "It therefore is evaluated as "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." -> "It is therefore evaluated as of "least concern" by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)." I swapped the order of two words, too.
  • Comma after "Passal"? "and" before "named"? The second looks like a cut-and-paste error.
  • "comprises" might be to your liking instead of "contains".
  • "formerly separated as the genus Abrornis."—looks like a post-qualifier for the species, not the last item in that in-line list. Perhaps "; the species was formerly ..."? Except now I'm getting confused about species and genus and subspecies. Why not place that last phrase in the next paragraph: wouldn't that be more logical thematically?
  • "were accepted"—me not understand.
  • "previously" could be removed.
  • "had not always been accepted" -> "were not always accepted" ... I think ... perhaps you might check whether my hunch is wrong.
  • Long sentence with "with + -ing" connecter. "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler overlap in southern Gansu, but the species are separated ecologically, with the Gansu leaf warbler found in taller forest habitats and the Chinese leaf warbler using lower, often scrubby habitats." – Why not: "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler overlap in southern Gansu, but the species are separated ecologically: the Gansu leaf warbler is found in taller forest habitats, and the Chinese leaf warbler uses lower, often scrubby habitats."?
  • Trills redlink. Really?

I've only read the first part. Nice work. Tony (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • TONY, thanks for your comments. I made these edits in response. I hope they address the issues. I didn't think the first point was ambiguous, but I've tweaked it to try to clarify. The increase in numbers is not disputed, but as you can see in the "Other movements" section, the reasons are still a matter of debate Jimfbleak (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon[edit]

With the disclaimer that I know nothing about biology, I liked this a lot. There's very little to quibble with.

  • "from Siberia east to northern Mongolia and northeastern China" puzzled me. Siberia spans such a wide area. Maybe southern Siberia? Or from the Altai mountains in Siberia?
  • With such an odd name, I think an explanation should be included in the lead
  • "differing markedly" -> differ?
  • "syn." -> does this have to be abbreviated?
  • "It breeds at up to 1,500–1,700 metres (4,900–5,600 ft) in southern Russia. " -> odd that it preceeds the broader statement "Pallas's leaf warbler breeds in Siberia from the Altai mountains east to the Sea of Okhotsk, northern Mongolia, northeastern China and possibly North Korea"
  • the paragraphs were for habitat (including altitudinal range and distribution respectively. The altitude data has a location because that is where the relevant study was conducted, tweaked to clarify Jimfbleak (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tadzhikistan is an unusual spelling. Why not the standard Tajikistan?
  • "Tunisia, Morocco, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, and Alaska" -> It would seem useful to make all these places a link and not just Alaska
  • Convention at FAC is to not link sovereign countries or continents Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe a bit more about the brood parasite: how frequent? where? impact?
  • "NE China" -> inconsistent with rest of article where northeastern is used
  • there are a few ISBN 10s, I think 13 is preferred
  • I started doing this, but it was reverted by Nihiltres, another admin as part of a technical clean-up, see article history, so I guess it stays as is. Never been a problem mixing 10/13 previously anyway Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimfbleak and Edwininlondon: I reverted that edit because it broke an ISBN; there's no problem with converting to 13-digit ones as far as I know, but I avoid doing it proactively in case there are listings for the book using only the 10-digit ISBN (conversion is nontrivial thanks to the check digit). Newer books (starting 2007, IIRC?) should always use 13-digit ISBNs, since that's now standard. Either way, I would definitely recommend that ISBNs be hyphenated for improved readability (also nontrivial because the hyphens are placed according to the ISBN range data), and on that note I'll toot my own horn and mention the ISBN tool I wrote that can validate, convert, and hyphenate ISBNs, or offer suggestions for fixing invalid ones. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the Phylloscopi or Willow-Warbiers" --> "On the Phylloscopi or Willow-Warblers"
eek! done Jimfbleak (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • extra space before comma in "Warbler , Cuculus"
  • Not keen on Further reading. Is there anything in this book that is useful to mention in the article so you can kill this section?
  • It's the only monograph on this species that I know of. I used it to access sources, but not directly since it's self-published. Let me think about this Jimfbleak (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to keep the EL, especially as previous reviewers haven't commented. However, if you disagree, I won't lose sleep if you remove it

Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Edwininlondon, thanks for review, I'll fix the remaining points as and when, and let you know hen I'm done Jimfbleak (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon I've replied to your comments above. Please note that if you have any further points, Ill be away for a couple of days looking for migrants on the east coast, so I may not reply immediately (bit early for Pallas's, but you never know).

Thanks again for review, Jimfbleak (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I was on vacation when this was nominated, and when I was back it already had enough supports for a pass, but I have a few comments anyway, since we haven't had a new living bird nominated since 2014! FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The breeding ranges of Gansu leaf warbler and Chinese leaf warbler" Why no "the"?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps give a date for the old illustration in the caption?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a strong supercilium" Explain iI mentioned this because it's possible that the genus may be resurrected, but not by any reputable authority yetn parenthesis?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "once separated as the genus Abrornis" What is this now? It doesn't redirect anywhere...
retained in genus, I've added that. I mentioned this because it's possible that the genus may be resurrected, but not yet accepted by any reputable authority yetJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No subspecies left of this species? This sentence seems to imply there are: "apart from the nominate form that breeds in northern Asia, two to four other accepted subspecies bred much further south" If those are just the ones that were split off, the info seems redundant there.
Tweaked the historical data a bit to hopefully clarify, added further on that it's now monotypic Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pallas's leaf warbler appears to have diverged from its closest relatives" Which relatives, those that were split?
expanded Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and DNA analysis has confirmed these forms to be sufficiently distinct that they are now treated as separate species" When did this split/DNA analysis occur?
Done Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first known European record was from Dalmatia" When? You state dates for other sightings below.
1829, added Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "German ornithologist Heinrich Gätke, working on the then-British island of Heligoland" When?
1837, done Jimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thereafter, this species became increasing common" Increasingly?
done Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eduardo de Juana has therefore been proposed that" He has been proposed?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they may join mixed-species foraging flocks" Including what other species?
As you might expect, it's usually tits and other warblers, but I can't find an RS source I can access to support this Jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've not entirely given up on this though, will continue looking Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jimfbleak (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who first formally described." It?
DoneJimfbleak (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FunkMonk, I hope you enjoyed your vacation. Many thanks for review. My edits are summarised here, I'll expand on the mixed species flock if an when I find a suitable source, thanks again Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2016 [39].

Gomphus clavatus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been buffed by both of us on and off over the years (but mainly Sasata. Having scoured the literature I am convinced it is as comprehensive as it could possibly be. And reads clearly enough to mine own eyes...so have at it folks. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • "Research combining the use of phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences and more traditional morphology-based characters" Any dates and key studies to mention? Cladograms?
The main molecular work was done by Giachini in the early 2000s - will see what/how I can add. I added when, but paused at researcher names as am not clear how many people involved (mainly Giachini obviously) - you want me to add "by (Admir) Giachini and colleagues"? The published cladogram in 2011 onyl has two species.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as January 1, 1821" Had been set when?
this suggests it's little complicated..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the "dilemma of 1950-1981"! I see... FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brown hyphae" Explain?
It's bluelinked - would adding "(microscopic filaments)" help. Essentially the building block of fungal structure.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes it clearer for me at least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • felt-like tomentum", "fine hairs (tomentum)" You only explain the word on second mention, but link it at first mention Both should be first.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Basidiospores are" Explain?
It just means spores of a basidiomycete fungus - so have just written "spores" as we'd not call them basidiospores unles distinguishing them as a group Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clamp connections are present." Which is what?
Extra structures that link between two cells in hyphal filaments. I am not sure how I can describe them succinctly, which is why I left a bluelink only Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pseudocraterellus pseudoclavatus (formerly classified in Gomphus) is a lookalike species that grow under conifers" Grows?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eutrophication is another potential threat" Explain?
increased nitrates in the soil - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is highly regarded by the Zapotec people of Ixtlán de Juárez in Oaxaca" Mention country instead of/in addition to Oaxaca, which has no link?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "family Gomphaceae" Only stated in intro.
I removed it - can be best covered in genus article - not controversial Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and extinct in Great Britain" The article body only says England. Yet these are not necessarily the same?
Source covers "Britain and Ireland" - have changed to "British Isles" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • "extinct in Great Britain" Great Britain is an island, not a territory; it would be extinct on GB.
Source covers "Britain and Ireland" - have changed to "British Isles"....I can't imagine saying on the British Isles...but in the British Isles...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally say "on the British Isles", but YMMV. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "33 species proposed for international conservation under the Bern Convention" Species? Or species of fungi? (Or perhaps species of plants/fungi?)
fungi it is..and tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 'father of mycology'," If you're quoting your source, this should probably be double-quotes; if not, it should probably be removed.
unnecessary and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "classifying Gomphus as a tribe within the genus Cantharellus in" Is tribe not between genus and family? That's what our article on the rank says? You later say "Fries' tribi (subgenera)"; I assume this is what is meant?
yes - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Sherpa language of Nepal the fungus is known as Eeshyamo ("mother-in-law"), as its imposing fruit body is reminiscent of a mother-in-law, who has a dominant role in the Sherpa family.[29]" Do you think this is significant? It probably has other names in other languages... That said, it is an interesting fact.
Many edible mushrooms seem to be ignored in some communities and highly regarded in others. Hence it might not have names in many. It strikes me as a particularly rich bit of folklore, which was why I included it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "later in age" grammatically sound? It sounds like you're merging two separate ways of saying basically the same thing.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The North American species G. bonarii features a dull orange cap with erect scales" You earlier said that G. clavatus is the only N. American species in the genus?
G. bonarii is now T. floccosus, so removed setence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "Habitat, distribution, and conservation" is a bit tricky.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "European countries that have reported the fungus" European countries in which the fungus has been reported, surely.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of 33 species proposed for international conservation under the Bern Convention" As above
I don't follow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- I was meaning that you should specify that this is one 33 species of fungus. I wonder if we have a list anywhere? That may make for a nice fungal FL... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species formerly occurred in England" You said Great Britain above.
tweaked/see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has an earthy flavor and meaty texture that complements red meat dishes." I'm not keen on this in Wikipedia's neutral voice.
I tried to neutralise it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Zapotec people" Link?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look too controversial! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, providing nothing else comes up. There are still a couple of issues outstanding for me, but nothing that prevents me supporting. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and well-chosen. However, a fix does need to be made: Two are user-made and one is from Mushroom Observer and the license checks out (I lost my admin status on Commons due to their ridiculous "inactivity" rules, which means I'm unable to review the license formally- one of the tasks I did as an administrator, but not one which indicates that I'm using my administrator status, apparently) so these are fine. File:Schweinsohr-1.jpg is clearly PD, but a further licensing template is needed to confirm the author's date of death (or why the book is PD otherwise). Josh Milburn (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bit of trouble as I can't find the artist's date of death, which appears to be necessary for this template... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My searches have also thrown up nothing. How frustrating; finding any details would probably be very tricky. I would not be personally too worried about you simply tagging it with {{PD-old-70}}. If you want to be extra sure, you could upload it locally and tag it with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. It's definitely PD in the US, which is enough for enwp, but not, alone, enough for Commons. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
have left it with {{PD-old-70}}. Not a fan of separate en wiki uploads.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and minor comments The standard is what we have come to expect from the mushroom men, just a couple of very minor points
  • many alternate scientific names— I know this is acceptable in NAm, but "alternative" would grate less to us poor Brits.
ok added the extra letters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe my stupidity, but I'm unclear if a single fruit body is a pig's ear or a pig's ear
ummm, the two choices you offered were identical.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Cwmhiraeth - Very nice; a (very) few thoughts:
  • "The upper surface or cap is orangish-brown to lilac, while its lower spore-bearing surface ..." - The first half of this sentence uses the definite article but the second part refers to "its".
twaeked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specific epithet—derived from the Latin word clava (club) and meaning "club-shaped"—refers to the shape of young fruit bodies." - This sentence sits rather out of place in its paragraph, - the etymology in the midst of the taxonomy.
It's after where the word clavatus was coined. Can you think of a better place? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gomphus clavatus (Pers.: Fr.) Gray. A 1987 revision" - Its rather awkward having the end of one sentence and the beginning of another in this series of letters, numbers and punctuation marks.
Sigh, I agree in part, yet rearranging the sentences around this makes them sound awkward too.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with your responses to my comments and now Support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Very nice too! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. All sources are of encyclopedic quality, I think. MushroomExpert.com seems self-published but the list of contributors is full of actual experts, so I think it works. All material appear adequately cited. In formatting, the only thing I'd say is that sometimes you cite multiple pages as, e.g., 170–73, and sometimes as 170–173. Either is fine, but it should be consistent. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strange - I make all page ranges two digits only. I can't see one of all digits...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I look again, neither can I. Could've sworn there was some discrepancy. All right, then, it's all correct then. Sorry for the confusion! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2016 [40].

European hare[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk); Chiswick Chap; Cwmhiraeth 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the European hare, a well-known and widespread mammal native to western Eurasia. It is the quintessential Lepus species and is known for its active breeding behavior; the source of the term "mad as a March hare". This article was at GA for a while and we recently expanded on it and copyedited it. We now feel its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

The following references contain dead links: 23 to Acta Veterinaria Brno, 36 to Ecology, 54 to Lincolnshire Echo, 56 to The History of English Cookery, 58 and 59 to The British Food Trust. -Aa77zz (talk) 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap:, I'll need you for the ones on cooked hare. And Aa77zz, 36 works for me. LittleJerry (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done, but they were 55, 57, and 58. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed 36. These still don't work for me - I'm in London. Obviously the numbers will change if references are added or deleted:
  • 58 "Jugged". The Great British Kitchen. The British Food Trust. - gives a "This Account has been suspended" message
  • 59 "Recipes: Game: Jugged Hare". The Great British Kitchen. The British Food Trust. - gives a "This Account has been suspended" message
Also, as web sources, these would require access-dates. -Aa77zz (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed both, used Davidson 2014 instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 11 Palacios et al 2004. This source is obscure and thus unsuitable here. The genetic structure of the population in Cantabria seems rather specialised and I suggest deleting the sentence altogether. The genetic distinctiveness of different populations of Lepus europaeus is mentioned in:

  • Estonba, A.; Solís, A.; Iriondo, M.; Sanz-Martín, M.J.; Pérez-Suárez, G.; Markov, F.; Palacios, F. (2006). "The genetic distinctiveness of the three Iberian hare species: Lepus europaeus, L. granatensis, and L. castroviejoi". Mammalian Biology. 71 (1): 52–59. doi:10.1016/j.mambio.2005.08.010. Available from: Researchgate

There is also a specialised 2014 article: Sanz-Martin et al Genetic Structure of Brown and Iberian Hare Populations in Northern Iberia: Implications for Conservation of Genetic Diversity doi:10.1002/jwmg.7 -Aa77zz (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. The last paper you brought up is about translocations which are mentioned elsewhere in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • The two references at the end of the first paragraph of the Taxonomy section only supported the last sentence. I've added two additional references but references are needed to support: Lepus is Latin for hare and the features distinguishing the genus Lepus from other leporids. -Aa77zz (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. The cite got mixed up. The statement about Lepus is in parentheses and is commonly known and not disputed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses above. More comments:

  • A birth weight of 100g seems low. Kurta (1995) p104 gives 130g while Chapman and Flux (1990) give an average of 123g (range 100g-165g).
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that young leverets disperse during the day and come together in the evening to suckle. See: Broekhuizen, S.; Maaskamp, F. (1980). "Behaviour of does and leverets of the European hare (Lepus europaeus) while nursing". Journal of Zoology (London). 191 (4): 487–501. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb01480.x.
Done. @Cwmhiraeth: can you do the others? LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that predation by felids is significant. The cited source - the Animal Diversity site (currently ref 21) lists wild cats (Felis silvestris). These aren't common and probably don't share the same habitat. On the other hand a young leveret would make a fine meal for a stoat.
I'm sure you're right, but I couldn't find anything specific to the European hare. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The anonymous source Ref 16 (Natural History Collections University of Edinburgh) is a poor source for the teeth. Ideally sources used in this article should contain inline references to the primary literature. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Reference 24 Ferracioli, P. et al. (2009) is too specialized and also unsuitable. It is an article in Portuguese from the proceedings of a conference. It is currently online but the printed version would be tricky to find. From the title the article is about hares in the Brazilian town of Londrina. For the distribution of European hares in South America there is: Bonino, N.; Cossíos, D.; Menegheti, J. (2010). "Dispersal of the European hare, Lepus europaeus in South America". Folia Zoological. 59 (1): 9–15. A scan is available from Reseachgate and I can access it here -Aa77zz (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I'm sorry for the delay in completing my review.

  • The figures for the length and weight are taken from Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to the World's Wildlife. I can see the brief article here. This isn't an ideal source for this data.
I have adjusted the length and weight, using a different source which has a narrower range. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above source gives the weight range as 2.5-7kg. The upper limit seems too large. A 2014 study of 528 hares shot in Poland reported weights in the range 3.42 to 4.32 kg. A 2009 study of 648 trapped hares reported weights in the range of 2.1 to 5.0kg. A Swedish study published in 1980 indicates a weight range of 3 to 5.1kg (see Figs 2 and 3). From these articles a range of 2.5 to 5kg would seem likely - but you need a suitable secondary source. (the IUCN article cites Macdonald and Barrett 1993 - Collins Field Guide: Mammals of Britain and Europe - but there is no online access and I'm far from a suitable library) Aa77zz (talk) 10:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you for the rapid responses to my queries. Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Finally a living animal! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "precocial young" Explain in parenthesis?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "up to 30 subspecies of European hare have been classified" Have been named/described? Classified seems a bit vague.
Described it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any cladograms to show?
This paper contains a few but L. europaeus was not sampled. LittleJerry (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like other members of the family Leporidae (hares and rabbits)" Move that info up to when Leporidae is mentioned first in taxonomy.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a diastema" Explain gap/space.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are also negatively affected by large open fields with few hedges, ditches and permanent cover areas, because these habitats supply the varied diet they require." I'm not sure I understad this sentence. Or maybe I just read it wrong, I guess it is the lack of "hedges, ditches and permanent cover areas" that is the problem. But I was confused as to whether the last "these" referred to "open fields" or "few hedges etc.", so maybe it cold be clearer?
Rearranged sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "greater mortality of leverets." Never read that last term before, perhaps explain what it means? I see you do it later on, so should just be moved up.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During daytime, a hare hides in a depression" In the ground?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They sometimes eat their own green, faecal pellets to recover proteins and vitamins" Add that this is because it is not fully digested?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both polygynous" Explain.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fox and inbreeding are overlinked.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Young hares, known as leverets" Already explained by this point (food section).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is related to and looks very similar to the European rabbit" Only stated in the intro.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is in the same family but in a different genus." Seems like too much detail for the intro, and isn't even stated this specifically in the article body.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The European hare is larger than the European rabbit, and has longer ears and more powerful hind limbs." Why so much comparison with the European rabbit in the intro compared to the article body? This specie sis described without having to be compared to the rabbit under description, should be so in the intro.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Jim Great stuff, even my favourite quibble (are there any parasites?) has been foreseen. Just to show I've read it, note that the refs at the very end of "Food and hunting" are not in numerical order Jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim, I was thinking of you while I was looking for parasites! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Did I miss image and source reviews above? If not, pls list at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. All sources look reliable and of high quality. Formatting is mostly good. The only thing I'd note is that sometimes you have pages as, for example, 102–114, and sometimes as 102–14. Either is fine, but it should be consistant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I made the page range formatting consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images need ALT text for accessibility reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt texts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, there was discussion on alt text at FAC several years ago and the consensus was not to make it a requirement owing (from memory) to questions over what constituted "useful" alt text. That said, I think it should be employed if properly written (there's the rub!) and if reviewers and nominators come to agreement on it, then as a coord I don't force the issue either way. It may be that we should have another discussion on it at WT:FAC, but I don't think this is the time given the amount of activity there lately, especially as no-one seems to have come to blows on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/October_2016&oldid=747185751"