Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2016 [1].

Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After a gap of several months, I'm making a modest return to FAC with this account of Prokofiev's short but brilliant Kijé music, first written to accompany a film, then made into an orchestral suite. The music has been further adapted into multiple forms, and heard so often that most people know bits of it without being able to identify what it is. Special thanks to Wehwalt, and to the sadly retired Tim riley, for their unofficial peer reviewing, and to User:Profbounds for creating the musical examples. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support had my say at the unofficial peer review. I join in the sentiments expressed above re Tim.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've carried out a few minor formatting errors and read as I went. A fine article and one, I should imagine, that'll be widely visited during the festive season in a few months, thanks to Troika. CassiantoTalk 07:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a lovely piece of work. --John (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you all. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:Kije1934.jpg: what is the original source?
  • File:Kije1934.jpg is an offcut from File:Kije.jpg. In that file's page, the link to the original source now provides irrelevant information. I have tried searching for the original link through Wayback, without success. What further steps should I take? Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the copyright status of the music itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music examples were created by Profbounds, using a system which is quite impenetrable to me. But I imagine that these short extracts are in the same category as the brief prose quotations that are commonly found in WP articles, and are independent from any copyright that exists over the music itself.
  • (Later) I have discussed the question of copyright with Profbounds, who says: "I believe that the examples might constitute "fair use" under the "Amount and Substantiality" factor. The examples are fragments of the complete score and are further removed from the original context because they are not photocopied from the score. The piano midi sound file is, also, removed from the orchestral timbre associated with the original." This view is broadly in line with my own, concerning brief quotations. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria:: Could you revisit and comment in the light of the above? Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The "quotations" are fine. For the film poster, I wonder if you have a source confirming authorship? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this does that. I have altered the source details in the File:Kije.jpg file to link to this source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Syek88[edit]

Support
I only have only a few small suggestions, the fourth and fifth being of very little significance. First, the score excerpt of the fanfare should have a ritardando and a smorzando. Each is important, reinforcing the "distant" and "mournful" nature of it. Second, it might be worth saying that the optional baritone part appears not only in the Romance but in the Troika. I'm basing this on the Ashkenazy recording later mentioned. Jaffe's programme note also mentions the Troika having been written as a song (not just based on a traditional Hussar song). Third, and speaking of the Troika, I don't think that it is right to say that the song theme "interrupts" the "ride". The theme is an integral part of the "ride", right from the third bar of the quicker section. If there are interruptions, they come from elsewhere, like the little trombone interlude. Fourth, I'd suggest placing the excerpt from the Romance an octave higher, which is how it first appears, but it certainly does appear later in the G-below-middle-C register. Fifth, in the image caption, "Boston Opera House" should probably be "The Boston Opera House". Syek88 (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these points.
  • As explained above, the music excerpts were placed by another editor. I don't know the system he's used, but I can ask him if he will deal with this point.
  • I have dealt with the two issues you raise concerning the Troika
  • I don't know how to raise the Romance excerpt by an octave, but will enquire.
  • User:Profbounds has subsequently commented as follows: "Although it appears to be written an octave higher, because it is scored for Contrabasso it will sound an octave lower than scored. I have notated it in the sounding octave, which also matches the octave of the singer in the original version. Notating it an octave higher would match the look in the score but not the actual sounding octave." Thus, I am inclined to leave the example as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am very happy to support. Syek88 (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am most grateful for your helpful comments and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

This will be in fits and starts, but a couple of thoughts on the sources:

  • Books: you have some US states as "Conn" and others as "CA"; for some (eg. New Haven, Boston, Honolulu, Berkeley), there is no state.
  • Newspapers: You have two online newspaper stories, one with an access date, one without

More to follow – Gavin (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expatriate
  • "western Europe or Western Europe?
  • I prefer the former, since "Western Europe" tends to suggest an officially recognised geographic area.Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Film music
  • "prolific career" – sounds a bit like editorialising
  • Well, he wrote 35 film scores, so I think "prolific career as a composer of film sound-tracks" is probably factual. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
  • The "Above all, it must be melodious..." quote doesn't have closing quote marks

Support – regardless of the very minor points above, with which I shall leave you to decide whether to take action. Thanks Brian. – Gavin (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligence and support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I think we still need a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately and consistency cited with the following exceptions:

  • The Gable source has a . after the CT in a way inconsistent with the other state abbreviations which are all the standard postal abbreviations. (I'm offline or would just remove it)
  • I would standardise ISBNs at 13 digits since most seem to be.
  • I might argue that Boston is at least as prominent as Oxford to go without disambiguation, but there's enough tea in the harbour already.
  • That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Boston, MA", "New Haven, CT", "Westport, CT", "Berkely, CA", "Honolulu, HI" – note that MOS:POSTABBR seems to recommend not to use any abbreviations, although it's a bit ambiguous about it since User:SMcCandlish's edit in December 2012. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor source review fixes (punc, isbn) done – thanks, Wehwalt, for the review. As to abbreviations, I read MOS:POSTABBR to mean thus: "...abbreviations of place names (e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks. (Yorkshire) should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text" (my emphasis added). That does not seem ambiguous to me, and appears to be the general interpretation. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Followup discussion[edit]

@Michael Bednarek and Brianboulton: Agreed with Brianboulton. There is no ambiguity in that section of MoS; it correctly distinguishes between what MoS recommends for in-article text and what people do in citations, which is controlled (or, rather, left to utter chaos) by WP:CITEVAR, a separate guideline that was PoV-forked from MoS when certain parties didn't get their way. It's an unnecessarily drama-generating situation, but we seem to be stuck with it for the foreseeable future. (It is apparently more important for certain otherwise productive editors to fight to the death in defense of particular citation styles they have adopted from off WP (or even made up in their own heads, I kid you not) than for WP to have a consistent one that everyone can agree to follow, like we all agree to follow every other arbitrary rule in life, on or off WP.) While it would be, in my view, desirable for WP to consistently approach things like how to represent US state names, it's sufficient and presently correct to observe that we have a rule to not abbreviate them in article prose, but an "un-rule" that it's permissible and common to abbreviate them in citations. This is most common when a specific citation style someone is mimicking on WP from a particular off-WP source, like Vancouver, Harvard, MLA, MHRA, AMA, Turabian, or whatever citation style) is being used, in which such abbreviation is conventional or required. I don't remember which particular cite style(s) expect(s) this, and I doubt anyone cares other than fans of that/those particular format(s).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:57, 2 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) 23:02, 30 September 2016 [2].

Stegoceras[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), LittleJerry (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a genus of dome-headed dinosaur (the pachycephalosaurs), and the only member of this group to ever be nominated for FAC. Since it is one of the most completely (and first) known of these dinosaurs, it has been the subject of many studies, which we have attempted to summarise here, including various theories about what the dome was used for. It is a GA, has been copyedited, and the bulk of the images are from the CC-licensed journal Plos One. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I'd use "about/around" with a dash. My thinking is "about/around" + "to" between ranges (unneeded for bracketed imperial units) or just dash..
Think I changed all. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link bipedal and vertebral column
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd avoid starting all three paras of lead with "Steogceras.."
Better now? Changed in third paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read through it last night and thought the rest was okay - will try to look again later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dentition of Stegoceras was heterodont (differentiated) and thecodont (placed in sockets). - Plainer English is better where possible without losing meaning, so why not something like, "Stegoceras had teeth that were heterodont (differentiated) and thecodont (placed in sockets)."?

Otherwise looks ok I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. For accessibility, having neophytes will be good...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah, I was thinking the same, some of the text may be rather technical, so could be nice to have some "laymen" look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Lotta images here; I'll take a look this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we go:
  • File:Stegoceras.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using a skeleton of the species in the infobox seems fine to me. I remember seeing a discussion there about whether reconstructed skeletons are copyrightable and the conclusion was that it's unlikely an attempted replica of a living being could be considered as "creative" enough to establish copyright protection. It's a Flickr image without EXIF whose license was changed to "all rights reserved" after the upload but that doesn't negate the previous free license. Can't check for Flickrwashing as I can't see other uploads.
You mean the users other uploads? It is from this album by the user:[3] As for using skeletons in the infobox, they are much less speculative than life restorations, so are therefore more reliable/"citable". FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras Scale Diagram - Steveoc86.svg: Free image on Commons. Using a size comparison image in the section about the description of the genus seems fine for me, however I wonder how that reconstruction arose. Own work, all other images of the uploader fit the same dinosaur theme, absolutely no reason to doubt anything.
You can see how the image "arose" here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras validum.jpg: Free image on Commons. Wonder where the caption comes from. Using a reconstruction of a species which is discussed as a type species (?) of the genus in the description section seems fine for me. Own work, plausible EXIF for the type of the image. All other images of the uploader fit the same dinosaur theme, absolutely no reason to doubt anything.
You can also see in the discussion above how the caption arose. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Journal.pone.0021422.g001 Stegoceras skulls.png: Free file on Commons. Using a CT image of the skull in the section of the skull seems fine for me. The caption is sourced to the Commons file, yes? Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, and it seems to originate from there. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
All captions are adapted from the original journal captions. The journal licenses are listed on the journal site, and well, in the journal-specific Commons license template. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras Hendrickx.jpg: Free file on Commons. A cast of a skull of the type species (?) in the section about the skulls of the genus seems OK. Plausible EXIF that matches other uploads as well as in theme, can't GIS the image though.
  • File:Stegoceras dome.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using an image of the lectotype in the section on the discovery history seems fine for me. Being published in 1907 makes the image PD, not CC-BY, unless the Flickr uploader is the creator of the image/a heir of them, then they can license it as such for those countries where it's not PD.
The Flickr page is just a scan of the old paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1924 Gilmore Stegoceras.jpg: Free image on Commons. This specimen appears to be directly discussed in the paragraph adjacent to the image. With the information provided, the copyright license seems to be correct - but I can't see the image in the linked page.
There is a link to the file if you search "Stegoceras" on the page. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras ossified tendons.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The image is in that section because the interpretation of the ossified tendons are discussed in the adjacent text. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras AMNH 5450.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The specimen is discussed in the adjacent text (holotype of the synonym, Ornatotholus). FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very loosely relevant there because the text goes into old classification issues, and it is a pretty old image, from the time when classification of the animal was uncertain. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Juvenile Stegoceras.png: Free image on Commons. Not certain why the image is in that section. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
The image is there because it discusses flat-headed specimen, and the picture shows one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stegoceras mandible.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using the image of the mandible and teeth in the section on paleoecology seems fine for me. With the information given, the license tag seems correct to me.
  • File:Growth series of Stegoceras validum.png: Free image on Commons. Using a growth series image in the section on ontogeny seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras TMP 84.5.1.png: Free image on Commons. Using subadult and adult images in the section on development seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras and Prenocephale combat orientation.png: Free image on Commons. Using images of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras skull density.png: Free image on Commons. Using CT scans of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras and Cephalophus sections.png: Free image on Commons. Using CT scans of the skull domes in the section discussing why they exist seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Stegoceras skulls.png: Free image on Commons. Using injury images of the skull in the section discussing a possible combat role of the skull seems fine for me. Image was published in a reputable freely licensed journal, I don't see anything unwholesome. Wonder where the exact license of the journal article is indicated.
  • File:Dinosaur Provincial Park 01.jpg: Free image on Commons. Using an image of the discovery site in the section on palaeoecology seems pertinent, but I wonder whether it would fit into the discovery history section better. Used elsewhere on the Internet in lower resolution, excluding the Simple Wikipedia. Part of a batch of uploads with different cameras in a geographically circumscribed area. I note that some of other uploads have been marked for deletion in the past.
The section talks about the formation as a whole, and the photo just shows the formation, not the exact spot where the fossils were found. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've copypasted some explanations for mostly identical images. Upon rechecking, I notice that the PLOS template on Commons claims the site uses CC-BY 3.0 but one link is broken and the other one indicate version 4. Otherwise, some images need ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What type of alt text do you need?. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the PLOS One template issues would need to be brought up at the Commons template page[5], it is something that affects all images uploaded from there, not just the ones in this article, so it can only be fixed centrally. Seems a discussion about the issue has already been started:[6] Could you take a look at the alt-text, LittleJerry? I'm a bit burned out by doing other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't check the ALTs, but aside from the PLOS template it seems like everything else is ready to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the template issue needs a wider discussion before it can be dealt with. I'm not sure I can just go in and unilaterally change it, it will affect thousands of Commons files. As for this FAC specifically, it is a free CC-license either way. It is a problem with the specific templates, not with the images here, which would be outside the scope of a FAC, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen people complaining that unclear CC licenses are equivalent to a file being unlicensed. I am fine with punting the template issue to a discussion on Commons, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the talk page there with a link back to this FAC. Whatever that template says now, the images themselves are CC by 4, so they are free either way. But yeah, it is not an issue that should just linger on, I'm surprised it hasn't been dealt with already. If nothing happens, I may just go and change it myself, but I'm a bit wary of that. Maybe post about it in a more widely seen section (license village pump or somehting). FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I myself do not have anything to add, and if the admins will accept my 2 cents as GA reviewer I support this article being a FA. IJReid discuss 03:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! In addition, I was wondering whether Atsme might be interested as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will review this afternoon. Atsme📞📧 14:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with this article is that I cannot find anything to criticise ;) An absolutely comprehensive article, and the content is sound throughout. The "History and discovery" section is strictly chronological, which I found interesting. It makes the information flow very clear, but at the same time leads to a separaton of information, so that the reader needs to keep track of everything in order to be able to follow. I really like it this way. Just to nit-pick about something, the sentence "The neural spines of the caudal (tail) vertebrae decreased in height from front to back on the tail.[5]" could be savely removed, as this character is to be expected in most tetrapods. Support, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As for the neural spine issue, I have two thoughts about this: A; regular readers may not know that this is a common feature, and B; the describers made an effort to specifically mention this feature, so there must be some merit to the info? As for the chronological history section, yeah, there were a few nuts that were hard to crack, for example using the name validus all the way up until the point where it was emended to validum (a reader may think the text uses the old name mistakenly unless they read all the way through). FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I'll remove the neural spine sentence, it was an "extreme" summary of their description that does not really provide any useful information. As for neural spines becoming successively shorter along the tail in all tetrapods, seems there are exceptions?[7] FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme review
Support - This is an excellent article. I hate to nitpick but I want FunkMonk to know that I actually did go over it with a fine tooth comb! Please consider my comments suggestions because it won't change my decision either way. The article is THAT good.
Thanks! Your suggestions are very welcome, English isn't my first language, and the article may be overly technical, so it's nice with any nitpicks... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested tweak to improve flow in lead paragraph: .....but most have since been moved to other genera or deemed junior synonyms. Today all that remains are S. validum and S. novomexicanum, named in 2011 from fossils found in New Mexico.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears serial commas are in use which is ok with me.
Cool, some copy-editors tend to remove it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Stegoceras was small to medium-sized - if I may suggest small to medium in size...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm 12 (hypothetical) and have a fascination for dinosaurs - what does UALVP 2 mean? ???
I relegated this info to the history section (specimen UALVP 2 in the University of Alberta Laboratory for Vertebrate Palaeontology), where I found it most appropriate... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • UALVP 2 was found with small, disarticulated bony elements, which were then thought to be gastralia (abdominal ribs), which is not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs (one of the two main groups of dinosaurs). One too many 'whiches'. Suggestion: ... bony elements thought to be gastralia (abdominal ribs) which were not known in other ornithischian dinosaurs (one of the two main groups of dinosaurs).
Reworded it roughly in the way you suggested, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...whether the holotype specimen represented the distinct species S. novomexicanum, or if it was a juvenile of either S. validum or Sphaerotholus goodwini, or another previously known pachycephalosaur.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 1980s, the affinities of the pachycephalosaurs within Ornithischia was unresolved. Plural? ...the affinities were unresolved.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to either ornithopods or to ceratopsians...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1986, the American palaeontologist Paul Sereno supported...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wikinlinked dimorphic since it was a minor fix
Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stegoceras itself is today seen as more primitive or basal than... Try something to the effect of Revised journal entries in 2003 describe Stegoceras as more primitive or basal than...
Made it more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...pachycephalosaur genera were closer related to "fully" domed taxa... Suggest: were more closely related to...
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not entirely known what pachycephalosaurs ate; having very small, ridged teeth they could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. It is assumed that they lived on a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects and the sharp, serrated teeth would have been very effective for shredding plants. Suggestion: It is not entirely known what pachycephalosaurs ate. Their very small, ridged teeth could not have chewed tough, fibrous plants as effectively as other dinosaurs of the same period. However, it is assumed that their sharp, serrated teeth were ideally suited for a mixed diet of leaves, seeds, fruit and insects.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme📞📧 00:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Dinosaurs are not really my thing!

That's all good, we need to know if "layreaders" will understand the article as well! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you make the first sentence of the description section a short introduction such as "Stegoceras is a small dinosaur with a long tail that moved about on its two hind legs" or somesuch, so as not to immediately plunge into the detailed description.
Changed a bit, better? Tail length isn't known, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pelvic girdle was very broad for a bipedal archosaur when seen from above," - I suggest you change this sentence around to "When seen from above, the pelvic girdle ..."
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The femur (thigh bone) " - Why gloss the femur but not other bones?
Most of the other bones don't have common names! But those that do have common names in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "nodes" in this context?
Gave a "common" alternative... FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The teeth in the front of the lower and upper jaws were different from those in the back." - This sentence seems redundant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lambe was unsure of what kind of dinosaur they belonged to," - this sentence is ungrammatical.
Sorry, I don't get it! FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As no similar remains had been found in the area before, Lambe was unsure of what kind of dinosaur they were"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Took it, "they" referred to "remains". FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the affinities of the pachycephalosaurs within Ornithischia was unresolved." - "were unresolved".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The supratemporal fenestrae show asymmetry in size, and the closure of the frontoparietal suture is variable." - I was surprised to find this present tense sentence among the past tenses ones.
Changed to past. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These observations were made while comparing with skull and flank lesions on modern sheep skeletons." - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that pachycephalosaurs could therefore also have used their domes for both; displaying a weapon and willingness to use it can be enough to settle disputes in some animals." - Ditto.
Not sure I get this one either, any particular part that is unclear, or the whole thing? FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it again, it is probably OK, or you could consider splitting it into two sentences. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I will be away from tomorrow evening to Thursday, so I hope LittleJerry won't be overwhelmed until then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now supporting on prose and comprehensiveness. I am satisfied with the changes made and the article seems to cover the subject very fully. It's surprising how much can be deduced from such scanty evidence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Great to have the opinions of a "neontologist"! FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't yet. LittleJerry (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just using this version for stability of referencing, you wanna check FN 18 for author formatting and genus italics in title, also some authors have a space between their first two initials of their first names and some don't - just choose one format and go with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just checking Cas, did you have any other source review comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Issues should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 11 (Sullivan 03) used 7 times - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 17 used once - material faithful to source.
  • FN 31 used once - material faithful to source.

OK @Ian Rose: I am happy with sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and minor comments from Jim
Very comprehensive and meets the FAC criteria. I may have missed links or glosses for the rare or technical rugose, parietosquamosal and holotype, please check Jimfbleak (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I linked holotype. The others have no articles (one just a disambiguation page). LittleJerry (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and nice to see you back! I moved the link for holotype up to first occurrence. I think I forgot it because lectotype was already linked... FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 29 September 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) 23:23, 30 September 2016 [8].

Paul Palaiologos Tagaris[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 14th-century Byzantine minor noble who by various deceits managed to advance from a simple monk to the Roman Catholic Patriarchate of Constantinople, switching back and forth between Orthodoxy and Catholicism and the Roman and Avignon popes, and generally making a splendid career out of it. It passed GA without much trouble in 2014, when it was created, and I think it has what it takes for FA. Of course, any suggestions for further improvement are always welcome. Constantine ✍ 19:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Urbanus_VI.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information, and it needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I've replaced it with a better sourced one. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Wonder why no one has commented yet on this short article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complemented by an account of his visit to Paris, written by a monk of the Abbey of Saint-Denis." You could mention a date for both the visit and the document here.
    • Good idea. The date of the account is not known, but the visit was almost certainly in 1390. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a while he returned to Constantinople," Until this point, you haven't established that whether he was from Constantinople.
  • "in the words of Alice-Mary Talbot" That is pretty abrupt, you need to present this person and give a date for her comment.
    • I've rewritten the segment and removed this entirely. On reflection, the quote doesn't add much to the text. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Palestine, Paul managed to be ordained" No date?
    • The PLP provides the date 1364, but this is somewhat conjectural. I've added it with a "circa" to be in the safe side. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brought charges against Paul" Nothing on their nature?
    • Not as far as I can see. Nicol writes "For once he felt that the charges against him were unjustified", so perhaps this was nothing more than politics and jealousy of the favour he enjoyed; on the other hand, it is not unlikely that he engaged in the same practices as he did later at Antioch. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Antioch, Paul once again managed to befriend" What is "once again" a reference to?
    • To his previous close relationship with Lazaros of Jerusalem. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forestalled by the Bishop of Tyre and Sidon" Name?
    • Nicol doesn't mention a name, nor do the other sources. I had searched the web for lists of bishops, but as you can imagine, it is like looking for a needle in a haystack (esp. since the patriarchate of Antioch is Arabic-speaking). I thought about checking the PLP for the term "Tyros" though, and had luck: apparently this was Arsenios. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediate return to Constantinople to stand trial." Trial for what?
    • Again, not explicitly mentioned, but his uncanonical appointments and dismissals, not to mention his blatant bribery, were probably the main charges. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Paul once more decided to flee and try his luck in Rome" Once more? But Rome isn't mentioned before this point?
    • "once more" refers to the flight. I've added a comma to separate the two halves of the phrase more clearly. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George Tagaris, his putative brother or father," Shouldn't this be mentioned already in early life?
    • It is: "he [i.e. Paul's father] is possibly identifiable either with the megas stratopedarches Manuel Tagaris,[4] or with the latter's son, George Tagaris." Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City" Would be pretty nice to have an image of this?
    • It would, but copyright won't allow it, and I don't think fair use would fly. I've added the Met's page as an external link though. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the photo was self/usermade, there would be no copyright issue, because the object is certainly out of copyright due to age. Just like any other ancient artefact, the "artist" is long dead, and far longer than the 70 year expiration limit. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His tenure was troubled: the local Orthodox clergy appealed to the Venetian authorities for protection against his exactions, the Latin Archbishop of Athens, Antonio Ballester, complained of the Patriarch's interference in his diocese, and his lease of some of the Church lands in 1383 to a Venetian from Crete, Giacomo Grimani, proved a source of protracted legal trouble since Grimani, in the words of Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, "revealed himself as much a scoundrel as the Patriarch"." This sentence seems too long.
  • "n the words of Raymond-Joseph Loenertz" Again, who is this, and when?
    • Context added, but the date seems redundant as the journal article is clearly referenced. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—rather dubious—connection with the Palaiologos" You don't call this dubious in the article body, and you don't explain why it is dubious.
    • This comes from the "Early life and family" section: "even if Paul was Manuel's son, Theodora was, according to the Byzantinist Donald Nicol, "almost certainly not the mother of Paul".", i.e. he was not actually a Palaiologos. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "via Ukraine" Only mentioned in intro.
    • clarified that this refers to the Golden Horde lands. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You there, Cplakidas? FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi FunkMonk, sorry for the delay, work has been rather busy and I couldn't get my hands on Nicol until today. I've implemented most of the suggested changes, or otherwise replied to your concerns. Constantine ✍ 21:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "from where the chronicler of the abbey later received his information": I don't know what that means.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual, thanks for your improvements, Dank. I've fixed the problematic phrase, I hope its clear now. Constantine ✍ 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, now I get it. This one was easy, btw, thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A fascinating and well-written article. Just one minor wording issue, which you can ignore if you wish; it doesn't affect my support:

  • "brought charges against Paul, forcing the latter": suggest "who was forced", or possibly "which forced Paul" -- "the latter" is a little clumsy.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike Christie, good suggestion. Done. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS and just in case, I'll be in China for the next two weeks, and my ability to connect to the internet there remains to be seen. If there are any additional comments during this period, please be patient. Thanks in advance. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: What a marvellous little article! I like the sheer gall of this chap! I just have a few minor points and will switch to full support once these are replied to. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Paul managed to be ordained a deacon": I understand the intention here with "managed" but I wonder if it is the best word. If the sources allowed it, would something like "arranged" be a little more neutral?
    • Hmmm, I am not sure "arranged" conveys the same meaning here; I've tentatively rephrased it with "was able to secure his ordination as", which is wordier but is closer to the original meaning. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Antioch, Paul once again managed to befriend the newly elected (1368) Patriarch Michael": We have a repetition of "managed", but as written it looks like he had already befriended Michael before. If we want to have "once again" maybe we need "once again managed to befriend an influential figure, the newly elected..."
  • "He took ship, probably from Trebizond, to the Crimea": Is this a typo for "took a ship" or am I missing something?
    • AFAIK, this is a normal expression in English? I've certainly come across it often enough. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In exchange he secured an escort through the Horde lands (modern Ukraine) to the Kingdom of Hungary, and from there to Rome. He secured an audience...": Close repetition of "secured", and I think for consistency with usage in this article, we might need a comma after exchange.
    • Good point, I've rephrased the two phrases to avoid the repetition. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any opinions on how reliable the sources are on him (in the historical sense)? For example, was his confession believed, and how reliable do historians consider the St Denis account? Similarly, can we say in what work the St Denis account comes from? (I'm assuming a chronicle) Sarastro1 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good point. Added the primary sources, but regarding historians' opinion, I can't really say: Nicol gives a list of a few (mostly sort) articles to him published in the decades before his own article, but the only clue he gives is "Other references to him, some credulous some incredulous...". Nicol for one considered both accounts broadly reliable, and so apparently do the ODB and the PLP. Certainly the confession is a POV account, but it is the only source we have for most of his career, while the later parts are indeed corroborated by the account of the St. Denis chronicle. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: More than happy to support now; I've never come across "took ship", but that doesn't mean it isn't a normal expression! Either way, it doesn't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think I have -- probably comes from watching too many spear-and-sandals epics on TV in my youth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Looks fine for formatting and reliability. I'm assuming we are not giving locations for journals, which is fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna exchange reviews? @Cplakidas: My FAN is really inactive
  • I found the lead a bit short. Per WP:Lead at least two paragraphs long
    • It is a bit short, but one cannot really summarize his career well, as it is composed of multiple small incidents; if I were to fulfill the letter of WP:Lead, then the lead would be as long as half the article. I've preferred to simply give a general overview, rather than a step-by-step summary. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the first paragraph of "Early life and family" is very small. Try expanding it or merging it with another (Imagine you are writing a formal letter).
    • Erm, the first paragraph has a very distinct subject, and I am not writing a formal letter, but presenting a historical topic, and there is little analogy between the two. Anyhow, it has been expanded now. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same section "Tagaris was probably born in the 1320s,[1] or at the latest around the year 1340" seems weird. I would at least point out that "According to X, Tagaris was...." or "It has been speculated when was Tagarin born;...."
  • In "Latin Patriarch of Constantinople", Rome was linked. Isn't it a common link?
    • Probably depends somewhat on the eye of the beholder, but in essence, yes. Removed. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally in "Return to Constantinople"'s paragraph relies mostly on a quote so I would paraphrase it or use in a box.
    • I often use quote boxes, but I don't think it has anything to contribute here. Nicol sums his career up eloquently and succinctly, and I far prefer keeping it this way that trying (and certainly failing) to paraphrase him adequately. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If all these issues are solved, I'll give you my support. Good work.

Hi Sarastro1 and Tintor2, thanks to both for your reviews and suggestions. Sorry for the delay, as indicated above, I was on a business trip to China and both time and internet access were rather scarce during the past couple of weeks. I've implemented most of your proposals, or otherwise explained why not. If you have any suggestions for further improvement, above and beyond the requirements of FAC, please let me know. Best regards to both, Constantine ✍ 19:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I would suggest splitting at least the lead, but I'll still give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 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) 12:10, 29 September 2016 [9].

Burke and Hare murders[edit]

Nominator(s): User:SchroCat (talk) & CassiantoTalk 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a final huzzah to the project, we have decided to plumb the depths of depravity to offer the ten-month alcohol-fuelled killing spree of two itinerant low-lives: the Burke and Hare murders. It's a fascinating case with strong cast, double-crossing, turning of blind eyes and a certain amount of covering up. Any and all constructive comments are welcome in this, our final FAC. Cheers – Gavin (talk) & CassiantoTalk 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil[edit]

Lead

  • Both sentences in the final paragraph of the lead start with the words "The murders ..." could one be re-jigged?

Background, Anatomy in 19th-century Edinburgh

  • First para, 2nd sentence: comma missing after John Bell

William Burke and William Hare

  • First para: link for Union Canal (Scotland) here rather than in second para; final sentence, shouldn't it be "the" Grassmarket?
  • Second para: "William Hare was probably born in either in County Armagh ..." remove second "in" and also possibly third "in" before Newry?

Events of November 1827 to November 1828

  • Second para, last two sentences — perhaps change one instance of "sources" to "reports" or some such to save close repetition?
  • Third para, sentence starting "The novelist Sir Walter Scott, who took a keen interest in the case, also thought the miller was the more likely victim ..." should that read first (or initial) victim?
  • Fifth para, "he bought the two women alcohol" needs initial cap for "he"; "During a row between Burke and McDougal—during which he threw ..." perhaps change to "A row broke out between ... ...—during which he threw ..." so during isn't repeated in such close proximity? "... and kept it in whisky for three months before dissecting it" perhaps "stored in whisky"?

Developments: investigation and the path to court

  • Second para: "... speculative reports led to members of the public to assume that all missing people had been victims" to assume -> assuming? Or just "led members of the public ...."

Trial

  • Second para: "Several hours were spent on legal arguments on the objection." perhaps "Several hours were spent on legal arguments about the objection."?
  • Third para: " ... not all the witnesses on the list were called and Knox and three of his assistants avoided being questioned in court" maybe "Knox plus three" to save repetition of "and"?

Legacy, Legislation

  • Refs need re-ordered at end of 1st and 2nd para.

These are very minor nit-picks and do not detract from my Support of this nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many, many thanks SagaciousPhil: all your suggestions have been acted on. Very much appreciated, as always. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Echoed from me, SP. Your comments are always hugely valued. CassiantoTalk 06:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Dweller[edit]

I love the topic and think this is a terrific article. I didn't complete my review at PR (apologies for that). As I get time, I'll continue my needling pedantic trawl and post comments here. If/when the delegate is looking to close this and I've not yet said "support", please ping me. Massive kudos to the authors. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bark from a tanner: I'm guessing this doesn't mean wood bark. First, why would a tannery have bark and secondly, bark is far too light for the purposes. If it's unclear what's meant, can we replace with an obfuscation, such as "material".
  • No, it's wood bark (specifically oak, which is needed for some hides); the word "tanning" derives from tannum, meaning oak bark. - Gavin (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to give the price of £7 10s" - ambiguous and not terminology that is familiar to my BrEng ears. He fixed the price, he paid the money or both?
  • " the order in which the subsequent murders took place" pedantically, that could imply that the former was also a murder, when it seems it wasn't
  • "but gave different sequences for the murders in each statement" doesn't belong in this sentence. It belongs with the bit about there being two confessions.
  • Do we know why Knox paid such wildly varying sums of money for the corpses?
  • Only the difference between the summer and winter rates; I suspect he paid less for the first body because he was dealing with people who didn't know the exact rates, but the sources don't provide a reason, unfortunately. - Gavin (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the policeman obliged" This is ambiguous. Normally, when you oblige you do something active, not passive. Clarify?
  • General comment: we have an awful lot of sentences and (worse, in my book) paragraphs that begin in essentially the same manner: "In [name of month]", "On [specific date]", "At some point during [month]", etc. It's a style issue and tricky for you to fix, I know, but pulls down the overall outstanding quality level of the article
  • I've made a couple of tweaks, but I think your eye may be playing slight tricks on you here. Of the 108 sentences in this section, three begin "In [month]", three begin "On [date]" and there is one other variant. This doesn't seem to be affecting the readability for me, although I am possibly too close to the text: Cass, you didn't write the section I did: how does it look to you? – Gavin (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I don't see any such paragraphs, and if I do, they are sparse. CassiantoTalk 18:16, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More when I can. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn[edit]

Great topic, and I look forward to reading. As a quick driveby comment, Nicola Morgan's teen novel Fleshmarket is about Burke and Hare, I believe. Might be worth adding. I'm surprised we don't have an article on the book. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be careful in terms of cramming this full of films, programmes, books, etc... I think we're at full capacity in terms of trivia, in my opinion. CassiantoTalk 06:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or as the fictional inspiration for other works" From the last line of the lead; what do you mean by "fictional inspiration"?
  • In the paragraph beginning "Most of the sources agree that the first murder", it'd be useful if you introduced that Joseph was a lodger earlier.
  • "who Burke described in his confession" Shouldn't that be whom? Burke is the subject.
  • "she was sold to Knox for £10" Earlier in the article you referred to bodies as "it"s rather than "(s)he"s. I think it may be useful to stick with the separation of a person and their corpse.

Pausing for now; a great read so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a warrant was sworn out" I'm not sure I know what this means.
  • Do we know much about Margaret's background? I'm assuming she was Irish; a half-line in the "William Burke and William Hare" section may be good. Also, I see that she was referred to as Margaret Hare though she and Hare may not have married; again, making this explicit in the section may be good.
  • "because he could not be brought to testify against his wife" We have an article on spousal privilege, if that would be a useful link.
  • "as newspapers and broadsheets" Broadsheets are newspapers, surely? We wouldn't say "men and Englishmen".
  • "editorialising that he should" Can you use editorialising like that?
  • "A new word was coined from the murders: "burking", to" Words-as-words; this should be italicised, not quoted
  • "circulating round the" Around?
  • "in fictional literature" Wouldn't fictional literature be literature that is itself not real? "in fiction" would surely be fine?

Very engaging! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh, all tweaked per your suggestions. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, many thanks for your input here, Josh, and for your valued support. CassiantoTalk 20:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the prose only. No view on the sources or images. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh; much appreciated! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews[edit]

Image review

  • File:Burke_Murdering_Margery_Campbell.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • Source book now added. - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with File:Cropping_a_Nox-i-ous_Plant;_Caricature_of_Robert_Knox.jpg
  • This was a contemporary print; now noted on the licence. - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria, all now worted. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead link
  • Some books include locations, others don't - should be consistent
  • Suggest including volume number for London Medical Gazette. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikkimaria: sources all now tweaked. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks NM, much appreciated. CassiantoTalk 20:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Great article, just a few quibbles.

  • "and the growth in demand for cadavers to dissect led to a shortfall in the legal supply of corpses" I might cut "growth in"
  • "bodies of executed criminals—including those who died in prison—suicide victims," my reading of this says that "those who died in prison" are included in "executed criminals".
  • " grave robbing by what were known as the resurrection men" I might cut the "the"
  • "Their victims were known in the locality." I can't piece together what this means
  • This will mean people who reside in the area. I think it's pretty redundant so I've stripped it out. CassiantoTalk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mourning families" depends on the will, I'd imagine. Seriously, "bereaved" seems better.
  • "The second was an unofficial interview " to vary the official/unofficial, I might say "The second was in the form of an interview"
  • "while Burke lay across the body to restrict movement" presumably once it was a body, Mr Burke was redundant.
  • I'm a bit slow on the uptake with this, unfortunatley. CassiantoTalk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Body implies corpse under some circumstances, but Burke only needed to restrain the victim until dead, I'm suggesting a change of word from "body".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that one earlier: now tweaked to "upper torso". Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A very enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking a look and for your valued support. CassiantoTalk 23:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing that thanks from me too, Wehwalt: your thoughts are hugely appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Support: the article had my full attention at peer review where I made many suggestions, mostly accepted, and did a certain amount of copyediting, too. Subsequent tweaks during this FAC have further improved the article, and I'm happy to support its promotion. PS: can you explain the meaning of "worted" which appears in the image review? Looks like a useful word to have around. Brianboulton (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian: your thoughts are, as they always have been, very much appreciated. "Worted" is a neologism I'm trying out - a portmanteau of worked and sorted! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

I'm not fond of the link to serial killers in the opening sentence. Its an Easter egg; you would expect a related article to the "series of 16 murders", also, these guys were not serial killers in the usually understood sense - different motivation; really they were contract killers, though not in the usual sense either. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am sliding to agree with you with regards to the fact they killed for the money and not for the kick, Ceoil, and I'd be happy to clarify that; however, "serial killer", by its very definition, surely, means a person who carried out a series of killings and says nothing of the mens rea behind them? Gavin, thoughts? CassiantoTalk 15:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really care about the classification Cassianto, although if how they might be described in modern criminology is discussed in the lit, then I would put a footnote here with a brief summary. its more the linkage, piped to "series of 16 murders". Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we're in Easter egg territory, but let me think on it for the night. (In terms of the motivation, I've looked at our article, and it points to the FBI's definition as including financial gain as a motive.) I'll return with the thoughts on the egg point. - Gavin (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
High quality sources, consistent ref formatting, fully licences images, engaging prose. I'm fixing any minor issued found as I read through. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My contract/serial issue above not withstanding - have read through 80% of the text and poked around enough at the edges of the sources to have confidence - Support on the criteria I mentioned above. This was a very enjoyable few hours spent. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks very much for taking a look and the fixes. I'm pleased you enjoyed it. CassiantoTalk 17:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Cass's thoughts on this: many thanks for your thoughts and edits on this one. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure, Gavin. Ceoil (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the excellent comments, Ceoil. CassiantoTalk 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

It's a super article. I know this story really well and the article seems to tell the story well, and to be well-referenced and well-written. A couple of questions.

  • If "The price per corpse changed depending on the season. It was £8 during the summer, when the warmer temperatures brought on quicker decomposition, and £10 in the winter months" then how come they only got £7 10s for their first corpse?
  • Not in the sources - Gavin (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Sheriff-substitute, the Procurator fiscal and the Assistant Sheriff-clerk. - Need to fix the capitalisation.
  • I share Ceoil's qualms about the link in the lead.
    • I blitzed the link. I'm now wondering about the opening and how to word it:
  1. "The Burke and Hare murders were a series of 16 murders committed in Edinburgh, Scotland over a period of about ten months in 1828."
  2. "The Burke and Hare murders are a series of 16 murders committed in Edinburgh, Scotland over a period of about ten months in 1828."
  3. "The Burke and Hare murders were committed in Edinburgh, Scotland over a period of about ten months in 1828. The 16 killings were..."

SchroCat, any ideas on this? Would "are a series of 16 killings" be incorrect compared to "were a series of 16 killings" as we are now talking in past tense? CassiantoTalk 23:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cass, I've tweaked per BB's PR suggestion, which we missed for some unknown reason. - Gavin (talk) 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --John (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFERS. --John (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, I think this has now been fixed. CassiantoTalk 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now support. --John (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

This is a great article, and I've enjoyed reading it. I've made a few copyedits, feel free to revert and trout to taste

  • They received what was, for them, the generous sum - do we need "generous sum" here?
  • I think we probably do, just to give an indication that they were earning good money, which provides the motive. Having said that, I'm not married to the phrase and could be persuaded. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the demand for which increased as the science developed - my gut feeling is we can chop a word or two out to make this bit of prose tighter, but I can't think what off the top of my head
  • Me neither! Cass, any thoughts on this? - Gavin (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of two sons, to middle-class parents - is the comma necessary here?
  • Should death mask be linked in the picture caption?
  • Bottom two both done. - Gavin (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Ritchie. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are no clear accounts of her later life re : Helen McDougall - this source says "Helen said to have emigrated to Australia" - is there any truth in that, or is this source unreliable? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ritchie, That's not reliable. The main sources all say that there are a range of stories about what may or may not have happened (including Australia), but actually nobody really knows. - Gavin (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burke was hanged on the morning of 28 January 1829 in front of a crowd possibly as large as 25,000; - this source says "an estimated crowd between 25,000 and 30,000], though other sources I checked all just mention 25,000. Is the 30,000 figure worth putting is a footnote or are we okay to dismiss it as not as good as the others. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult to judge how good it is as a source - let me try and have a better look at it first. The main modern sources are all at the 25k mark, but we could footnote it to show that all the sources are unsure of the number. - Gavin (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sidestepped the source entirely and found a contemporary that gives a figure of 35-40k, which I've footnoted. This one, by the way, is way over all other estimates I've seen, so it shows what the upper end of the estimates can be. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can't think of anything else, so I guess that means it meets the FA criteria in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Jim

A great read, and I really couldn't see anything I wanted to fix. I'm deeply shocked however, that you didn't mention the famous documentary on which most of my prior knowledge of this topic relies (: Jimfbleak (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Jim. Much appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, thanks very much Jim. CassiantoTalk 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support

This is a fine article which has had a lot of research and thought put into it. A shame this is to be the last, but I understand fully the frustrations of the editors as this support vote is likely one of my last actions here. We hope (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates I'm off. Thanks very much indeed to everyone who has taken part in what is, for me, and I dare so Gavin too, the last FAC for the project. The comments have been excellent and wide ranging and I hope the fixes that have been made by us both have satisfied each of your concerns. I look forward to this article's natural close, upon which, I hope, will bring with it a promotion. I wish everyone the best of luck for their respective future FAC's. CassiantoTalk 18:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a dream that this would never reach consensus to promote and we'd just leave it open indefinitely and force you guys to create other quality articles in the meantime... Well, here's hoping that, despite the declarations to the contrary, we do see you back here some time. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 29 September 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) 11:13, 29 September 2016 [10].

Bud Dunn[edit]

Nominator(s): White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bud Dunn, who is notable for training two World Grand Champions in the Tennessee Walking Horse breed, being inducted into his breed's Hall of Fame, and being named Trainer of the Year twice. Interestingly, he accomplished most of these things as an older man, and is the only horse trainer I know of who won anything in their 80s. The article is fairly short, but I've tried to cover his career in a neutral way, with a lot of RS. (He would have been covered extensively in the official TWH magazine, the Voice, and was probably on the cover both times he won the World Grand Championship, but issues from back then are not online and I've had no luck finding copies at used book sales.) This is my first try at FAC, but I have 5 GAs counting this one. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by starship.paint[edit]

  • Infobox: How is his discipline Performance?
    • "Performance" is a way of saying "show horse" as opposed to horses that are ridden on trails. I can find a reference and make a note. "Discipline" is a way of breaking down the dozens of varied things people do with horses; i.e. show jumping, dressage, and eventing are the three Olympic disciplines. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please cite a reference then and make a note then :) starship.paint ~ KO 06:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a reference to the note that WAF inserted. Montanabw(talk) 23:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could not find the word "plastic" in the source, although your note mentions "plastic". Also, it would be good to mention "Performance" in the body and not just the infobox. starship.paint ~ KO 01:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference "House of the Burgesses" seems to indicate that Elaine is his third wife? "married thirdly"
    • I really can't figure that thing out. None of the other sources say anything about him being married to anybody else. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He grew up on his family's farm and was involved with horses from a young age. - needs a reference.
    • I can't remember which ref that was in. If I can't find it within the next day or two I'll just remove the sentence. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bud and Steve Dunn remain the only father and son to win World Grand Championships within the Tennessee Walking Horse industry - this is supported by a statement made by Steve in 1999. I think attribution of information to Steve would be added, or finding a more recent secondary source.
  • Reference "Dunn's number to be retired" says in 1991 he won the Professional Sportsman of the Year award. It also says his trainer number is 1865.
    • I don't know if that is separate from Trainer of the Year, which another source says he eon the same year. 1865 was his rider number, meaning that he wore a piece of paper with the number on it. It's done so the judges can tell the horses and people apart in a large show. They retire the numbers worn by famous riders the same way they retire jersey numbers worn by famous football players. I added a bit about it. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't tell whether that was separate from Trainer of the Year or not; the other source definitely puts it as Trainer of the Year. Sometimes reporters get scrambled, like in "Dunn Walking Horse specialist" it says "ferrier" where it should be "farrier". White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" says Those experts privately will tell you he has been blackballed in the past because he didn't live in the Shelbyville area and is not considered part of the clique ... he didn't want to live in middle Tennessee and get involved in the politics of the business. Include this?
  • Reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" additionally says came here from Georgia (40 years ago). I thought Georgia should be mentioned in the text. Sorry if my American geography knowledge is not up to standard.
  • Reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" also says He has broken bones in virtually every area of his body while training horses.
  • Is there some day you could incomporate the page numbers (1B, 4B) and second title (Dunn would like another shot at training, riding the best) for reference "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal"?
    • Adding the second title pushes it past length and gives an error for some weird reason, but I did add the page numbers using "pages=". White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RPM won the Reserve World Grand Championship at the 1998 Celebration - does this just mean RPM finished in second place as the source said? Writing "second place" is clearer.
    • Think I put Reserve because that's how they write it in the show records. Getting a top 10 is considered good in a major show like the Celebration. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, the source also wrote RPM was runnerup. I really think Reserve will confuse general readers. They might think he won 3 World Grand Championships. Either "second place" or "runner up" is much easier to understand. starship.paint ~ KO 06:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I clarified it to hopefully fix that issue and make it clear that it's second place. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • FWIW, "reserve champion" is a term of art in not only horse showing, but other animal shows; it is a bigger deal than "second place," and so changing the wording to something like "runner-up" would sound incorrect. But WAF's edit explains it. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are my edits to improve the article. I was able to fix some issues myself on referencing sources.
  • More needs to be written on horses as this is a short article. Search for who are the 20 world champions mentioned in ""Walking Horse pioneer dies"?
    • I found info on 4 or 5 of them, and added a sentence or two about each, also added them in the infobox per the way they do it on the GA and FA articles on racehorse trainers. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dunn Named Top Trainer" mentions Yankee Delight. "Dunn Walking Horse specialist" mentions Yankee Delight, Delight Puff & Stuff, Aces Executive, Stock Exchange. "Despite success, training Walking Horses not a Dunn deal" mentions RPM is a 1997 3-Year-Old World Champion and the 1998 4-Year-Old World Champion. "Dunn honored with Trainer of the Year award" mentions Dark Spirit Rebel was third in 1991.
    • I added a bit about the horses shown by him (as opposed to those trained by him and ridden by amateurs) and about the prior wins of the World Grand Champions. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @White Arabian Filly: - aren't horses trained by him also notable enough for mention? Especially if they are world champions. starship.paint ~ KO 06:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the name of every Dunn-trained champion I could find. It wasn't all of them, but probably half of them are mentioned. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books mentions (but I cannot access): Biography of the Tennessee walking horse, Law for Business, Horse protection act of 1969.
      • In the horse racing articles, where trainers could have hundreds of horses, we select mostly the ones who are notable enough to have articles in their own right. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Featured article criteria 1. c. (well-researched) calls for "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Is this not in contradiction to what White Arabian Filly has said about relevant sources that she knows to exist, but that she has not consulted? Now, I know there has been discussion over how to apply this criteria to topics that thousands of volumes of relevant literature has been written about (one editor's example is the topic Rail transport in Great Britain; a bibliography lists 20,000 volumes of recommended reading). But for the present topic I would assume it's reasonable to apply this criteria in earnest: if there are relevant sources that have not been consulted, the article is not well-researched. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is getting the sources to consult them. I know that traditionally, the World Grand Champion each year is on the cover of the Voice, and they also write an article about them. The problem is finding copies; since it's a magazine, most people will have thrown them out years ago. I know I go to a lot of used book sales, and haven't found any from that time period. If I ever get to the Tennessee Walking Horse National Museum, I can probably find and reference the relevant issues. That is not likely to happen soon (it's about 100-125 miles away from me), though I do have an old copy of Western Horseman that has some coverage about Dunn and RPM. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe ebay but $$$ . You should add whatever the Western Horseman says... starship.paint ~ KO 06:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short of a trip to a museum and spending days digging through one-of-a-kind sources, I think WAF has done a pretty thorough review. The newspapers are actually some of the best extant sources we have for these old guys; few industry magazines are digitized and eBay is, $$$ indeed, plus locating good indexes to find out WHICH issue something was in can be equally challenging. I found the text on Harmon v. Dunn, here -- that case mostly involved Steve, not Bud, his name only appears as the dba for the stable name, but Steve was the lead plaintiff and he prevailed, so it's all irrelevant here unless we need an RS that "Bud Dunn and Son Stable" existed as a dba business entity and that it was in Florence, Alabama. I think other sources cover that. (The legal precedent is of interest, but not here]). The snippet view of Green's book looks like a list of results and so is RS for those results in snippet view. I'm pretty good at digging up Congressional hearings, if the HPA testimony in 1969 is findable online, I'll find it. If it's relevant, I'll be back or add something to the article; otherwise, no news is no luck. Montanabw(talk) 01:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: I did an exhaustive online search, and while it does appear that this source contains some testimony on page 106 by Bud Dunn related to what became the Horse Protection Act of 1970, full text is not available online; I reviewed the Library of Congress and Congress.gov, the Hathi Trust and several other sources. (Cornell, USDA, etc.) Print copies are reasonably available at various libraries and maybe via interlibrary loan, but I don't know if WAF can access any of this. But absent additional sources saying what impact his testimony had on the outcome of the legislation (and I cannot locate any), or if he made some other public statement about it, it's probably SYNTH in this article anyway, though it would be interesting to know if he was for or against it. The late 60s and early 70s are a bearcat for finding stuff; I did find at Hathi Trust scan on the Congressional Record of the hearing on the same bill in 1970 but not the one in 1969. Montanabw(talk) 01:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @White Arabian Filly: apologies for the ping, I didn't see they were already addressed. Could you get a source for the Paschals being brothers though? starship.paint ~ KO 12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC
  • @White Arabian Filly: nice job! There are two more things though. Would it be possible to find out his earliest world championship win? Plus, list the winning years for his winning horses (Stock Exchange etc). Because right now the earliest actual win date by a horse is 1992, while he was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1987. He must have done significant things before 1987... starship.paint ~ KO 12:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a couple of new refs that say he competed in 125-150 shows a year, and that he won a leadup to the World Grand Championship in 1970 (doesn't say whether it was an actual Championship, but it seems to be a pretty big class, so it is significant enoufh to include). I've added dates for all the winners I could find. One of them says he was living in Russellville, Alabama in 1970, so I included that as well. It doesn't say his stable was there though and Russellville isn't far from Florence, so he could've lived there and commuted to his stable. Everything says the stable was in Florence, Alabama. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. I've expanded the article even more with stuff found online. World Champ 1970 and Hall of Fame 2003. I'm now confident in the scope of the article. Good work and support. starship.paint ~ KO 13:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

  • "the team of Dunn and the stallion was said to be the most popular in Celebration history": This strikes me as an opinion needing attribution.
    • That's what it said in the newspaper report, so I don't know where the reporter got it from--maybe other trainers. It could have been the opinion of the show organizers, though. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is close to FA quality, but I think the article has an organization problem. All the information seems to be there, and I don't see much wrong with the writing at a sentence level, but occasionally it feels bitty and jumps back and forth. Some examples, along with a couple of other points:

  • The life and death section mentions the two World Grand Championships; this is repeated in the career section.
  • The life section mentions he moved to Alabama from Georgia; the career section mentions him living in Alabama, then repeats that he moved there from Georgia.
  • You mention Russellville and Florence in quick succession, but the reader doesn't know the two are near each other; since you don't say "he lived in Russellville and his stables were in Florence", I thought he moved from one to the other and had to reread it to be clear.
  • The note about breaking bones seems a non sequitur where it's currently placed; can it be better integrated with the text?
  • The "Spring Celebration" isn't linked or explained.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing comments:
    • Would it be better if the World Grand Championships weren't mentioned in the life section? I may eventually do an article about Steve himself, since he also won 2 WGCs and one had nothing to do with Bud (because he was dead by then). In the meantime I could cut the mention of Bud's WGCs out of that section if it would help the flow.
    • I put more detail on the move in the career section because it related to him buying the stable and starting the training business. It seemed to have more to do with his career than personal life.
    • Actually, he does seem to have lived in Russellville when he first came to Alabama, and then moved to Florence. The 1984 article definitely says he lived in Florence at the time. I'm assuming he lived in Russellville and commuted to the stables in Florence, then moved himself to Florence when he found a house there. I can't find anything that says so, though. Would it be better to add a sourced note about the close proximity of the two towns, or to add some content with a source about each town's distance from Huntsville (the biggest city in north Alabama)?
    • I just remove that about the broken bones if necessary.
    • I haven't got around to writing an article about the Spring Celebration yet (though it probably deserves one, and so does the Wartrace Horse Show, and the National Trainers Show, and a lot of others). I added a sourced sentence explaining it; it's similar to the main Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration, except it's in the spring instead of late summer and they don't award a World Grand Championship. It's not as popular with spectators, but it is a fairly big show and popular with trainers who want to compete in the World Championships later in the year. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best fix might be to combine the life and career sections and call it something like "Life and career", and then have a "Notable horses" section. Then you could move everything into chronological order, and there'd be no cause for repetition. I don't think it would be all that much work -- just move a couple of things up and down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may do that, though I don't know when he married Elaine or had his kids, so that could be a chronology problem. I also have trouble moving things around because cell phones like I edit with don't copy-paste well. I'd prefer to leave it with the marriage and death separate from the horse training stuff, but I could deal with putting it together if I have to. In the meantime I'll do a bit of work to improve the flow and try to improve the way it reads. If it mentions something briefly in one place and then more extensively further down, I can blame my study of fiction writing. I had it so beat into my head that you should mention something before it kills off a character or blows up the house. 😃 White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a draft in a sandbox, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about; how does that look? By the way, I looked here and I see Dunn listed as Trainer of the Year for 1991, but not 1980; are you sure he won that year? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks OK; you are talking about putting that in place of the life and career sections that are already there, and then making notable horses into its own section immediately below, right?
The newspaper source definitely says he was Trainer of the Year in 1980, but says it was with the Professional Walking Horse Trainers Organization, not the Walking Horse Trainers Association, which is what they call it now. I don't know if the association changed name, or perhaps there were once two separate associations and they merged, or one went defunct and the other survived. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't be sure they're the same award, I'd change the text of the article; right now it says he won the award "again", which may not be accurate. You might want to contact the WHTA and see if they can clarify the history. I looked up "Professional walking horse trainers organization" on newspapers.com but the only hits were behind a paywall, all from 1979 to 1980. They were all from the Louisville Courier-Journal -- do you have access to that via your library? As for the text, yes, I wrote it to replace the first two sections but not the notable horse section, but I didn't mean for you to take it exactly as is -- I just wanted to illustrate what I meant about re-organizing the text so it flows more smoothly. Up to you how much of that you think is worth doing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the reading a bit to say that he was Trainer of the Year twice, without saying that it was the same group that gave him the award. (Though Trainer of the Year is pretty much the same thing in all the hundreds of organizations that have it.)
I used Google Newspaper archive as the primary resource for this; I'd have to look and see if that paper is in their archives. Some papers I really want, like the ones from the Shelbyville, Tennessee area, are not in there. I understood that your draft was for demo purposes only. I will think about moving the content around and combining those two sections, and will probably try to do it tomorrow (no time today). Right now there's an SPA inserting allegations of horse abuse into another of my created articles, and I'm having to deal with that, and stuff is going on in real life. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reorganization you've now done is definitely an improvement. Any reason not to put the mention of his wife and kids with the sentence about his death? As it stands it's a non sequitur; with his death it becomes part of a paragraph about his life and I think would flow better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few comments. This looks OK generally, but given that it is so short, I think it is worth making sure what information that we do have is highly polished. Glitches tend to stand out more in short articles. So, not quite there yet for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Dunn was born Emerson Dunn on May 15, 1918,[2] in Scott County, Kentucky, near Lexington, to Lucius Dunn and Sadie Burgess Dunn.": Is there any way to avoid having the name Dunn four times in one sentence? Perhaps split the sentences, or combine the Dunns somehow?
    • I'll try a rephrase... maybe "He was born Emerson Dunn to Lucius and Sadie Burgess Dunn". White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pedant writes... "Dunn was born Emerson Dunn": Technically he wasn't born with any name at all. Feel free to ignore this one, and throw sharp objects in my general direction.
    • Seems like his parents could have saved their breath anyway, since he was called Bud apparently all his life! 😆 White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was involved with horses from a young age": Involved how? Riding? Training?
    • The source doesn't say, but since his father was a farmer and most people didn't have tractors back then, they likely plowed and did all their work and traveling with horses. Many people in the rural areas didn't get cars and tractors until after the Depression of the 1930s. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "almost every year for 50 years": Is there a better way to say this? How many years did he not participate? I'm wondering about something like "annually for 50 years except for X, Y and Z".
    • I can't find anything that says he participated the year before his death (2000). The sources say that he started going in 1950 and apparently went every year or almost every year up to 1999, when he won with RPM. It does say that he was injured multiple times, and if he happened to be hurt right before the Celebration he probably wouldn't have gone. I don't have any sources that say, "He skipped it in 19xx". White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that work is ongoing on this, but the 2nd paragraph of Life and Career combines his overall record with his early life. The two don't sit easily in the same paragraph, so maybe a split would help?
  • Similarly, it might be worth just checking the flow of sentences here. A few consecutive sentences do not quite fit together. For example, "Dunn broke multiple bones while training horses.[3] He also judged Tennessee Walking Horse shows, including the Spring Celebration,[15] an annual Tennessee Walking Horse show in Shelbyville, Tennessee, that is traditionally popular with trainers and horses who hope to compete in the National Celebration later in the year" don't obviously fit together. There are one or two similar examples.
  • The third paragraph of that section has similar problems, and almost becomes WP:PROSELINE at some points, in that we have "In YEAR, he did THIS. He did THAT in this YEAR". I think some smoothing might be in order before we are quite at FA standard.
    • Will try to do some smoothing; I think that happened partly because I was trying to include all of his known champions, per another reviewer. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch out for too many sentences that begin "Dunn" or "He". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: I've done some copy-editing; feel free to revert anything I've messed up, or that you don't like. A few more points: Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given that the article is so short, could we have a brief, one or two line explanation about what Walking Horses are, and what the competition involves? I know we link to it, but it is often better to save the reader from clicking.
    • From the Tennessee Walking Horse article, what general summary would be most valuable to you here?
      • Something like the first sentence of the lead, and maybe one sentence summarising what happens in the competitions. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He trained Tennessee Walking Horses for 50 years, and during his career won two World Grand Championships, and 20 World Championships with various other horses": As written, this looks to me like he won 20 championships with horses that he didn't train. If this isn't the case, we should just cut "various".
    • No, he trained and rode both. That's what they do. See below... Montanabw(talk) 09:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we make a little more distinction between his achievements as a trainer and as a rider? They blur into one a little, and perhaps we need more about what he did as a rider. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For horse show trainers, Sarastro1, there is no real difference (unlike horse racing where the trainer and the rider are two different people) —the trainer rides and shows the horse as a general rule, at least in open competition. Montanabw(talk) 09:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. In that case, can we make that clear in the article? It isn't obvious to someone (like me!) who has no clue about this subject. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added that he rode some of the more minor horses. I can maybe add a sentence about what a show horse trainer does. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a copyediting whack at the article, added a few ore words on what TWH's do, rephrased a few sentences and I moved around some of the sections from one paragraph to another, particularly to group the show career stuff all in one place (as someone here noted) and I put the history of his stables ahead of the show career to make the sequence chronological. If that didn't help, feel free to revert, but my eyes are a bit fresher on this article because I haven't edited it much (I did the GA review) and I think I was seeing the stuff that was causing some head-scratching. I hope my changes were a net improvement and if they weren't, I do hope that at least a few wording tweaks clarified matters. Montanabw(talk) 22:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it helped. Thanks for all your help and everybody's comments. I haven't been able to be online as much I've wanted because of issues going on with two chronically ill relatives. I am trying to check in at least once a day, sometimes twice if possible, so I will get to something sooner or later. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Mike and Sarastro, how are things looking to you now?
  • As this is the nominator's first FAC (a belated welcome to the process, BTW!), I'd like to see a reviewer conduct a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- just FYI, WAF, this is a standard hoop we ask all first-time nominators to jump through.
  • I think we also still need the usual source review for formatting and reliability.

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – I noticed that spotchecks and a source inspection were requested, and think that I can fill in to give an FAC newcomer some help.

  • Reference 24 is to RootsWeb, which is not a very reliable source in general, and I wouldn't want to see it used in an FA unless there is a really good reason. The rest of the references appear to be reliable.
    • In that case, it is a note verifying a minor point that two prior family members who both won the championship were not father and son. I'm not sure where else the obituary could be located. It is a source for a minor issue that could be a quibble amongst the aficionados or the anal-retentive. I did a brief search and could not locate an obituary elsewhere, though it might not be impossible--MTBW
      • I'd just use ref 24 (the list of champions), along with this source, which verifies that they were brothers. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nominator added the first source, while I pitched in and added the new article. The unreliable source is gone now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publisher of ref 12 (TWHBEA) should be spelled out, like you did in ref 1. The RootsWeb source is also missing a listed publisher.
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • Ref 13 is missing an access date, unlike the other Times Daily sources.
    • FIXED--MTBW
  • I don't think a Google Books link (ref 2) requires an access date, as it is treated as a printed book cite for that purpose.
    • REPLACED accessdate with date, which was missing. --MTBW
  • Ref 16 has the date in MDY format (September 1, 1970), when the rest of the cites are in DMY format (9 August 2016). You're going to hate me for saying this, but I actually think the cites should be MDY. That is the typical formatting for an American subject, and would be consistent with how dates are formatted in the article. If this sounds too tedious for you, let me know and I'll lend a hand.
    • Can you lend a hand? WAF is limited in her online time right now (see her talk page) and I'm only second whip. --MTBW
  • The end of Note a doesn't have a reference. You might want to add one, since I'm not sure if a horse's gait style would be considered common knowledge.
    • Found a source and added it -MTBW
  • Is a page number possible for reference 26?
    • FIXED--MTBW
      • I don't see the page number there; it's now number 27, if that helps. If there isn't one available, it's not a big deal. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the spot-checks, I looked at references 2, 7, 11, 14, and 22, and identified the following issues:
    • Ref 2 doesn't give a birth date for the third child of Lucius and Sadie Burgess Dunn, but it says Sadie Dunn died in 1984 at the age of 91. That means that she must have been born in the 1800s, and that Bud was his parents' third child, not the second as the article says.
      • FIXED -- The Burgess source (now footnote 3) only lists two children, then Sadie is discussed before and after the kids are listed, I can see why that was confusing. If changed the text to "second child."
    • Ref 7 gives Delight Puff and Stuff's name as Delight Puff & Stuff. Is that an MoS thing or did you find something else presenting the name with "and"?
      • this source used "and." Also, most breed registries grumble at us if we use symbols, usually only letters and numbers are allowed. --MTBW
    • Ref 14: "was the most popular team in Celebration history." Article: "was said to be the most popular in Celebration history." It's a little close, although this is the only thing near a close paraphrasing concern that I found. I'd try to rephrase it just to be safe.
      • I made it more direct and quoted the source. --MTBW
  • An optional recommendation: I strongly suggest that page numbers be provided for the Google News links. Stories on Google News have a way of disappearing sometimes, due to rights issues etc., and this can harm verifiability down the road. By adding page numbers, if a link goes dead you can simply remove the link and have a full citation to a print source, lowering the chance of link rot affecting FA status in the future. This is up to you, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • FIXED--MTBW

Giants2008 and others: I think I got most of your fixes. WAF is a bit busy IRL, so also Let me know if there is more to do! Montanabw(talk) 02:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think if there's no source for the "only father and son pair to win world championships" fact, it should be cut; and I don't think rootsweb is good enough to source it. It's a fairly minor point -- after all, the newspaper article about the victory doesn't mention it. Once this is cut I'm ready to support promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, ref 9 said "No other father and son team has ever won grand championships", which appears to cover that sentence. My concern was about the second note, which is where RootsWeb is used. I proposed a solution above, which should be good enough to preserve the note. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; sorry, I didn't read your notes carefully enough. I agree your solution would work, and I'll support when that (or something equivalent) is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now made that change. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That was the last obstacle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Sorry for the delay, but all the changes looking good and I'm happy to support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose:: I think you can take another look at this to see if it's ready to promote yet. Montanabw(talk) 06:28, 28 September 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) 11:12, 29 September 2016 [11].

Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward, a 2012 visual novel developed by Chunsoft. It features an incredibly convoluted story (as you'll soon read) with more WTF moments than I can remember. It was well received by critics, and was even nominated by GameSpot for Game of the Year. This was the first article I ever put serious time into editing, and together with IDV and ThomasO1989, we've brought this article up to what we believe are FAC standards. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Czar[edit]

  • The Reception section is exceptionally short right now and overquoted. Needs more paraphrasing and elaboration on major and minor themes from the reviewers. czar 22:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about the reviews for this game is that they really don't go into a whole lot of detail about the smaller intricacies in the game, or what they liked and disliked. Seriously, it's weird, but I think it's because since it's a visual novel, most critics didn't want to spoil any plot related stuff. In fact, most reviews spend the majority of their time explaining how visual novels work and how the Nonary Game works. The EGM review for example states that "I know I’ve been decidedly obscure about explaining what you’ll find in Virtue’s Last Reward—but I cannot stress enough that the less you know about this game going in, the more enjoyment you’ll have" while the Eurogamer reviews states "To reveal how it does so would be to ruin the fun and take away the dizzying, off-kilter moments that make Virtue's Last Reward such a frequent joy." However, rereading through the reviews, I did find how some reviews felt the character animations were wonky, and I could add to each paragraph a little bit. I'll also try to condense the quotes into paraphrased sentences. Although, I would like to keep the quote "among the best performances I've ever heard in any game, period." Not often you see a quote like that for a game. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I've expanded the paragraphs in the review section. I think you'll like the changes. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dissident93[edit]

Comments by Dissident93 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • I've never did an article review before (I'd rather just edit it myself and save the time), but here is what I'd change, based on a policy or guideline. Here is what I found based on a solid skim through the article:

Lead Developed for the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita, it was released on February 12, 2012 in Japan, and in North America and Europe later that year.

  • Dates should always be generalized in the lead, per WP:VG/DATE.
Done, though I'm a bit worried about having the word "in" used three times in the same sentence. I'll try to fix that soon

Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was originally released as a stand-alone title, but its unexpected success in North America prompted game director Kotaro Uchikoshi to continue the series with a sequel.

  • Unexpected according to whom? And did it not have success in Europe, or was success expected there from the start?
According to Uchikoshi, it's a rarity for a game developed in Japan to be more commercially successful in the West than in Japan. I could add "but its unexpected commercial success in North America" if you want. As for the second part, Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors was not released in Europe. I feel that would be unnecessary to mention in the lead
Oops, I must have been looking at another article's infobox at the time or something. In that case, adding commercial works. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, the game was not commercially successful in Japan, which led to the development of its sequel to be put on indefinite hiatus.

  • Indefinite hiatus, but the sequel was released last month? This needs to be re-worded or sentences merged to seem less like they were written in two different eras (which seems to be the case).
Done

Gameplay

  • Seems to be fine, I would have to nitpick to say anything needs to be fixed.

Plot Each character description is taken from the Aksys Games website.

  • Some meta-comment like this doesn't need to be stated in plain sight. Either turn this into a footnote, or remove it all together and find a better place for the source. Rest of the section seems fine.
Done

Development Uchikoshi also considered including several scientific and philosophical theories/experiments that eventually were left out including: Dissipative system, Monty Hall problem, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Toxoplasmosis, Folie à deux, Capgras delusion, Fregoli delusion, Sally–Anne test, and Project MKUltra.

  • Run-on sentence that lists random (to a casual reader) linked concepts. Not saying this needs to be removed, but it could be better written or trimmed a bit.
I agree, but I'm not quite sure how to fix this. I'll get back to you on this.

Promotion and release

  • Section itself is fine, but normally we just go with "Release" as the subsection title on game articles. Probably just a nitpick though, but it's something I'd personally edit.
Agreed, so I changed it to just release

Reception The aggregate-review website Metacritic rated the Nintendo 3DS version 88/100,[48] and the PlayStation Vita version 84/100.

  • This means nothing to a casual reader. It should be written simply in prose as "The game received generally favorable reviews, according to review aggregator Metacritic."
Done

It was also tied for the seventh highest rated PlayStation Vita game of 2012 on Metacritic.

  • This is not normally written in game articles, even ones who are listed as the best game of the year. I'd remove it, but this is another personal opinion, not a guideline or policy.
I just removed those sentences entirely. There not that important

Sequel

  • Nothing I'd change here, section is fine from what I see.

Summary

  • One final thing I'll say is that I thought Visual Novel Database external links were considered user generated, and therefore should be removed per WP:ELNO #12? Outside of that, the article follows WP:VG/GL and WP:MOS guidelines and policies, and once the aforementioned issues above are addressed, I'll support the article becoming featured. But again, first time I've ever done this, so I'm not sure if I did anything wrong for a nomination. You might want to re-check your Dota 2 comments to see if I properly addressed them too, if you haven't already.
I know that movie articles tend to have IMDb in their external links, but since the Visual Novel Database isn't well established, I have no problem removing it. As for the review, don't worry, you did exactly what you needed to do. I'll ping you once I've finished the run on sentence in the development section. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: I've fixed all your comments. You might also want to check over the lead again, since I shortened it to three paragraphs, and reworded a bunch of the sentences. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that looks off is the very first paragraph, which looks a bit small in comparison with the other two. But of course, we should never add bloat just to increase a section, and it gets all of the article's major points across, so it's fine. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by PresN[edit]

Review by PresN
Resolved
  • Reserving this spot; will start the review tomorrow. --PresN 01:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are presented from a first-person perspective,[9] with the player being able to move between" -> "with the player able to move between"
  • "if the player sets the puzzle's difficulty level from "hard" to "easy"" - you can't set "from", so either "changes the puzzle's difficulty level from 'hard' to 'easy'" or just "sets the level puzzle's difficulty level to 'easy'".
  • "For example, if a particular plotline cannot progress because a required password is unknown, the player must jump to other plotlines and find it before returning to the original one." - that "it" is problematic. I think the sentence would be clearer as "For example, if a particular plotline cannot progress because a required password is unknown, the player must jump to another plotline and learn the password there before returning to the original one."
Thanks - it's easy to overlook vague or confusing wording since I already know what's meant, so this is really helpful.--IDVtalk 16:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player is thus required to jump often" - the "thus" is unnecessary.
  • "Although dependent on a given timeline, the characters either discover" - "Depending on the given timeline, the characters also either discover"; additionally, it's a bit vague on if you find these in the first puzzle room or later in the game - you don't say, but the connection with the prior sentence implies it to me.
Yeah, it's after the first room. I think it's better explained now.--IDVtalk 16:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The remaining participants proceed to the next set of puzzle rooms." - well, now I'm lost. I thought you were covering a big chunk of the game in the prior paragraph; was all that just in the first set of rooms? Or by "set" do you mean "series", as in several rooms that the player beats one after another?
@PresN: Yeah, the exploration of the characters' backstories take place throughout a large portion of the game. I think it is only confusing due to how the bit about Dio being restrained was part of the previous paragraph; I moved it to the next one, to clarify that everyone but Dio and Akane moves on after Sigma has defused the bombs. Let me know if you think this works.--IDVtalk 16:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they uncover a holographic message of the old woman, the same woman Tenmyouji has been looking for, Akane Kurashiki" - the series of commas makes the center one an aside, which flows better if the name is the center instead of a whole phrase. "they uncover a holographic message of the old woman, Akane Kurashiki, who was the woman Tenmyouji was looking for."
  • "Dio sought to prevent this goal." - A "goal" isn't an action that can be prevented; try "Dio sought to stop the project."
  • Wow. That plot is... a lot more complicated than I expected for an escape-the-room visual novel.
Oh believe me, it gets MUCH more complicated if you play the game.
  • "and thus, moved production of the game to the Nintendo 3DS and PlayStation Vita" - "and changed production of the game to the 3DS and Vita"
  • "These scrapped ideas included Monty Hall problem [...] and Capgras delusion" - "These scrapped ideas included the Monty Hall problem [...] and the Capgras delusion"
  • "It was important to know whether information regarding each character had been revealed yet to the player" - "revealed yet to the player in that timeline"
  • Try mixing up the "Bob of Website" formula- "Website's Bob", "Writing for Website, Bob", etc.
  • The whole reception section feels like a list of quotes clumped by theme, and has the weakest writing of the whole article as a result; it could use some more variation and linking between statements. "Martin Robinson of Eurogamer appreciated that the cast was believable and that each character was powered by real emotion. Boosinger commented that the characters were not well written, and that there was little reason to care about them until their backstories were revealed." - these two sentences contradict each other, but are just laid side-by-side without so much as a "however". Additionally, for three paragraphs straight every single sentence is "X of Y said blah." "A of Z said blah". Mixing up the sentence structure would also help a lot in keeping this section from getting laborious to read- "The voice acting was praised by X of Y, who said "blah", as well as by Z's A, who complimented the bluh." See User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections for a lengthier discussion about this topic.
  • "including: [X, Y, Z,] as well as Best Story and Best Graphic Adventure from RPGFan" - "as well as" doesn't work in a colon-separated list, and is kind fo awkward in general. Just "and" will do.
  • "The game also received nominations for: [X] and Game of the Year from [A, B, and C]." - and on the flip side, because of the "and" this isn't a straight list of nominations, so the colon doesn't work. Removing the colon fixes this.
  • "However, less than a year later" - Having "however" at the start interrupts the flow; reverse to "Less than a year later, however,"
  • "resembled the fonts from Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors's cover art, which led some to believe that the countdown timer would end with an announcement regarding the third Zero Escape game." - feels a little "written in the moment, 4 years ago"; better as "resembled the fonts from Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors's cover art, which led to speculation it was counting down to an announcement regarding a third Zero Escape game"

The reception section's choppiness is the largest problem I saw with the article. --PresN 17:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review PresN! I will admit, I've never been the best at reception sections, but I'll see what I can do. As of the moment it is rather choppy. Unfortunately, this just so happens to be the week I move into my college dorm, so I might be a bit preoccupied for the next few days or so. I cleared up some of the smaller issues, but the story and reception issues might take a little longer to fix. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Alright, together with IDV, I think we've managed to strengthen the reception section. We've added variations to the sentence lengths, changed the monotonous "Joe Nobody of IGN" stuff, and removed some unnecessary details. Hopefully this is now up to your liking
Much better, now Support. --PresN 17:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC) (note: pings don't work if you don't sign in the same edit, so I never got this one)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Just pinging you to see if you're still interested in doing the review. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Overall, this is a solid article. I have a few comments, as follows:

  • The story section is... uh, involved. Not entirely sure if there's any way to simplify it overall, although Depending on whether or not Dio murdered Akane in a given timeline, either Sigma's clone or Akane occupies K's armor, a quantum superposition just doesn't make sense to me. Just drop the quantum mechanics bit, it's a comma splice and doesn't illuminate anything.
Yeah, the writer is fond of multi-timeline stories, which makes it difficult to put together an ordinary plot summary. Regarding the "Depending on..." sentence: it's meant to say that in timelines where Akane was killed, Sigma's clone is the person wearing the K armor, and that in the timeline where she remained alive, she is the one wearing it. I have rewritten it, and hope it's clearer now. And yes, the quantum superposition bit doesn't really add anything to the reader's understanding of the plot, so I removed it.--IDVtalk 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a strong WP:NFCC case to be made for the inclusion of File:VLR cast.png. The commentary in the article is basically "they were designed to be diverse", which is great, but doesn't justify the image alone. There's nothing in the reception section or very precise details in development to buttress its inclusion either. My recommendation is to remove it.
Done--IDVtalk 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
    • What makes Technology Tell, Geekster.de, and 4Gamer.net high-quality reliable sources?
According to WP:VG/RS, Technology Tell and 4Gamer.net are reliable sources. As for Geekster.de, it is not, but since it is the only source that mentions that the game was originally going to be developed for the Nintendo DS, I think it should be kept, especially since it is from Uchikoshi himself
(edit conflict) Replaced the first TT ref; the second TT ref and the Geekster ref are interviews, which I believe should be usable as self-published sources. 4Gamer.net is a major Japanese games news site, which I would compare to something like Eurogamer or IGN. CNET calls it a popular, established and comprehensive game news site with 3.3 million unique visitors monthly (as of December 2011), and says that it grew into the site it is now through its high-quality reviews. It has partnered with Gamesindustry.biz, and runs the Japanese version of the site, translating Japanese content into English and Western content into Japanese, and has been cited by several other RSs ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20])--IDVtalk 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 20 and elsewhere gives The Escapist's publisher as Gamer Network, inconsistently with other mentions.
No idea why it was like that, but I changed it to the correct Defy Media.--IDVtalk 19:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a bit confused by the use and necessity of the separate notes section; what are the Questions being cited with no context? Do we really need an explanation of Famitsu's score when it's not relevant to the article body? (Indeed, the Famitsu review isn't referenced in prose.) The bit on Chunsoft's merger just comes off as trivia.
Perhaps there is a better way to do it, but the reason for those question notes is that the Q&A page being cited is quite long, so it would be time-consuming for a reader to verify the information if they didn't know what specific questions/answers we were using. I see what you mean about the Chunsoft merger and the Famitsu score, so I went ahead and removed them.--IDVtalk 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can duplicate the same ref information and fill out the Example text element of {{cite web}} to give the question and/or exact quote. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Done. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't bother citing the game for the plot section if all you're going to cite is "the game".
Done--IDVtalk 19:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: I believe I have fixed or otherwise addressed everything you brought up so far.--IDVtalk 20:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

  • Support I've read through the article and couldn't find any issues to raise, given the fact that I also came late to the review. It is well written, well sourced and comprehensive, so it meets the criteria. Nice work! JAGUAR  16:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Virtue's Last Reward 3DS Boxart.jpg: Non-free file, which seems correct to me. It has a boilerplate NFC rationale but it seems like each point of WP:NFCC is met (it is highly unlikely that using box art has noticeable financial effects that would result in a WP:NFCC#2 violation).
  • File:Virtue's Last Reward escape the room.png: Non-free file, which seems correct to me. There is discussion of this specific scene in the article so I think that WP:NFCC#8 may be met, as an illustration of what is being discussed. The use rationale is far too generic with regards to "purpose of use" - it needs to indicate why the inclusion of that image enhances the understanding of the article topic and why its absence would result in said understanding being lost.

Both images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review! Since it appears that the boxart image was fine, I just improved the "purpose of use" in the gameplay screenshot. I believe it is now up to standard. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: The article looks like ready to become FA so I would give two small issues I found while reading it. If you have some free time later, could you also provide feedback to my review (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1)?Tintor2 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Story and themes, I would avoid using "()" and reword it like "a brain teaser based on probability, the Monty Hall problem".
  • The first reception sentence is a bit small. I would suggest merging it with the next paragraph.

Coord note[edit]

@Famous Hobo: Since this appears to be your first time through FAC, it is customary to get a spot-check of your sources for any issues with verifiability and close paraphrasing. I have requested one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK[edit]

  • No dead links - OK.
  • No DAB links - OK.
  • Thorough consistent sourcing - OK.
  • Apparently reliable sources for a game-related article (mostly gaming websites and reviews, interviews for uncontroversial details) - OK (disclaimer: not a gaming expert). GermanJoe (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing - all OK[edit]

10 randomly selected online references: 16 20 21 31 33 42 52 69 72 74.

  • 42 - OK (my Japanese is non-existant, but the sales numbers are clearly listed)
  • 52 - all OK (6 usages)
  • Not listed numbers without comments are all OK as well (just avoiding spam).

No problems with close paraphrasing, all checked sources accurately verify the referenced content. GermanJoe (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GermanJoe: Thanks for the reviews! Famous Hobo (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments?[edit]

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: So anything else needed? There are four supports (two from experienced FA editors), both the spot check and source reviews passed, and we got a image review (although the reviewer never responded, there was only one issue brought up, which was fixed. Should we wait to see if the image review passed, or is it good as is?). Famous Hobo (talk) 04:52, 28 September 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) 13:58, 24 September 2016 [21].

Josephine Butler[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Butler is a fascinating and important character in the history of women's rights. A tireless and forceful feminist and social reformer, she campaigned for women's suffrage, the right to better education for women, the end of coverture in British law, the end of child prostitution, against the human trafficking of young women and children into European prostitution and ending the Contagious Diseases Acts. This article has gone through a complete re-write recently and hugely profitable PR; many thanks to Cassianto, Tim riley, Ian Rose, Sagaciousphil, Brianboulton, Dr. Blofeld, Nikkimaria and Iazyges for all their help and suggestions. Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Had my say at PR and have been moved and impressed by this article. Meets the FA criteria in my view. If, as I suspect, this is a valedictory review of a valedictory nomination it would be hard to imagine a worthier candidate on which to sign off. Tim riley talk 18:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim: your efforts are, as they always have been, absolutely wonderful, and I thank you for them. - Gavin (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also went through the article at the start of the peer review; I've read through it again now after the adjustments and am happy to support promotion. I spot checked over half a dozen refs (currently #12, 14, 29, 30, 50, 85, 97 and 116) and they are accurately reflected (I did make a couple of tweaks) save for one minor query on ref #116: Jordan has 10 August 1885? The WP article on the act gives 14 Aug although it's not well referenced and after a very brief search I can't manage to work out the correct date. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks SagaciousPhil for your careful consideration both at PR and here. I've added Mather as another ref for the 14th; a general search shows that seems to be more commonly accepted (including this, this and these). Maybe Jordan was having a slightly off day when she wrote that: the rest of her work is in depth and excellent, as I am sure you know. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that. Indeed, like all the other references used in the article, Jordan's biography is a reliable, quality source; looks as if it was a simple typo in the book (we can all manage those!). Thanks for all the work you've put into this article; it captures the true essence of this phenomenal woman. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:George_Butler.jpg: per the tag, you'll need to include in the description what steps you've taken to try to identify the author.
  • Same with File:Josephine_Butler_-_Pontefract_meeting_notice.png,
  • File:William_Ewert_Gladstone_in_later_life.jpg
  • File:Florence_Booth.jpg has an error tag

Thanks Nikkimaria, these should all be sorted now. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN142: what kind of source is this?
  • Compare FNs 143 and 144
  • Check alphabetization of Sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria: these all sorted (I hope). Images to follow tomorrow. – Gavin (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did the heavy work at peer review, but found a few further points on my latest read-through:

  • This sentence: "Josephine campaigned for women's rights, including the right to the vote and have a better education" reads a little oddly, partly because the right to vote and the right to a better education are different things, whereas "the right to vote and have a better education" links them. The insertion of "to" after "and" would resolve this.
  • "The petition, supported by the MP and philosopher John Stuart Mill, did not pass when the bill became law." Petitions do not "pass". Suggested rewording "The petition, which was supported by the MP and philosopher John Stuart Mill, was ignored when the bill became law."
  • "the pamphlet was published in serial form in The Shield – That should probably br "re-published" as you've just said it was published as a 56-page pamphlet
  • "and wrote to The Shield to inform readers" – don't need the last three words, they are implied.

I also made a few punc and prose adjustment you can check out. Overall, fine work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian, all tweaked per your suggestions. Many thanks – Gavin (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:

  • I did originally note the lack of a mention of the homosexuality-related content of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, which I now see is in a footnote. I wonder if we know of anything Butler said/thought about this? I do feel strongly that this part of the act belongs in the article; I suspect you've gotten the balance right by including it in a footnote.
  • Mathers doesn't make any reference to her thoughts in that direction (except that she felt sorry for Oscar Wilde!) – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked through Jordan and two others, and there is no reference to her opinions on homosexuality. - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that there is no mention of her Women's Work and Women's Culture; I understand that this was very influential, and it's still in print today. Relatedly, I wonder if a link to her bibliography in the lead would be a good move.
  • Again I'll have a look at Jordan and some other sources Mathers makes no reference to it at all. – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I've checked through Jordan and two others, and there is no reference to this one. I've added a line in the lead to her writing, and I'll go through the sources and the article again to see if there are any obvious gaps where we can ease another written work in without overloading it. - Gavin (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The petition, supported by the MP and philosopher John Stuart Mill, did not pass when the bill became law." I'm afraid I'm struggling to understand what this sentence means.
  • Yes, Brian B also pointed this out too: I've tweaked this: does it look ok to you? – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, clearer. I think I misunderstood bill (which is not good on my part, but there you go); I think I find the use of reform jarring to describe a change to something that hasn't even been instituted yet- that may have been part of the confusion. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blockquote in "First attempt to repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts; 1869–74" doesn't flow that well from the text- try reading it aloud. I think removing the "they" in the quote would fix the issue.
  • I've gone a slightly different route: does that look OK to you? – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it: much better, thanks - Gavin (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As at 2016" Would "as of" (or {{as of}}) not be more typical?
  • "As at" is, I believe, more correct than the more American "as of". – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daggers, Jenny; Neal, Diana, eds. (2006). Sex, Gender, and Religion: Josephine Butler Revisited. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-8117-3." You should probably cite the particular chapter, here; unless you're citing the book as a whole ("for various facets of the debate, see") or attesting to its existence "she later published an edit collection...") particular chapters are surely more appropriate than the book as a whole. (It seems to be the introduction; there's nothing wrong with citing introductions as chapters.)
  • Introduction added – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Stroud, Glos: The History Press." Why the abbreviation?
  • Force of habit: now in full. – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning your Summers sources, if you have an issue number but no volume number, you should probably treat it as a volume number for the purposes of citation templates. (Also applies to Walkowitz 1982.)
  • Done this one too. – Gavin (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh: much appreciated! I need to do some work on a couple of the points, and I'll deal with them in the morning. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support; a few outstanding questions (in particular, I think you could do a little more to mention her writings) but, overall, I think this article exemplary. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Josh. I'll add a little more on her writing. I've also put together Josephine Butler bibliography, which covers as much of her work as I could find sources for it. This The biography is at FLC at the moment. - Gavin (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Dudley

  • "In this role John promoted his cousin's political opinions locally, including of Catholic emancipation" The "of" does not sound right to me. Maybe "about" or "supporting".
  • "Despite the move, Josephine continued to mourn for Eva" This seems a non sequitur.
  • "In 1866 she was a signatory on a petition to amend the Reform Bill to widen the franchise to include women. The petition, which was supported by the MP and philosopher John Stuart Mill, was ignored when the bill became law." This does not sound quite right to me - surely the time when the petition should have been considered was during the passage of the bill, not when it became law.
  • Tweaked to "The petition, ... was ignored and the bill became law", which clarifies the point. - Gavin (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Josephine called it a "year of discouragement" where there was "deep depression in the work"." Maybe "when" instead of "where"
  • So the the British and Continental Federation for the Abolition of Prostitution campaigned to protect prostitutes' civil rights? It sounds a bit odd. In the note you say other versions of the name say it was against the government regulation of prostitution, which is quite different.
  • A fine article. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Dudley, much appreciated indeed. Your points dealt with in these edits; please let me know if any need further attention. Cheers. - Gavin (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It does seem strange that there is doubt whether her society was to abolish prostitution or the government regulation of prostitution. Maybe someone in the nineteenth century accidentally left out "government regulation of" and writers have copied the mistake ever since! Dudley Miles (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The politics around prostitution is a strange beast, from the little I can make out of it. I watched a fascinating programme a week or so ago with Rupert Everett (himself a former sex worker) about the subject, why people do it and what their thoughts were about it: a huge variety of opinions, most of which were self-conflicting. - Gavin (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity: why is she referred ro as Josephine here and not Butler or Grey? 77.20.251.243 (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi IP, and thanks for your comment. It follows a comment made at the PR. There is often a problem with the use of the surname for married women: to call her BUTLER through her pre-marriage years confuses most readers (particularly when she meets her husband, who we then have to use the first name for); to call her GREY is the same in reverse but worse, because she is known to history as Butler; to use both GREY in her younger years and BUTLER post marriage is confusing. This is the way we can keep the naming consistent throughout. (see Isabella Beeton and Bessie Braddock for other examples of this.) Cheers - Gavin (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense - perhaps leave a hatnote at the top of the article to clarify the usage? 77.20.251.243 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we need to explain how people should be reading the page (and it would be an uncommon step to take on any article). What I'll do is to copy this thread onto the article talk page so that any future reader can see the question has been asked previously and can see the explanation for it. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible I can look at this next Monday? I badly need a break right now and I can then commit my full attention to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Doc, of course: I'm sure it'll still be running in a week. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll look a bit later today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • "well-to-do and politically well-connected" -rep of "well", can you find a different initial word like affluent or something?

I will fully review this later today, promise, the sun is shining heavily on this room at the moment and it's hot!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Early life
  • "John ensured that all his children were treated equally within the home, and would discuss politics and social issues with them; he also ensured that they met the various politically important visitors." - a bit wordy. Try something like "John treated his children equally within the home. He educated them in politics and social issues and exposed them to various politically important visitors".
  • As you're talking about John you don't need to say "Her father"
  • Link Naples
Liverpool
  • "By Easter 1867 she had established a second, larger home," -where was this? Same part of Liverpool?
  • The sources don't clarify unfortunately. – Gavin (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks a pretty sound account of an important article. I've not really got my critical mindset on at the moment to give this much of a grilling but certainly looks an adequate account for FA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc – your suggestions all adopted. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 19:15, 15 September 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) 14:04, 24 September 2016 [22].

History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present)[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the recent history of Liverpool F.C. from 1985 to the present day. I believe the article is close to being at featured standard, and deserves the scrutiny of the community. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - good to see another Liverpool article here, only got as far as the first section

  • Lead needs to be trimmed, it’s far too long.
  • "Dalglish became manager following the resignation of Fagan after the Heysel Stadium disaster. He started by replacing long-serving full-backs Phil Neal and Alan Kennedy with Steve Nicol and Jim Beglin," needs refs
  • The sentence which follows – “Liverpool started the 1985–86 season poorly," uses the same verb as its previous. Change to began?
  • "They continued to struggle until the end of the season when they won eleven of their last twelve matches,” not sure this is the right pronoun to use
  • "Liverpool needed to beat Chelsea in the last game of the season to win the league championship. A goal from Dalglish secured the championship,” sentence could be merged
  • You could wikilink ‘double’ for the readers’ benefit.
  • "At the start of the 1986–87 season, it was announced that Rush would leave the club for Italian team Juventus when the season was finished,” this could be more concise. Are you trying to say that Rush announced he would leave before the season was underway? Cut to the chase: "At the start of the 1986–87 season, Rush announced his intention to leave Liverpool for Italian team Juventus in time for the following season…"
  • Why did Rush announce his departure a season early? Quotes here would be useful.
  • "At the end of the season, Dalglish signed Peter Beardsley and John Barnes to improve their attacking options," needs citation and wikilink player names.
  • "The signings had the desired effect as Liverpool only lost two games in the league campaign. They did not suffer defeat until their 29th match against Everton and regained the league championship,” desired effect as they regained the league championship, losing two games is just the by-product.
  • "Despite being favourites…,” avoid noun + -ing form, use other words like 'although'
  • "Rush returned to Liverpool for the start of the 1988–89 season," citation? Why did he return?
  • I'd wiklink the 'up for grabs now' match somewhere. And you could include the fact that the match was originally scheduled to be played a month earlier but had to be replayed due to Liverpool's FA Cup commitments. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I think I've addressed them all bar the lead, which I'm going to rewrite in a few days! NapHit (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more, I'll try and have a proper look in the coming days...

  • "They remained unbeaten until a 3–0 loss to Arsenal in December, which was followed by another to Crystal Palace at the end of the month," needs ref
  • "Coach Ronnie Moran was installed as caretaker manager, he won three of the ten matches he was in charge of, as they fell further behind Arsenal," likewise, needs citation
  • "He bought Dean Saunders for £2.9 million, but the league campaign was unsuccessful for Liverpool, as they finished in sixth position, the first time they had finished outside the top two since 1981," another
  • "In the inaugural season of the Premier League, Liverpool performed poorly; they again finished in sixth place, losing fifteen of their forty-two matches," 42?
    • Yep, there were 22 teams in the first season of the Premier League. So, 42 matches were played. NapHit (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, I mean this could be written numerically! My fault, Lemonade51 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the MOS state we should write out numbers that are over 10, instead of listing them numerically? NapHit (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, they have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More, got as far as 'fluctuating fortunes':

  • "Their last match of the season was against second-placed Arsenal, who were three points behind" maybe change to final, reads better
  • "The match had originally been scheduled for 23 April, but due to Liverpool's FA Cup commitments it was postponed and rearranged for 26 May," change to 'game' as match becomes repetitive. "but due to Liverpool's FA Cup commitments" → "but Liverpool's FA Cup commitments meant..."
  • "The subsequent Taylor Report," published when? Year would suffice, don't need the actual date or month.
  • "Liverpool started the 1989–90 season in good form, which included a 9–0 victory...," how about replacing BIB with 'exemplified by' or 'illustrated by'
  • "The club suffered a blip in October," endured?
  • "Following the match, Liverpool signed forward Ronny Rosenthal on loan from Standard Liège to boost their attacking options," ref?
  • When Souness returned to Liverpool as manager, he notoriously made changes to the boot room which this article doesn't go into. I think it's worth a mention, given Souness is perceived as the one responsible for Liverpool's decline. Perhaps even quotes from journalists/ex-players as to why he failed would help? Then there's the argument that Dalglish left a old squad which badly needed reinvestment. And Liverpool's owners didn't embrace the commerical side of the game, unlike United who ran away with it in the 90s. Generally you have got the season-by-season account done, but context would give it that umph.
  • "The start of the 1992–93 season saw the start of the redevelopment of Anfield," reptitive
  • "Liverpool continued to struggle during the season, culminating in a defeat to Bristol City in an FA Cup replay," ref?
  • "Despite exiting the UEFA Cup and League Cup in the early rounds, the club reached the final of the FA Cup," what does the first bit have to do with the second bit?
  • Houllier got rid of the boot room culture, worth adding.
  • "Houllier continued the reshaping into the season when he signed forward Emile Heskey for a then club record £11 million in March.[57] With the absence of European competition, Liverpool's performance in the league improved. They finished the season in fourth place...," Liverpool were clear in second in April, so not sure performances 'improved' as they dropped down two places. Improved for a short time, yes, but was no Europe really a factor? I guess the key thing to take out is they missed out on third spot, which would've gained them entry to the Champions League.
  • Surprised there's no mention of Houllier's heart attack and subsequent absence during the 2001–02 season?
  • Decision to snub Anelka for Diouf worth including?

If I have time over the weekend I'll probably do a copyedit as I can spot a lot of repetitive sentences. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, I think I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch:

  • Have marked some sentences with 'cite needed' template, needs filling.
  • "Despite a loss in his first match against Manchester United in the FA Cup, Liverpool improved under Dalglish and eventually finished the season in sixth place"
  • "Dalglish bought a number of players at the start of the 2011–12 season, including Charlie Adam, Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson," ref?
  • "The season was marred by the Luis Suárez racial abuse incident in October during a match against Manchester United, in which Suárez racially abused Patrice Evra," replace with 'the player'
  • "...and was fined £40k and banned for eight games," split this into a sentence. £40k → £40,000
  • "Dalglish was sacked at the end of the season and replaced by Brendan Rodgers," what did he do differently than Dalglish, did he make any promises to supporters?
  • "In the 2013–14 season, Liverpool challenged for their first league title since 1990.," something bugs me about this, don't they 'challenge' for the title every season? You need to be specific here, something that tells me 'Liverpool thrust themselves into title contention, after a good run of form'.
  • "In April 2014, after a run of 11 consecutive victories, they lost 2–0 at home to Chelsea," needs citation. Again, could be worded better....Chelsea's win meant the title race was out of Liverpool's control.
  • "The following match they led 3–0 after 78 minutes, but ended in a 3–3 draw to Crystal Palace, as Manchester City won the league" → something like "Having taken a 3–0 lead in their next match – away at Crystal Palace, Liverpool conceded three times in the final 20 (?) minutes to draw 3–3. The result dented their title aspirations; although Liverpool went into the final day with a mathematical chance of winning the league, they were overhauled by Manchester City."
  • Wikilink Barcelona Lemonade51 (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, I think I've addressed them all. I'm going to have a go at tackling the lead in due course!
  • Looks good, will be happy to support once the lead is dealt with. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at trimming the lead @Lemonade51:, let me know if you're happy or more could be taken off. NapHit (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've had a go trimming the lead down even more. It's a bit rough in places, so feel free to make amendments. Happy to support this now, it's as comprehensive as it's going to get without going off a tangent. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Covers everything without going into over-detailing, paragraphs all similar size, so no bias towards recent events. Things I noticed, which could be better but don't harm my vote: in the lead, I got the impression I was reading "improved" a lot. Also a lot of "disappointed". Plus, didn't Liverpool gone from top dog in 1985, to just fight for Europe? In fact, didn't they broke a record for longest without winning the league? That should be somewhere in the article. Beware of repeated links, there a lot of fanatics about that.--Threeohsix (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Threeohsix If you mean longest time for any English team, that would be Preston North End from 1890 to present. This is indeed Liverpool's own longest spell without the league, but I don't recall any significant coverage of that fact when the record was broken. '''tAD''' (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • I see one source listed in the bibliography but never cited, and two sources cited in body text but not list in bib.. Please get User:Ucucha/HarvErrors, find those, and fix all.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, all the sources listed in the bibliography are cited. I've fixed the issues regarding the Harv errors. Thanks for pointing those out @Lingzhi:. NapHit (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone corrected it, I guess.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it's tricky to see what else can be removed from the lead, especially as I think the first sentence is bit weird:
The history of Liverpool Football Club from 1985 to the 2015–16 Liverpool F.C. season covers the period from the appointment of Kenny Dalglish as manager, the Hillsborough disaster, the club's return to European competition in 1991, and the club's performance in the Premier League. - the last item sounds like a "thing" like the others. I'd reword it like, "The history of Liverpool Football Club from 1985 to the 2015–16 Liverpool F.C. season covers the period from the appointment of Kenny Dalglish as manager, the Hillsborough disaster, and the club's return to European competition in 1991. The club played in the top tier—reconstituted as the Premier League in 1992—of English football throughout this period." or something like it.
The 2008–09 season saw Liverpool finish second in the league to Manchester United, but they could not challenge for the title a season later, finishing seventh. - I think we can lose this sentence out of the lead if we are really trying to trim
Following the end of the season, an inquiry, headed by Lord Taylor was set up to establish the causes of the Hillsborough disaster. - the comma after "inquiry" as it stands is wrong. You can either remove it or add another one after "Lord Taylor" - not fussed really but my preference is for the former...
...recommended that major stadia remove terracing and become all-seater stadia - two "stadia" in the sentence...I'd change the second to "venues"

Otherwise looking on track for FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Casliber:, I've addressed them. NapHit (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Have we had an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will perform an image review later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Alrighty, here we go:

  • File:2005 trophy cropped.jpg: Free file on Commons, but missing a license statement (or commons:COM:FOP tag) for the underlying trophy is a big omission - also complained about here. Plausible EXIF but doesn't seem to match most of the other uploads, own work, photos in larger resolution of the same object appear to exist elsewhere on the web so I wonder what it is a crop of - probably also worth adding to the file page.
  • File:Hillsborough Memorial, Anfield.jpg: Free file on Commons, I wonder about the copyright status of the underlying memorial (if any). File from Flickr, apparently the license was changed after the upload to a noncommercial one but that doesn't invalidate a previous license. The Flickr user has somewhat random EXIFs in their images. Image is in a pertinent section which discusses the Hillsborough disaster.
  • File:The Kop - Last Game as a Standing Terrace - geograph.org.uk - 1493996.jpg: Free file on Commons, from an external source, no EXIF. Exists elsewhere on the web postdating the Commons upload. Caption is discussed two paragraphs farther down, as is the subject of the image.
  • File:Liverpool-PSG 1997.png: Free image on Commons, no EXIF apparently an own work. Exists elsewhere on the web at lower resolution. Image seems to match the theme of the other uploads by that uploader. Image shows a match that is described in the article section in question.
  • File:2006FACupFinal.JPG: Free image on Commons, I wonder what that trophy in the image is (as well as its copyright status). Plausible EXIF, didn't check the other uploads. Same resolution images elsewhere on Wikipedia mirrors. Image caption and topic discussed in the last paragraph of the section, seems pertinent but may be worth moving down.
  • File:Cardiff throw-in.jpg: Free image on Commons. Plausible EXIF, from Flickr, I wonder where that blue line that cuts the image vertically comes from. Didn't check other uploads from the Flickr user in detail but they appear to follow a football scene theme. Caption appears to be supported by the file page and the article text, which in the section describes the match. Image used elsewhere on the web but no indication of prior publication.

All images need WP:ALTTEXT, and as noted the first one has copyright problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I think I addressed everything you mentioned. NapHit (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the first image has unresolved copyright problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm being a little thick, but I'm not entirely sure what I'm to do with the first image? I added that tag you suggested, do I need to add anything else to it or should I just remove it and replace it with another image? NapHit (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know about the copyright status of the trophy. Photos of an artwork can fall under that artwork's copyright, to simplify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right ok. I'm not 100% sure of the copyright status. I added the tag you linked to, I'm not sure if that is sufficient or not. I'm not much of an expert on image policy as you can probably tell! According to that discussion you linked to, trophies on display in museums have freedom of panorama, so it should be ok with that tag added shouldn't it? NapHit (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Are you able to check how this looks now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2006FACupFinal.jpg needs a FoP tag or something to address the derivative work concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added the tag to the FA Cup image. NapHit (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hillsborough Memorial, Anfield.jpg might merit the same tag. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added the tag. NapHit (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. I should've double-checked earlier but has anyone actually signed off on the sources for formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not if @Lingzhi:'s reviews counts as a source review, but he did look over the formatting. NapHit (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John[edit]

I agree with the nominator that the article "close to being at featured standard". Right now I have to oppose on prose. More to follow. --John (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • These edits represent a rough first pass towards bringing this article to FA quality. Please inspect and fix any problems I have caused. We are not paid by the word. --John (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good so far John. NapHit (talk) 10:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
John, are you able to complete your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now support on prose. --John (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look at lead

  • The title gives the temporal scope as to the present, but the opening sentence restricts it to "the 2015–16 season".
  • "The club played in the top tier – which became the Premier League in 1992 – of English football throughout this period." – It's OK, but what do you think of this? "throughout this period, the club played in the top tier of English football, which in 1992 became the Premier League." Clear enough that the Premier League isn't non-English?
  • "which resulted in Liverpool being banned indefinitely from European competition" – what about: "which resulted in Liverpool's indefinite ban from European competition"?
  • "In April 1989, 96 of the club's supporters were killed in the Hillsborough disaster, during an FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium." Two numerals juddering (just after another numerical range), which MOS doesn't much like, although it is one option. Another is to spell out "96". Or something like: "The Hillsborough disaster, which occurred during an FA Cup semi-final against Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium in April 1989, resulted in the deaths of 96 of the club's supporters." Just a suggestion.
  • Then perhaps organise the thematic flow to the subsequent sentence like this? "After the disaster, Dalglish's led the club to their 18th title, in 1989–90; but the job was becoming too stressful and he resigned in February 1991." Please check the micro-chronology so that we've got the onset of stress timed correctly (I might have messed it up). This is referenced in the body of the article, I presume.
  • "terracing" ... could you spell it out? "the end of terraced seating", is it?
  • "In 1998, Gérard Houllier was appointed co-manager alongside Evans, which lasted until November when Evans resigned." – "which lasted" is a problem (the act of appointing?). The manner of his departure isn't clear in relation to Evans' resignation ... did Houllier resign with him?
  • The unfortunate allowance of pluralising sport teams becomes a little over the top when we have: "the club were sold to". Tony (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Tony1:, I've added your suggestions into the lead. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 22 September 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) 14:37, 24 September 2016 [23].

Vladimir Lenin[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent political figures of the 20th century, a man who established the Soviet Union and whose ideas had a colossal impact on the global communist movement. In recent months it has been awarded GA status and has undergone a peer review; now is the time for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Congratulations on bringing forward what looks like an impressively well-researched article. I am semi-detached from Wikipedia at the moment, largely confining myself to TFA and revising/updating my old FA nominations, with only occasional reviewing. So I doubt I'll be able to give this fine effort the attention it deserves. However, here are a few superficial observations for you to consider:

  • IB: it's not as long as some of those for comparable world figures, but it still plunges into the text. Does all the information in it qualify as "key facts", which is what IBs were originally designed for? Do we, for example, need "Succeeded by..." (is that "key"?), or all the brothers and sisters, or the non-information about children, or the list of "other names"? Worth a thought.
    • A very fair point. I have removed the list of "other names", because no references were provide for it. I have also removed the "Children: None" section, and the "Soviet" part of Nationality. That has cut the infobox down a little bit, although the change is admittedly not substantial. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still with the IB, is "Soviet" a nationality? Also, is "Revolutionary" an "occupation" as we generally understand the term?
    • I've removed "Soviet" as a nationality; I think that "Revolutionary" may count as an "occupation" because the latter is distinguished from "profession" in the infobox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over-citation. The total number of cited refs (577) is the most I've seen in a WP article by a long chalk, and since most of these contain at least three or four separate book refs, there are probably 2000+ citations in the article. This is fairly staggering. I note a particular tendency to over-cite simple facts: I see no purpose in ref 1, a dictionary definition of "Lenin". And do we need three book references to verify that "Ilya married Maria Alexandrovna Blank in the summer of 1863"? Or five to confirm "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino"? (these are random examples)
    • Ref 1 has been included (not by me, but by someone else) because it provides a useful citation regarding how to pronounce "Lenin"; so it's not there to bolster the definition but rather the pronunciation, so one that basis I would support its continued inclusion. As for the quantity of referencing, this is again something that I would defend; Lenin is a very controversial figure and there may well be individuals trying to change bits and pieces in order to push a particular political agenda - having multiple, clear citations to scholarly biographical studies are very useful in that scenario. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, yes for those aspects of Lenin which attract controversy, but surely not Ilya's wedding or the family's holiday destination? Or other mundane facts. If this article is promoted as things stand, it will be the 10th longest FA on the basis of wordcount, but the largest of all in terms of overall file size, at 769kb – the current longest FA, Elvis Presley, has 587kb. It might be that none of your other reviewers raises this concern, in which case well and good; I'm not going to labour the point, but I think it should be borne in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to check "p." and "pp." in your page range formats. I have something for an eye for these things, and you should look at ref 6 (Lih) and 25 (Rice), and check for others.
    • I've gone through and corrected all of the errors that I could find here. I think that I've got them all although if anyone else comes upon any then please do let me know so that I can make a correction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, but I will watch developments with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Brian. It's appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, I believe we're getting to the stage where this nom can be closed but I'd be happy to hold it open longer if you wanted the chance to revisit in light of the commentary since you were here last. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My current commitments will prevent any further involvement in this review. I am pleased that the article has gathered a number of supports, as I always felt that it was a brave and worthwhile project. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article is potentially of FA standard at first glance, but I don't propose to give it the close reading it merits until something is done about the spelling, which at present is a hotchpotch of English and American. We have criticised and criticizing, center and centre, neighboring and neighbouring, sympathisers and sympathizers. Alongside the BrE baptised, capitalised, emphasising, enamoured, favouring, haemorrhage, labour, normalise, organisation, theorising etc, we have the AmE defense, goiter, honors, misbehavior, realizing, traveling etc. BrE spellings are in the majority, I think, but there is a substantial minority of AmE spellings. I suppose theoretically, under WP:ENGVAR the first version of the page should be found that contains an identifiably BrE or AmE spelling and whichever it is should be adopted for this article, but that isn't possible here, because the first one in which such a distinction is to be found (28 July 2002) contains both BrE – practise (verb) and travelled – and AmEng – license (noun). I'd be happy to standardise the spelling, if wanted, with the aid of a little program I use that makes it a quick and simple task. But standardised it must be if the article is to reach FA standard. – Tim riley talk 08:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That program sounds great, do you have a url for it? - Dank (push to talk) 11:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, it was cobbled together for me by a techie friend and sits somewhere on my old PC. I've an idea it draws on some available freeware but I'm not sure. Tim riley talk 12:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your thoughts, Tim. There is a tag on the talk page stating that the article uses British English so I think it best if we standardise it to that. I've gone through the article and made all of the changes that I could spot, namely those which you have already mentioned. If there are any further examples that need changing then please do let me know. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling is now all fine. I'll begin a close reading tonight or tomorrow and will report back here a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 16:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is a dauntingly huge article, and it will take me several goes to do it justice. I'm really sorry to have missed the peer review, where most of the following comments would have been made, but better late than never. First batch, to the end of "Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath":

  • Childhood
    • "Every summer they holidayed at a rural manor in Kokushkino" – It isn't clear to me why we need to know this.
      • It may not be essential, but it helps provide a better appreciation of Lenin's family background (i.e. that they owned a rural manor and had the spare time to holiday there) and moreover Kokushkino is mentioned again slightly later in the article when Lenin was exiled there, so the initial mention therefore provides some background information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, before the attack" – There are 20 howevers in the text of the article, and in my view every one of them could be removed, to the benefit of the prose.
      • Not sure I agree on this one. In many instances I feel that the "However" is of real benefit to the flow of the prose. That being said, I have removed it from the prose in a number of instances where I feel it is probably superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • University and political radicalisation: 1887–93
    • "convinced the authorities to allow Lenin" – in BrE one convinces that and persuades to. Either "persuaded the authorities to allow Lenin" or "convinced the authorities that Lenin should be allowed to". Ditto for "she convinced the authorities to move her" and other later "convince"s.
  • Early activism and imprisonment: 1893–1900
    • "with Marxist schoolteacher Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya" – rather a cumbersome false title; the prose might flow better if you gave her an indefinite article: with Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya, a Marxist schoolteacher.
    • "authored" – strange and rather horrible verb; wouldn't "wrote" be plainer?
      • Personally I quite like "authored", but admittedly this is a moot point. I won't change it now, however if others come along and agree with you then I'm happy to do so at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "emigre" – "émigré" according to the Chambers and the Oxford English Dictionaries (though the OED doesn't insist on the accent on the first of the two es)
  • Munich, London, and Geneva
    • "RSDLP program" – "programme" unless it was for an early computer
  • Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath: 1905–1914
    • "the British Museum library" – I suppose it is an accurate term, but it looks odd: the place is always referred to as "the Reading Room of the British Museum" (with or without capital Rs, according to choice.)
      • I have changed "British Museum library" to "British Museum Reading Room" and appended the necessary link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 08:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much more from me on the rest of the text:

  • The phrase "in order to" keeps cropping up, and becomes distracting after several repetitions: there are no circumstances when "in order to" says anything that a plain "to" doesn't.
    • I've found eight instances of this wording in the article, one of which was from a direct quotation. When it comes to the other seven instances, I have left two which I think are fairly necessary and removed the remaining five. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking: for my money there are otiose blue links to everyday words including godfather, divorce, speculators, looters, prostitutes, suicide, coma and atheist; we don't link major religions (Jewish, Islamic); and there are 16 duplicate links starting with Kazan University and ending with Pravda.
    • Right, I've gone in and removed all of those duplinks, and removed a few of the everyday words (although I try to be cautious here as some words may seen common for those of us in Western contexts but may be less familiar for those in other parts of the world). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found it difficult to decide whether I can support promotion to FA: I found the article dauntingly long, but on the other hand I didn't see any extensive sections that strayed from the point or seemed over-detailed, and the prose is readable throughout. On balance, I think the article will meet the FA criteria, subject to the minor tweaking mentioned above.

Final point: I'm sure this has been very carefully considered already, but the title of the article surprises me: I don't think I've ever seen him referred to anywhere else as "Vladimir Lenin" rather than as "Lenin" tout court on the one hand or "Vladimir Ilyich Lenin" on the other. But having made the point, I do not press it. Tim riley talk 07:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comments, Tim! I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read through it and provide your opinions on how it could be improved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm adding my support now, and I also add my congratulations for your Herculean labours on this important subject. Tim riley talk 21:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Avoid fixed image sizes, per WP:IMGSIZE
    • I've looked into doing so, however it results in some images becoming too large for the section in which they are located, and others becoming so small that they are barely visible. For these reasons I would recommend keeping things the way they are on this front. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can use |upright= to scale the images in line with users' preferences, rather than setting a single size for everyone. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adding "upright=" doesn't appear to be correcting the problem; it still results in some images being too small and others being too large. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lenin.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what was the author's date of death? Same with File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg, File:Marx6.jpg, File:Engels.jpg, File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg, File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, File:5_May_1919-Trotsky_Lenin_Kamenev.jpg, File:Pogrzeb_Lenina1924.jpg, File:Lenin.WWI.JPG
    • Thus far, I have dealt with File:Lenin.WWI.JPG, File:Pogrzeb_Lenina1924.jpg, File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg, File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg, and File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but if you're going to use the "published anonymously or under a pseudonym before 1943" provision, you need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication (not just creation) too. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed File:Marx6.jpg and File:Engels.jpg and replaced them with File:Karl Marx 001.jpg, which is definitely free for us to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Lenin.WWI.JPG should be fine because we know that the author died over 70 years ago. File:Pogrzeb Lenina1924.jpg should be okay too. I'll remove File:Lenin-1895-mugshot.jpg and File:Lenin-circa-1887.jpg from the article as I cannot ascertain when they was first published nor the name of the individual who took these photographs. That leaves File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, File:5 May 1919-Trotsky Lenin Kamenev.jpg, and File:Lenin.jpg for me to deal with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also removed File:Lenin_05d.jpg, File:Lenin,_Trotsky_and_Voroshilov_with_Delegates_of_the_10th_Congress_of_the_Russian_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks).jpg, and File:5 May 1919-Trotsky Lenin Kamenev.jpg from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Unterschrift_Lenins.svg: what is the original source of the signature being vectorized, and what is the copyright status of that original?
    • Unfortunately, I cannot find this information nor can I find information on the Russian legal restrictions surrounding the copyright (or lack thereof) surrounding signatures. Given that this image is very much non-essential in this article, I am simply removing it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lenin_Age_4.jpg: who is the author and what is his date of death?
    • As this was an artistic rendition that was produced in the 1940s (albeit based on an earlier photograph taken in the 19th century), I am unsure as to whether this image can be used. Thus, I have removed it and replaced it with File:Dom ulyanovyh.jpg. As the Russian Federation permits freedom of panorama for buildings (although not sculptures) then this alternative should be acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Nadezhda Krupskaya portrait.JPG needs a US PD tag and author date of death, and can you provide a translation of the source title?
    • I'm having some trouble with this one, so any advice from those with greater knowledge in the area of international copyright would be greatly appreciated. This photograph was taken in 1895 (according to Service 2000) although I have no information regarding when it was first published; presumably it wasn't published straight away, but rather likely following the Bolshevik's assumption of power at some point. Similarly, I cannot find any evidence stating who was the author, and thus the date on which they died. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I think that I've sorted this one out, but would appreciate others taking a look to see if it works. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't. The new tag requires that the image was never published before 2003 - but we know it was published by 2000, as that's the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've tried again with a different tag. Hopefully this now deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per above, you'd need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've not been able to do so, and so I shall remove the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Union-de-Lucha.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Lenin-Trotsky_1920-05-20_Sverdlov_Square_(original).jpg
    • I have added what I believe to be the appropriate US PD tags to these two images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, we know the second of the two was published by 2000. Do we know anything about the first's publication history? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a tag indicating that both of these images are PD in both Russia and the US because the authors died prior to 1942. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:MartovW.jpg: source link is dead
    • I've removed the source link and replaced the source with text explaining that the image is widely reproduced in historical texts discussing revolutionary Russia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, which of the Russian PD rationales is being applied? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the uncertainty, I've removed this image and replaced the space with File:Inessa Armand.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I can't prove early publication with this one either. Guess it'll have to go as well. Frustrating. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:A_A_Bogdanov.jpg: second source link is dead, needs US PD tag
    • Given the uncertainty as to when this image was created, I've removed it and replaced the space with File:Inessa Armand.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Iskra.jpg: if this was published in Switzerland, why are we applying Russian copyright?
    • Good point, although I'm having real trouble with finding any tags that apply to Swiss publications right now. Any pointers would be gratefully appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would this apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately I don't think it will. That tag states that "this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known; just not knowing who the author is is not enough to qualify the image as public domain". I know not of such a statement within a reliable source. Given the problems with this image, I've decided to remove it from the article and replace it with File:House of Lenin in Zurich.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Tov_lenin_ochishchaet.jpg: licensing is confusing - there's a note saying it isn't PD in the US, but a tag saying it is. Which is correct?
    • Given that it was published in Russia in 1920, and thus outside of the US prior to the 1923, it is PD in the US. I have amended the note to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sztálin_Lenin_és_Kalinyin.jpg: which of the given rationales from the Russian PD tag is being applied here? Same with File:Lenin-last-photo.jpg
    • Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per above, need to demonstrate pre-1943 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been unable to demonstrate this (indeed, I doubt very much that the latter was published prior to 1943), so have stripped both images from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:VictimOfInternational.jpg: source link is dead and many details are missing
  • File:У_здания_Харьковской_ЧК.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag and author date of death
    • I've decided to replace that image with another, File:Kolyma road00.jpg, which already has a Russian/US PD tag on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which of the Russian PD rationales is being applied? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've outlined which PD rationale is being used, however I will also have to demonstrate that the image was actually published rather than simply created before that date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unfortunately I've not been able to demonstrate when this image was first published. Accordingly, I've replaced it with the less ideal but at least copyright free File:Gulag Location Map.svg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lenin-office-1918.jpg needs author date of death and US PD tag, and is tagged as lacking source details
    • I have replaced this image with an identical one, File:Lenin reads Pravda Newspaper.jpg, which has greater source detail and a US PD tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can't say for sure where it was first published, but I have tracked down publications of this image dating from pre-1923, and added mention of them in the image's information. Hopefully this makes this image permissible for the purposes of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lenin's_head_in_Ulan_Ude.jpg: since Russia does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture, what is the copyright status of the statue?
    • I've been unable to determine the copyright status of this sculpture, so I have simply removed the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lénine_mosaïque.jpg: a photographic reproduction of a 2D work does not typically garner a new copyright. What is the copyright status of the pictured mosaic?
    • Again, I can't find the copyright status of the mosaic, so I have removed this image from the article. To replace it, I have added File:Lenin, Brezhnev, Bodiul etc. (1976). (14241235186).jpg, which appears to be acceptable (although do double check to see if I am correct in that assessment.). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending resolution of some of these issues, simply because most of the article's many images have problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Images should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nikkimaria. I think that I've dealt with each and every one of these issues now - bar one! That is File:Lenin.jpg, which we situate in the infobox. This is a great image and obviously it would be nice if we could keep it, but while we know the date of the image (1920) and the name of the author (Leo Léonidov), we don't know when it was first published (I'd have thought it was published pre-1923, but I have no evidence), and we don't know when Léonidov died. For that reason, I'm considering using a non-free rationale highlighting that this is a historic image of a deceased individual. Do you think that this is the best move or would you urge a different course of action? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure it would qualify for {{non-free historic image}}, and too many free images exist to make {{non-free biog-pic}} stick. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. In that case I fear that we must be rid of it. I've just found an alternative (File:Lenin CL.jpg) that might suffice, and will look into the possibility of using it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, I've gone with File:Lenin 1920.jpg instead, as I think that I can provide an appropriate tag for that one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which of the Russian rationales applies to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, I've made it clear which rationale is being used there. Thanks, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • That rationale also requires that the creator not work during the war - was that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Nikkimaria: I'm having some difficulty ascertaining this. I can find very little information on Pavel Semyonovich Zurich (the photographer), at least in the English language. Certainly, he would have been 69 years old by the start of the Second World War, and he then died two years later, in 1942. That in itself is suggestive of the fact that he wouldn't have worked during the conflict, but at present I cannot say anything definite on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, do we know when/where this was first published? We might be able to host it locally. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Nikkimaria: Unfortunately not, I can find very little information on this photograph or the photographer (although the same could be said of every good quality portrait photograph of Lenin). Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's unfortunate. Absent further information we may need to go with a poorer-quality alternative. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • @Nikkimaria: - I've replaced it with File:19190501-lenin speech red square.jpg, which is not as clear an image but is more obviously permissible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Villa_Bering_IMG_4807.jpg needs to account for copyright status of the buildings as well as the photo itself
  • File:Russian_civil_war_in_the_west.svg needs a source for the underlying data
    • Unfortunately the user who produced this image is no longer active on Wikipedia and I have been otherwise unable to find a source for the underlying data. I shall remove it from the article and replace it with a referenced quotebox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:VictimOfInternational.jpg: if this is to be on Commons, we need to account for its status in Russia
  • File:Victims_of_the_1921_famine_in_Russia.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added an image of Lenin's Mausoleum to the article (File:Russia-2007-Moscow-Kremlin Senate at night.jpg). I think that it is acceptable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria; I think that I have now covered everything. Again, thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I'll return in a day or so to have a more complete review and will do a source review unless I'm beaten to it, but a couple of problems spring out, which I think may just be the use of the wrong name or date in the sfn template:

Kudos for taking on such a mammoth and heavyweight subject and I look forward to reading it more closely soon. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for both your kind words and your well-spotted notes on areas in need of correction, SchroCat! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor tweaks made: feel free to revert or alter if I've erred.

I'm going through this, but it'll be in chunks, given the sheer scale of the work. That's my first problem with the article. It is currently at around 15,000 words (95 kB) and it may be worth reading the opening section of WP:Article size. I see that most of the sections—and some of the subsections—already have their own stand-alone articles (Early life of Vladimir Lenin, Revolutionary activity of Vladimir Lenin, etc) so I wonder if we need such a weight of information left in this article. The opening paragraph of #Childhood: 1870–87, for example, contains a lot of information about the ethnicity of Lenin's father, and the level of education received by his mother, but I'm not convinced it's all needed in this article if it's a repetition of the information in Early life of Vladimir Lenin. The six and a half lines of text (on my monitor) could convey the important information in a couple of lines, I think.

A second point (mostly minor) is on the infobox. I agree that almost all the information it contains is worth inclusion, but it may be worth thinking if the top two offices need to include the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields? I think Lenin's holding of the office and the dates should be enough. (Incidentally, although it's pointless fluff in 99% of articles, at least the "Resting place" field is of relevance, use and interest in this case!)

I'll be back soon with the text review, but the initial reading of the first couple of sections showed no problems I could see. – SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat. At your advice, I have trimmed the information on the educational background of Lenin's mother. However, I disagree on the issue of Lenin's ethnic background, because this is an issue that has been debated several times at the Talk Page, suggesting that it is a topic that interests a great many people. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, did you have any further thoughts on the article and this FAC? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support (on prose), but it is a slightly gruding one. At over 16,000 words I think this is probably too in-depth for what is supposed to be an summary article - particularly given the numerous spin-off articles that focus on the varying phases of his life. I think that this piece could probably be reduced by about 25%, which would raise ease of reading and understanding immeasurably. That said, as it stands, the prose is very well written and the article fulfils the FAC criteria on prose as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Update as of 6 August: so it's been almost a month and a half now since this FAC was nominated and we have one statement of support and none of oppositon. Can we get any others? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Reading over the article I cannot inf a reason to oppose. I think my only suggestion would be to expand the legacy section which seems a little thin. Particularly a photo of a Lenin statue being toppled would be a nice addition, demonstrating the ambiguity of his legacy.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, although I doubt that many — if any — such images would be in the Pubic Domain. Thank you for your support anyway; this brings us to a total of two [now three! - 9 August] statements of support; none of opposition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Graham11[edit]

I believe that quote boxes are only permitted for pull quotes, but most of the quotations in quote boxes in the article do not repeat text from the article. Graham11 (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't think that that's an actual policy here at Wikipedia. Why, I've passed articles as FAs before (i.e. Mortimer Wheeler, Margaret Murray) which have quote boxes in them that are not pull quotes, and plenty of other FAs have them too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does the following from MOS:QUOTE not apply equally to {{quote box}}?

The template also provides parameters for attribution. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{pull quote}} a.k.a. {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes).

Graham11 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, too, that I might not have been bothered to raise this if there weren't a dozen of them throughout the article. Graham11 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Midnightblueowl in case my comment slipped under the radar. Graham11 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes I've missed this. I'll remove the quotation marks from the boxes. Thanks for the comment, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Would the spirit of it not further preclude the use of {{cquote}}-alternatives such as {{quote box}} for non-pull quotes? That seems to be reinforced by the documentation for {{quote box}} (which was presumably established by consensus) which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. […] This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page" [emphasis in original]. Graham11 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Midnightblueowl in case I slipped through the cracks again. Graham (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, yes, sorry, I missed this message again. As I said before, the use of quote boxes such as these is pervasive across Wikipedia; they are commonly found in FAs and GAs. It may also be worth noting that no other editor has raised the same issue as you have, either at this article or at any other FAC that I have been involved with. This being the case, I am hesitant about making such a drastic change to the formatting of this article. Perhaps we should open this up to further comments from other editors? Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Even if the use of quote boxes like this were pervasive on Wikipedia – and personally, I can't say that I've ever seen an article with so many – other stuff existing does not mean we can disregard wider-scale consensus (see WP:CONLEVEL). And you didn't answer my question. Graham11 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you recommend by done with the quotations in question? Mass removal? Changing the format of the boxes to something else? Surely these would all be fairly drastic changes, all for an issue that—(and I really don't mean to be disrespectful or dismissive by saying this—only one editor has raised concerns about throughout the whole process of GAN, PR, and FAC. It's something that I just don't see as being an issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote boxes are an excellent feature and one of the best ways I have seen to illustrate articles on a historical person known for their writings. The only one's I might support removing are those that are not written by lenin himself. I have never seen these quote boxes used for actual pull quotes that repeat text written in wikipedia's voice - only for direct quotes from works that somehow serve as an illustration of the topic of the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·
@Midnightblueowl: Yes, I am proposing that the quote boxes be removed (or at least all but one or two, if nothing else). While other editors may not have raised the issue, that doesn't mean that we can override a central consensus as codified in the MoS and the template documentation (as is discussed in WP:CONLEVEL). I don't think that compliance with the MoS is "a drastic change" – in fact, it's explicitly required by criterion 2 of the featured article criteria. And the argument that these quote boxes are "pervasive" is, as SMcCandlish has previously described, "a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS affair". Graham11 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that removing the quote boxes would be a real mistake and would damage the article in multiple ways. They not only improve the aesthetic appearance of the article but they also allow the reader to gain an insight into Lenin's own approach to various issues, in his own words. Moreover, I don't really see what difference it makes it we have one or two, or we have twelve such boxes. If you oppose them on MoS grounds then why concede to the idea of retaining one or two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Such a concession would be in the interest of compromise and would be made if, and only if, an argument can be made that one or two of them are so essential to the article that their inclusion is an exceptional circumstance (per WP:IAR). That being said, I have seen no argument that an exceptional circumstance exists here. And while I understand that you disagree with the MoS on the basis of aesthetics and the value of (in your words) "allow[ing] the reader to gain an insight into Lenin's own approach to various issues, in his own words" (though with respect to the latter point, I still don't see why the quotations aren't in the main text if they're really that insightful), if you are wanting a change to the current consensus, that is an issue for WT:MOS, not an FAC. Graham11 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How is is possible that hundreds of books on the history of Russia's leadership and Lenin in particular exist using normal block quotations, and no decorative, cutesy quote framing or side-barring gimmicks, if décor of that sort is so essential? Obviously it is not. It is magazine and blog stylization designed as a WOW! CHECK THIS OUT! tacky reader lure. WP has no need of hooks and teasers. This is not an advertising-supported site, and has no incentive trying to "capture eyeballs" and steer them for as long as possible on our pages.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes from an author's works fulfill the same function that pictures of a painters works do - they illustrate the topic and provide helpful insight into the author's style and work that cannot simply be put into the running prose. Your purist rant about advertising and magazin style seems both misplaced and unhelpful here. This is again one of the cases where trying to enforce one's own aesthetic preferences on the work of others wielding rules as weapons to do so, helps no one.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: I forgot to mention in my last comment that I still don't think that you have answered my question from 26 August (or 31 August).

Would the spirit of [the previous quotation from the MOS] not further preclude the use of {{cquote}}-alternatives such as {{quote box}} for non-pull quotes? That seems to be reinforced by the documentation for {{quote box}} (which was presumably established by consensus) which says "This template should not be used for block quotations in article text. […] This template is meant for pull quotes, the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page" [emphasis in original].
— User:Graham11 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition, how can the inclusion of all of these quote boxes be reconciled with WP:CONLEVEL? Graham11 (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Documentation of templates is not written by any meaningful consensus - and WP:CONLEVEL explicitly gives documentation as a kind of "policy" written by a single individual that therefore has not particular status. And even if it were this would be a perfect place to apply IAR because enforcing MOS rules strictly and agrressively makes both the article worse and in this case hurts the community and has not positive effects for the reader or for the community. So I think you ought to drop the MOS stick here and let the nominator and the consensus of reviewers decide what to do with the boxes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Алый Король[edit]

Of course OPPOSE. Nothing said about his philosophical ideas, nothing about Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and so on. This representation of Lenin as poor as representation of Marx in English Wikipedia. I am aware, that it's pretty difficult to ask for more, but it COULD be written, if not today, maybe tomoorow, with all details about his political ideas, contribution to study of genesis of capitalism in Russia, about Widerspiegelungstheori, about polemics with other Marxists. It SHOULD be written one day, just now it's GA but NOT FA bu any means. --Алый Король (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty understanding what this comment is actually trying to say, but its claim that the article doesn't discuss Lenin's ideas is — in my view — erroneous. We have a whole section on "Political ideology" and it is six paragraphs long. Yes it could be longer, we could discuss Lenin's ideas in greater depth, but then the article would be even longer than it already is. Lenin wrote voluminously over the course of his life, enough to produce a many, many-volumed "Collected Works" but we really cannot try to cover it all in this one article; we have had to keep things concise. Moreover, we already have articles on Leninism to deal with Lenin's thought in greater depth. Furthermore, the specific claim that "Nothing said about his philosophical ideas, nothing about Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism and so on... contribution to study of genesis of capitalism in Russia, about polemics with other Marxists" is also erroneous; in this article we mention all of these things in the main biographical sections, we just don't go into them in particular depth. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 9 August[edit]

We now have three statements of support and one of opposition. The reason given for the statement of opposition is the belief that the article does not go into sufficient detail on Lenin's ideological beliefs. This, however, clashes with the comment provided by another user that the article is already too lengthy. For this reason I am essentially caught between a rock and a hard place! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you, MBO, that lengthening the article would be a net negative. It already covers Lenin's beliefs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I commented at PR, where my queries were dealt with, but I have a few further points.
  • "Interested in his late brother's radical ideas, he joined a zemlyachestvo (a university society)." This seems a non-sequitur.
  • Ah, this has arisen because the sentence was fairly recently edited down in an effort to prune the article's length. I'll make some changed to the sentence in question to solve this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Ministry of Internal Affairs exiled him to his Kokushkino estate" This implies that he had inherited the estate on his father's death, but you have not said so.
  • I've changed this to "his family's Kokishkino" which is more accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While involved in producing a news sheet, Rabochee delo ("Workers' Cause"), he was among 40 activists arrested and charged with sedition" Where?
  • "He spent this time writing, focusing on the revolutionary potential of the working-class; noting that the rise of industrial capitalism in Russia had led large numbers of peasants to move to the cities, where they formed a proletariat, from a Marxist perspective he argued that they would gain class consciousness and then violently overthrow Tsarism, the aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie to establish a proletariat state that would move toward socialism." There should be a full stop or semi-colon after "proletariat".
  • I'm certainly open to dividing this sentence into smaller chunks if necessary, but I'm not sure that the proposed change here is the right one; it would perhaps work if there was a comma after "potential of the working-class", but at present it is a semi-colon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced it with the following: "He spent this time theorising and writing. In this work he noted that the rise of industrial capitalism in Russia had caused large numbers of peasants to move to the cities, where they formed a proletariat. From his Marxist perspective, Lenin argued that this Russian proletariat would develop class consciousness, which would in turn lead them to violently overthrow Tsarism, the aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie and to establish a proletariat state that would move toward socialism." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in April 1906 the Mensheviks condemned Lenin for supporting violence and encouraging bank robberies to obtain funds" I think I mentioned this before. You should explain his role in supporting bank robberies before saying that he was condemned for it. You later mention in passing his role in the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery and I think you need to explain his role in violent crime to raise money for the Bolsheviks.
  • A very fair point. I'll work on something and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I believe that I have dealt with this issue now. I introduce Lenin's support of bank robberies before mentioning that the Mensheviks criticised him for doing so. I have also added a little bit more information on the nature of these robberies than previously existed. I do think it important however that we do not over-emphasise this issue in the prose. Lenin was supportive of these robberies but as far as I can tell from the reliable sources he wasn't actually active in carrying them out; the organisation of these criminal activities was left largely to Leonid Krasin and carried out by the likes of Stalin. Lenin, meanwhile, was busy with other activities. For instance, Robert Service, in his key biography of Lenin, doesn't even feel it noteworthy to mention the Tiflis bank robbery! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FA article on the 1907 Tiflis bank robbery cites Roman Brackman's 2000 book on Stalin as saying that Lenin was a leading organiser and received a large part of the money. Brackman's book got a good review at [24] and Service would not have been aware of it as his biography was published in the same year. I realise that this is only one source and you have read many others, but I think it would be worth you looking at the sources of the article on the robbery. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the following to the article: "There he tried to exchange those banknotes stolen in Tiflis which had identifiable serial numbers on them". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here, he became a close friend to the French Bolshevik Inessa Armand; their friendship continued until 1912" Comments below and the article on Armand say that the friendship continued until her death in 1920.
  • Very true. They corresponded and remained close in that manner until her death, however they only lived in the same location together until 1912. That being said, I can see how this wording is far from ideal, so I have restructured and rewritten the latter part of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin ultimately relented to this proposal" This sounds a bit odd. Maybe "accepted this proposal".
  • I'm open to a change of wording here, although the current prose makes it clear that Stalin was initially hesitant to such a change and only later came to agree with it. I don't think that "Stalin accepted this proposal" quite conveys the same meaning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about "Stalin initially resisted the proposal, but ultimately accepted it" Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leninism distinguished itself from established variants of Marxism by the emotional intensity of its liberationist vision" I do not understand what "liberationist" means here.
  • I borrowed that term from the source itself; I think that it effectively means "emancipatory", so I could add a link to emancipation here? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article on emancipation is only a stub but I cannot think of a better solution. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conversely, he derided Marxists who adopted from contemporary non-Marxist philosophers and sociologists." Ungrammatical - adopted what?
  • "Before taking power in 1918," 1917?
  • "Lenin was an internationalist and a keen supporter of world revolution, deeming national borders to be an outdated concept and nationalism a distraction from class struggle." But "Lenin was anti-imperialist, and believed that all nations deserved "the right of self-determination". This seems contradictory. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand it correctly, Lenin's view was that all national groups should have the right to self-determination and the right to exist free from imperialism and foreign domination, however he hoped that once capitalism was eradicated then all national borders would be abolished and all humanity would co-operate together. Accordingly, states would become a thing of the past and pure communist society would develop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is two different concepts. In the article you say that he thought nationalism was an outdated concept and a distraction from class struggle, in your comment above that he believed that national borders would become outdated once the communist utopia was established. Dudley Miles (talk)
  • Well, that is my interpretation of what Lenin was conveying. I don't think that that is what is actually stated in the Reliable Sources that have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Graham Beards[edit]

  • Solzhenitsyn's Lenin in Zurich is a novel – extracts from "The Red Wheel". Can this be considered a reliable source? Some of Solzhenitsyn's passages about Stalin in August 1914 are known to completely fictitious. And, I cannot see where this information is given. (My copy of "Lenin in Zurich" is the Bodley Head Edition, 1976)
  • It is true that it is a novelised account of real events. It has however, been described as having been "solidly researched| in this review from a Professor of Slavic languages that appeared in The New York Times. It is only used to bolster two citations, both of which are also supported by other, more solidly historical works, so if it is decided that it should be excised then that will not cause any problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an aficionado of Solzhenitsyn but his novel has no place here as a source. Graham Beards (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're convinced that it isn't an appropriate RS then I am happy to remove it from the article. It certainly isn't essential by any means. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should go. Graham Beards (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Lenin biographer David Shub, writing in 1966" – Shub's preface is dated 1965.
  • Good point. The book was published but presumably written earlier. I've changed it to "writing in the in-1960s", as it may be that the book was written before the preface. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is from the preface, which is dated 1965. Graham Beards (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well in that case I'll change it to 1965 then. Well spotted! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin spent his final years largely at his Gorki dacha" (figure legend) – this is not a dacha, which is typically a humble, rustic abode (little more than a shed in my experience). It should say "mansion in the countryside" or "rural mansion". Graham Beards (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure on this point. According to Wikipedia's article on the dacha, it is "a seasonal or year-round second home, often located in the exurbs of Russian and other post-Soviet cities." While such dachas are typically small and wooden, this is not always the case, particularly not when their resident is someone who is very wealthy or powerful. Lenin's Gorki home certainly was a "second home", located in a ruralised exurb, and thus meets with the definition of dacha that we have here at Wikipedia. Moreover, we have some external sources, such as this one from a Russian tour company, which refer explicitly to Gorki Leninskiye as "Lenin's dacha". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's two unreliable sources. See this one [25]. A compromise could be "country house". Graham Beards (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm certainly not committed to preserving "dacha" here, and "mansion" is clearly an appropriate description of the building. I'll change the three instances of "dacha" in the prose to "mansion". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Graham. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I am impressed with the work on this article. I have a few more concerns. There are some ugly fused participles:
  • "They continued their political agitation, with Lenin writing for Iskra and drafting the RSDLP programme"
  • "with Lenin translating Marx and Friedrich Engels' 1848 political pamphlet"
  • Changed to "Both Sklyarenko and Lenin adopted Marxism, and the latter translated Marx". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with it passing into law in April"
  • "with Pipes noting that Lenin was"
  • "He stayed in close contact with the RSDLP operating in the Russian Empire"
  • I'm not sure that I agree on this one. Here the sentence indicates that Lenin stayed in contact with other RSDLP members. The use of "with" here signifies something quite different to what it signifies in the other examples that you have raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you need "who were operating". Graham Beards (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I will add this into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be others, please check.

These can be dealt with by recasting as "and Lenin wrote", replacing the "with" with a comma or dash, using a possessive "with its passing", or a simple past tense "and Pipes noted". Graham Beards (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my Support now, thank you for your hard work on this contribution. Graham Beards (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 16 August: We now have four statements of support and one of opposition. However, as stated above, the one voice of opposition stated that they want to see the page expanded, an idea which myself and others believe would be a very bad move given that this is already a very long article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update as of 22 August: Five statements of support and one of opposition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get too hung up about numbers, we're over the traditional minimum total of supporting statements required but it's the comprehensiveness of the supporting reviews that matters the most (and they are generally comprehensive here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I started the normal read-through I would perform before considering promotion, I've noticed grammatical errors that indicate the need for a copyedit. For example, I fixed one instance of "which" being used for a restrictive clause, and there are others. I think someone fresh with an eye for grammar needs to go through this. --Laser brain (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the instances of "which"; the only one that was restrictive was in a quote box. I don't know if someone edited them after Andy's request. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent[edit]

Note that this version is the one on which I'm commenting. Disclaimer that I'm not checking image copyrights or spot-checking sources, and am assuming that all citations support the relevant statements. As usual, I've not read other people's reviews in order to come at the article without preconceptions, so I might be repeating points others have made.

General
  • To get one thing out of the way, I don't feel the number of citations is excessive. Given that the article has 15,000 words of readable prose and is on a deeply controversial figure who tends to polarise opinion, it's understandable that sourcing will need to be heavier than for comparable figures about whom there's a broad consensus, as multiple views often need to be taken into account. The number of references is comparable to other FA-level biographies of similar length on contentious figures, ranging from Michael Jackson to Ronald Reagan, to Jesus—hell, even Juwan Howard, possibly the least-contentious person imaginable, has over 350 references.
  • The hyphenation is inconsistent; throughout the article "Marxist-Leninist" uses a hyphen, but "Marxism–Leninism" uses an en-dash. Pick one and stick to it;
  • There are some minor glitches with grammar and spelling. These are all (as best I can tell) minor (eg "Euromaiden" instead of "Euromaidan") and inevitable on a high-traffic article, but since the promoted version will be the de facto "clean version" they should all be cleaned up before promotion goes ahead.
Lead
  • Lenin's government was led by the Bolsheviks — now renamed the Communist Party — and based soviets seems to have lost some words and acquired some (non-MOS-compliant) spaced em-dashes;
    • This initially stated "Lenin's government was led by the Bolsheviks — now renamed the Communist Party — with some powers initially also held by elected soviets" until another editor changed it. I have reverted this particular passage to its previous form, although removed the spaces between the em dashes as per MOS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Anna (born 1864) and Alexander (born 1868), before Lenin was born as Vladimir "Volodya" Ilyich in Simbirsk on 10 April 1870, and baptised several days later. They were followed by three more children, Olga (born 1871), Dmitry (born 1874), and Maria (born 1878)—because Vladimir's patronymic is given but not any of the others, it gives the impression (particularly to readers who aren't familiar with Russian naming conventions) that for some reason he was the only one of the family to have one, or even that "Vladimir Ilyich" was a double-barrelled first name;
    • My concern is that it would excessively lengthen the article if we were to state "Anna Ilyich.... Alexander Ilyich..." etc - indeed, I'm not even sure if the other siblings had Ilyich as a name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning Ilya's age at his death (54), and possibly including a photo of him. That father and son both died of similar causes at almost exactly the same (relatively young) age is something commented on quite often, even if we just point out the ages and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions;
    • Unfortunately we may well face problems in using a photograph of Ilya because the one used on the Ilya Ulyanov article doesn't appear to be in the Public Domain (it has a tag claiming that it is, but the whole thing seems pretty dubious). My concern about adding the age of Ilya's death is that it might set a precedent for someone to call for other individuals mentioned in the article to also have their death ages added, which would then just lengthen the article even more; I'm not dead against the idea, however, and would be interested to hear what other interested persons thought about this suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revolutionary activity
  • Is He began a romantic relationship with Nadezhda "Nadya" Krupskaya, a Marxist schoolteacher correct for this period? The version of their relationship I learned (admittedly, from the 1980s before the archives were opened and when even western biographies relied on Soviet propaganda) is that they were no more than acquaintances in this period, and their romantic relationship only really began after their exile when they arranged to marry in order to be exiled to the same village;
    • A very interesting point. Rice (p. 41) certainly describes Lenin as Krupskaya's "boy-friend" in this period, although Fischer (in his 1964 biography) is far little less clear about the nature of the relationship. I cannot access the Read source at present but will try to do so in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I say, don't necessarily take my comments here as correct, as they're based on pre-1991 sources, when even western hatchet-jobs were relying on Soviet sources for the basic facts about the Russian periods of his life. The Soviet version was that she was just an activist, and when they were both exiled at the same time Lenin wanted a fellow-Marxist in the same village so he would have someone to talk to so initially applied for her to be his amanuensis, and when that was rejected they agreed to marry. This may well be total bullshit—all Soviet sources on the Revolution have to be taken with an extreme pinch of salt, and "he dedicated his life entirely to the party, only getting married when he felt it would help him write" suits the personality cult very well; take anything written after the archives were opened a lot more seriously. ‑ Iridescent 15:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could probably do with a photograph of Krupskaya here, both to break up a rather large block of text, and to include a woman among the (necessary) many pictures of grim-looking men who glower out of the article;
    • We used to have one in the article but sadly there proved to be too much concern surrounding whether it was a Public Domain image or not. I looked for other images of Krupskaya at this stage in her life, but again, there were the same problems surrounding the copyright status of the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenin was involved in setting up a Bolshevik Centre in Kuokkala, Grand Duchy of Finland, which was at the time a semi-autonomous part of the Russian Empire, before the Bolsheviks regained dominance of the RSDLP at its 5th Congress, held in London in May 1907. appears to conflate two unrelated facts (unless the setting up of the Centre somehow helped him take control of the Party);
    • I was just trying to avoid having lots of little sentences one after another. Merging two pieces of information into a single sentence solves that problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenin disliked Paris, lambasting it as "a foul hole", and while there he sued a motorist who knocked him off his bike; likewise, what do these two statements have to do with each other?
    • Well, they are both thematically linked to the theme of Lenin and Paris, and again I didn't want to end up with lots of very short sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we talking about his publishing a book in September 1917, and then jumping back to February? Because 1917 is the most significant year in his life (and at least arguably in the history of the world), it's important for the chronology of this particular section to be precise;
    • I do appreciate your point although I think that the current arrangement works better. The reasons for this are threefold. First, the book (Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism), while being published in September, would have been written earlier. Second, the contents of Imperialism have some connections to Lenin's thoughts on the First World War, which supports the location of the two paragraphs together. Third, if we are to position the discussion of the book between the paragraphs discussing the events of August and October, then we will have to stick it slap bang in the middle of a section discussing the build up and outbreak of the October Revolution. In my opinion it would be a real mistake to place it there, because it would really carve up the flow of that section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lenin's government
  • Is three-quarters of its coal and iron deposits being transferred to German control actually correct, or was it actually three-quarters of operational mines? Siberia has vast mineral reserves;
    • In this I have simply followed the wording found in Pipes (p. 595), who states that they were based on contemporary estimates at the time. Perhaps many of the coal and iron deposits in Siberia had yet to be discovered? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gulag Location Map.svg is a bit misleading, as it shows the post-WW2 borders and includes places like Konigsberg/Kaliningrad which were nowhere near Russia or the USSR in Lenin's lifetime.
  • I've replaced it with a Gregori Goldstein image: File:Lenin Krupskaya and Ulyanova in car at Red Army parade full photo 19180501.jpg. It's not a clear picture of Lenin, but at least is one that is clearly Public Domain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor nitpicks. Given the nature of Wikipedia, it's inevitable that there will be some glitches on a high-traffic lengthy article, and none of them are issues worth opposing over, so I support. ‑ Iridescent 02:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

  • I made some minor changes to your citations, mostly p/pp-type errors. My edits are here, please revert if any of them are wrong.
  • Beyond that, I saw nothing to make me withhold my support, but I want to take another pass before signing off. Nice work here on a difficult subject. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this time, he spent much time reading the works... Saying "time" twice is awkward. Maybe "He spent much of this time reading the works...."
  • That's all I have, and even that one nitpick will not keep me from supporting this fine article. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Amakuru[edit]

  • Lead:
    • "Expelled from Kazan Imperial University for participating in protests against the Russian Empire's Tsarist regime, he devoted the following years to a law degree" - how did he study a degree after being expelled from university? And what was he studying at Kazan before being expelled?
      • He began studying externally at the University of St. Petersburg. I am concerned about adding such information into the lede however, for it will likely lengthen it by at least another line and we really need to keep that lede as concise as possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with some powers initially also held by elected soviets" - despite the wikilink it's not clear to me what a "soviet" actually is; perhaps a brief clarification?
      • Again, I worry about excessively lengthening the lede here. I do think that the link will have to suffice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childhood: 1870–87:
    • I think it would be better if the link, and nickname, for his older brother occurred on the first mention (and Alexander (born 1868)) rather than on the second mention (Lenin's elder brother Aleksandr "Sasha" Ulyanov was studying at). (Assuming this is the same brother, but if it isn't, then why isn't the other one mentioned?) Also, the spelling should be consistent as either Aleksandr or Alexander.
      • These are some good points. I've ensured that the brother is linked at first mention rather than second, and that the spelling of his name has been standardised as "Alexander". Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Related to this, there is a discrepancy on Alexander's date of birth. This article says 1868, but the linked article for him says 1866.
  • University and political radicalisation: 1887–93:
    • [Lenin's mother] was instrumental in convincing the Interior Ministry to allow him to return to the city of Kazan: how did she achieve that? Was she well connected? A bit more explanation might be useful.
    • This Marxist view contrasted with the view of the agrarian-socialist Narodnik movement, which held that the peasantry could establish socialism in Russia by forming peasant communes, thereby bypassing capitalism. This view developed in the 1860s with the People's Freedom Party and was dominant within the Russian revolutionary movement: this is a little confusing. I'm not sure which "this view" the second sentence refers to. Is it Lenin's Marxist view, or is the Narodnik view?
      • It means the Narodnik view; I have altered the prose to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although opposing this perspective, Lenin was influenced by agrarian-socialists like Pëtr Tkachëvi and Sergei Nechaev, and befriended members of that movement: again, which of the two perspectives did he oppose? Presumably the Narodnik one? Some clarity needed.
      • I've restructured the sentence to make its meaning a lot clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did he manage to study in Kazan without being in the university? And also while devoting time to his Marxist readings? It seems quite amazing that he completed a law degree in three years (given these usually involve *a lot* of reading and library time), while not in the university and also devoting lots of time to something else... Some more clarity on how he did this please.
      • When Lenin returned to Kazan, he did not continue to study there, he merely resided there. He later gained an external degree from the University of St Petersburg. I don't really know how Lenin juggled his studies of the law with his study of Marxism, but clearly it was possible because he did pass his exams. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar to the above, how did his mother persuade the University of St Petersburg to allow him to take exams, give he hadn't even studied there?
      • She had a fair bit of societal clout as the widow of a nobleman; I've added this to the sentence in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Munich, London, and Geneva: 1900–05:
    • becoming the country's most successful underground publication for 50 years - does this mean it was the first such successful one since 50 years in the past, or does it mean it became the most successful and remained so the subsequent 50 years? In either case, what was the publication that it replaced in the success stakes from 50 years earlier, or that replaced it 50 years later?
      • It means the former, although I'm not quite sure how to phrase this in a manner which is clearer than the present wording. Any suggestions would be happily received. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How long was Lenin's erysipelas illness?
      • That I do not know, and I'm not sure that the RS state this either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enraged at the Mensheviks, Lenin resigned from the Iskra editorial board - why was this? Was Iskra particularly allied to the Mensheviks? The last we heard of it, Lenin had to retire from the board due to ill health, and it moved to Geneva. It's not clear what happened to Iskra in the interim.
      • Iskra belonged to the whole RSDLP party, which meant that both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks worked on it. Lenin didn't really like working with the Mensheviks, hence his decision to leave the editorial board. Do you think that the prose could be altered to make this clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolution of 1905 and its aftermath: 1905–14:
    • here he tried to exchange those banknotes stolen in Tiflis that had identifiable serial numbers on them - did he succeed?

More later  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I was planning to have one more pass either tonight or tomorrow, both to check over the things I already raised and to look through the remaining sections. Although basically I'm supporting. The points I'm raising are just things that I think would be good to clarify/improve, but the article is in my opinion very high quality. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There have been no new comments here for twelve days now, and the article has seven declarations of support for it passing as a Featured Article. Given that this FAC has now been open for just short of three months, might it be time to think about bringing it to an end? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 21 September 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) 06:19, 15 September 2016 [26].

Vincent van Gogh[edit]

Nominator(s): Modernist, Ceoil, Victoriaearle, John.

Biography of a major early modernist, perhaps the quintessential tortured artist, who consistently ranks nr 1 on the most visited visual arts pages. The first, 2007, nom was probably too soon. There was a highly informative PR since, with nuanced critical input from Iridescent, John and Tim Reily among others, which we feel we have now met, having spent several years on this. Hopefully it is not too fawning or salacious, though there was a lot of room for that. Several now retired and much missed editors were major contributors, esp JNW and others. Feedback, as always, more than welcome. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Well done for bringing this important article here.

  • self portrait or self-portrait?
  • still life or still-life?
  • Good catch - we're using still life and self-portrait...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in Sources:
  • 154 Dorn, Schröder & Sillevis (1996)
  • 158, 164 Sund (1988)
  • 212 Welsh-Ovcharov (1998)
  • In Sources but not cited:
  • Cohen, Ben (2003)
  • Kleiner, Carolyn (24 July 2000)

Aa77zz (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aa77zz thanks for taking a look. The sources should be fixed now. Victoria (tk) 16:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In February 1890, following the birth of his nephew, he wrote that the new addition to the famil "started right away to make a picture for him, to hang in their bedroom, branches of white almond blossom against a blue sky."[139]?" famil -> family, but this is still difficult to follow. Aa77zz (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family took walks together, and gardened in her large flower garden." Who is "her" in this sentence? Aa77zz (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More from Aa77zz:
Letters

  • "Theo, sensing that Vincent has a future career, preserved his copies." Surely had a future - but I don't like the sentence as we cannot know why Leo preserved the letters.
  • "The letters were annotated in 1913 by .... She had the letters published in 1913." The repetition of the year seems odd - especially after being told that that Johanna was reluctant to allow the letters to be published..
  • "Pomerans writes.." Who is he (or she)?

Early life

  • "Messrs. Goupil & Co., 17 Southampton Street." add where: the Covent Garden area of London (and not Stockwell I assume)
  • "and that Christmas he returned home" - which year was this?
  • "but through letters maintained close contact." - presumably with Kee although she hasn't been mentioned since the middle of the previous paragraph.
  • "Kee's father made it clear that her refusal should be heeded and that the two would marry, largely because of Van Gogh's inability to support himself.[48]" I don't follow - would not marry? Aa77zz (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, all good catches. I think I got the lot. Victoria (tk) 19:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More points.

  • There should be consistency in the content of the figure legends for the Van Gogh pictures. The Old Mill just gives the date, Portrait of Père Tanguy and Self-portrait with bandaged ear give the gallery but not the location. My preference would be to provide the date and to omit the other details - but consistency is required.
  • Each of the Notes should have a reference and not rely on those in the main body of the article. See for example notes 1, 8 & 12. Also some of the Notes contain links to external sources. It would be better to replace these with formatted references at the end of the sentence as in the body of the article. For example Note 7 "Vincent's nephew noted some reminiscences of local residents in 1949, including the description of the speed of his drawing." This needs a formatted reference rather than a link to www.webexhibits.org (which doesn't appear to be reliable source). Aa77zz (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, agree re notes. I haven't a clue how to do this, so pinging Lingzhi. Re FN 7, agree about that too. Added an RS who mentions the speed at which Vincent was working. Victoria (tk) 23，:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I probably will have time tomorrow to look at the page  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lingzhi, I just took a look at the notes sections and the refs for the notes are formatted inconsistently. Some of that might be my fault when I messed with the refs, but can you take a look? Thanks Aa77zz for raising this and apologies for taking so long to get to it. Victoria (tk) 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aa77zz, Victoriaearle: I have been deliberately avoiding working on the notes because I believe I've seen three different editors working on them. Don't want to get tangled up with other editors, too many cooks spoil the broth, and all that. If things quieten down in that area, I'll have a look. Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aa77zz, these are now done except for Note 7, which is beyond my ability. Thanks for doing Note 11, which supplied a template to follow. Victoria (tk) 03:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought

  • Yes, good point. I looked at some sources about it last night and see that it's been updated a couple of times, and I noted that Hulsker was mentioned as well. I'm mildly tempted to write a scholarship section but haven't had a chance to research properly or to think it through. It might be beyond the purview of this FAC, but we do have to include de la Faiile. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Aa77zz, I've not forgotten this. Still searching for a good source to use. Victoria (tk) 16:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now in the article, but without a footnote (I see what you mean btw - but that might be interesting in the de la Faille article.) Victoria (tk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from the de la Faille 1928 catalogue, the article should mention that a number of paintings that were originally attributed to Van Gogh are now suspected to be fakes (or misattributed). The de la Faille catalogue considered 38 paintings as doubtful, Hulsker in 1996 added 8 more etc. A list is given by Walter Feilchenfeldt in his Vincent Van Gogh: The Years in France: Complete Paintings 1886-1890 on pp. 278-279 (which I can see here). Other sources are: Bailey, Martin. "Van Gogh the fakes debate." Apollo Jan. 2005 - I can only read the preview here and a popular account by the same author in The Art Newspaper No. 72, JULY-AUGUST 1997. see: Roland Dorn and Walter Feilchenfeldt 1993 "Genuine or fake? On the history and problems of van Gogh connoisseurship" in The mythology of Vincent van Gogh ed. Tsukasa Kōdera (Asahi/John Benjamins) pp. 263-308. There is also an interesting 2014 article by Robinson and Steele.
Maybe in a brief note, but we don't normally do this unless there is a big faking problem, which I don't think is the case here. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Johnbod here; mention it in a note but not in detail. I haven't had time to pull those sources, but I'll get to it. Apologies for the belated replies. Victoria (tk) 05:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aa77zz, for the additions about the de la Faille. I like what you've done and I'm very tempted to redlink the catalogue. I think it would make a nice subarticle. Victoria (tk) 16:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aa77zz: Would you mind striking through all your comments that have already been successfully addressed? Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: I've struck my resolved comments as requested. I'll take another look at the article in the next couple of days. Aa77zz (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now greatly improved. I've an additional comment:

  • Self portraits: The second paragraph ends with quote from Van Gogh that is cited to McQuillan (which I don't have). As a direct quote it would be better if the reference also cited the letter itself. The text after the second ellipsis ending in "...may furnish motifs for very different portraits" comes from the letter from Vincent to Wilhelmina, Arles, c. 22 June 1888 in the translation http://www.webexhibits.org/vangogh/letter/18/W04.htm There is another translations of the same letter at http://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let626/letter.html Neither translation includes text corresponding to the first part of the quote "exaggerate my personality". Van Gogh used similar words "Not wishing to exaggerate my own personality" in a different letter to Gauguin on 3 October 1888 http://www.webexhibits.org/vangogh/letter/18/544a.htm Note that the translation from http://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters/let695/letter.html is rather different: "But exaggerating my personality also". In the wikipedia article it is very misleading to use an ellipsis to jump between different letters. (note that as a source vangoghletters.org is very much better than www.webexhibits.org). Aa77zz (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree that we shouldn't use an ellipsis to jump from one letter to the next. It's been trimmed. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After all the recent hard work this is now a much better article. Aa77zz (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aa77zz; after your hands on approach and well observed suggestions, that great to hear. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Aa77zz for lagging here. Thanks for your good suggestions, helpful edits, and for the support. Victoria (tk) 17:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated, thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Lovely article, and many thanks for your combined efforts on it. I look forward to giving a full prose review; in the meantime, just a few points:

  • The "with" in the third line of the lead is redundant
  • "While there Theo wrote to him that he would no longer be able to support him financially. He walked into a wheat field..." etc. Needs some attention (some confusion in the personal pronouns). Perhaps: "While he was there, Theo wrote that he could no longer support him financially. Van Gogh walked into a wheat field...".
  • Why the American date form "July 27, 1890"? Most dates in the article seem to follow the British format.
  • The "Letters" section seems very oddly placed in the article. Is there a particular rationale for this decidedly non-standard format?

More will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Brian, before we start tackling your points (and thanks for reviewing!): Regarding the letters - they are very important on a number of levels. First, they reflect the degree of Van Gogh's introspection, self-criticism, and self-doubt. Their existence provides a glimpse of his thought processes about almost everything, his art, his search for a vocation, his illness, etc. Beyond that, he was almost as prolific a letter-writer as a painter, and it's been suggested (by Arnold Pomerans, editor/translater to print of The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh (which I have a copy of)), that they can be considered literature - which is spun out in the article about the letters. All of the sources are littered with quotes from the letters, and that they have been made available online gives anyone access to them. When I first came to the article, five years ago, I didn't know about the letters but quickly came to appreciate their importance. Given the length of the article and that not everyone will scroll to the bottom, and given that Van Gogh is associated with his paintings and his ear, I think it's ok to lead with the letters. This, of course, is subject to consensus and if the reviewers feel we should move them down, we can. My only quibble would be that the bottom of the article then gets to be too heavy in terms of the letters, because of their importance in driving his posthumous fame. Hope this helps. I won't get the rest until a bit later, but wanted to address this now. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents regarding the letters - without them we all would know very little if anything regarding Vincent van Gogh; he and his work might have been lost to history. We begin with the letters because it's through the letters that his career and life work came into the public purvey...Modernist (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully accept the importance of the letters, while querying the placement of this section in the article. I appreciate your reasoning, but nevertheless have my doubts as to whether this layout works best. Another problem you may wish to consider is that given the importance of these letters to Van Gogh's work and principles, they should be at least mentioned in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your idea is a good one; and I've added a mention of his letters to the lead, thanks...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is a good suggestion. I've spent a little time in preview mode tinkering around, but I'm not entirely satisfied with any of the results. Do you mind if we put the issue of the letters aside for the moment? In the meantime, the other points have been addressed. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 11:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I'm just starting a general prose review and will post back here in a couple of days. I'll do any simple and uncontroversial fixes on the way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's very kind of you. I notice the issue with Vincent vs. Van Gogh: I think that happened recently when some of my sandbox edits were copied over and I'd missed discussions during the winter (while I was gone) about how to standardize. Either Modernist or Ceoil will know which I should have been using. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially we used Vincent only when discussing both Vincent and Theo; otherwise we use Van Gogh...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Modernist. I thought that's how we were doing it. I suppose that was my fault; will change them. Victoria (tk) 00:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my detailed prose comments for the first few sections:

Letters
  • "Problems remain, mainly with those from Arles" – why do the Arles letters present particular problems, and what sort of problems are these?
  • "The period when he lived in Paris is the most difficult to analyse because the brothers lived together and had no need to correspond." Consider moving this sentence up to follow "...between 1872 and 1890", and rephrase slightly: "The period of Vincent's life when he lived in Paris..." etc
  • "Art historian and editor of the letters Arnold Pomerans..." British English gives a "the" to the false title, thus: "The art historian and editor of the letters, Arnold Pomerans, ..." etc. I think a slight rearrangement, to "The art historian Arnold Pomerans, who edited the letters, ..." might work better.
Early years
  • "His father, Theodorus, was a clergyman..." – unnecessary, as in the previous line you've described Theodorus as "a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church".
  • Does a clergyman father and mother from the petite bourgeoisie really justify what you say in the lead, that Vincent was born into "an upper-middle-class family"?
  • "rigid and religious" – is "rigid" the right word? Is it necessary, since you go on to mention her adherence to "Victorian respectability" (is "Victorian" apt, in a Dutch family context?)
  • "Vincent was a common name in the family: his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874), received a degree in theology at the University of Leiden in 1811, and had six sons, three of whom became art dealers". When a colon divides a sentence it is necessary that the second part is dependent on the first. That is not the case here. Apart from which, the second part itself is a hotch-potch of unrelated info., and is confusingly followed by "His brother Theo..." without clarifying who "his" refers to. I'd reconsider the organisation of this entire paragraph, to give it a clearer chronology; at the moment it moves from grandfather to parents, back to grandfather and then to siblings. I've redrawn the last two sentences.
  • "gardened in Anna's large flower garden" – "worked in" would avoid repetition
  • "Naifeh and Smith" need to be explained, e.g. "In their biography, Naifeh and Smith describe him..."
  • What period is covered by "these years", when the relationship with Theo was "strained"?
  • "Vincent's profound unhappiness seems to have overshadowed the lessons and had little effect." Do you mean "which had little effect"?
  • "Just after Christmas in 1871 his parents moved from Zundert to Helvoirt". This sentence seems out of place here, where you are discussing Vincent's training. I'd find another place for it.
  • What is the "commodification" of art?
  • "Vincent prepared for the entrance examination..." – entrance to where?
  • "lodged with a miner until October" – give the year.
  • Both these last two are done (not by me). Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Etten, Drenthe and The Hague
  • "had a nice studio" – is "nice" the best adjective we can use?
  • "a strongly worded letter" – better if you gave a brief indication of its contents
  • "persistence is disgusting" – as this is a quote, it should be specifically cited.
  • "That Christmas he refused to attend church, quarreling with his father as a result, and left the same day for The Hague". "Left the same day", but in the next sentence he "relocated to The Hague in January 1882", which is some time after Christmas.
  • "Mauve appears to have suddenly gone cold towards Van Gogh, and stopped replying to his letters". When did this state of affairs arise?
  • "Perhaps lack of money pushed Sien back into prostitution"; speculation such as this needs to be specifically attributed, rather than just included in the citation
  • I'd cut out much of the last paragraph – anecdotal, too much of a sentimental/magaziney feeling, and as you indicate, unverifiable. Not the stuff of an encyclopaedia article.
    Yes. Have quote the "direct" quote. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nuenen and Antwerp
  • "There was interest from collectors in Paris". This would I think be better as "Collectors in Paris began to show an interest in Van Gogh's work". You should also briefly mention what activated this interest. Was it Theo?
  • Yes, it was Theo. Will re-read, but my sense is "collectors" is probably the wrong word to be using at this early stage in his career. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give a date (or approx) for the Cavenaile treatment.

Before I continue, can I suggest that one of the four nominators takes it upon her/himself to deal with a few of the more repetitious prose lapses? The "Van Gogh v. Vincent" issue seems to be in hand, but there are other problems. In particular there is the frequent use of the pronoun "he" or "his" at the beginnings of paragraphs; I've amended some, but they go on through the article. There is also some lack of clarity in dates – use of "that year" or "that August" doesn't always make clear where we are. If someone would make a general sweep and pick up these glitches, it would make my reviewing task quicker and easier.

A separate issue is that the link in ref 88 no longer works. This source (the National Gallery) is the only citation in this paragraph; did it cover all the content in the paragraph – the Theo-Vincent tensions, the move to Asnières, the acquaintenace with Signac, the adoption of pointillism?

I don't want to finish on a negative note so I'll repeat that I find the article fascinating and beautifully illustrated, just in need of further polishing. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these Brianboulton. Everything up to "Mauve appears to have suddenly gone cold..." is from work I recently added and I think, with tweaking and trimming and clarifying, I've addressed all the issues to that point. I have made a preliminary swing through to replace pronouns with Van Gogh's name and will take another look later. Haven't gotten to the dates yet. Victoria (tk) 16:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brianboulton, adding to my reply above: the section that formerly had footnote 88 with the National Gallery has been fixed and reliable sources in place. Victoria (tk) 00:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made furhter attemps re varying para openings. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No time tonight but a little note for Victoriaearle or whomever: I fixed the broken link which Brian referred to as note 88 (at this moment it's note 86), but that link to a definition shouldn't even be in the citations at all. It should be a footnote "See definition at blah blah blah". Moving that into footnotes leaves that entire paragraph unreferenced,as Brian's comments also suggest.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I just left an inline reminder. I have to go out soon but will read about that section when I return. I've also had to try to retrieve Naifeh & Smith (for better or worse, good with dates etc.) from interlibrary loan, but will take a few days to arrive. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lingzhi, when you get a chance can you look at ref 211 "Van Gogh, 2010 & loc (Memoirs of V.W. Van Gogh)." Cannot get rif of the bare url. 20:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Responses and comments noted. In view of some of these comments, and those of other reviewers, but most particularly because of the current levels of edit activity on the article (300+ edits in the past 48 hours), I'm going to pause my review for the next three days or so, to allow things to settle down. Keep tweaking, see you anon. Watch out for the BBC2 documentary "The mystery of Van Gogh's ear", coming soon. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian. I'm working my way through and have all your comments (to date) resolved but not yet in the article. It will take a couple of days to move it all from the sandbox to article space. Interesting about the BBC documentary. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary is on BBC2, on Saturday 6 August, for those who can get BBC TV. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. I imagine there will even more activity on the page afterwards. Update: I've worked my way through Cavenaile treatment, from your comments above. Victoria (tk) 16:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I paused my review five days ago, in the hope that the level of editing on the article might stabilise, but since then there have been more than 600 edits to it. Also, I note that the article's wordcount has risen by more than 1,000 during this time, indicating that these recent revisions aren't all just tweaks and twiddles to the prose. The article has changed rather significantly, and judging from the edit history, the change seems to be a continuing process. There was much to admire about the article in the form in which it was brought to FAC, and I am sure there is a potential FA here, but trying to review in such a fluid situation is a bit like trying to paint on water. I don't think you're necessarily being helped by having half a dozen reviewers active at the same time, so I'm going to continue my pause so that other reviewers can complete their comments, and the article can achieve genuine stablity. Please ping when appropriate. (I'll definitely watch the doc, which as Victoria says might itself generate a new spike of activity). Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianboulton, I just noticed this (I think I was commenting in another section when you posted). Thank you for letting us know. In all fairness, it's difficult to respond to the reviewers' requests without adding to the wordcount, but I suppose I understand your frustration (and fwiw, as a nominator, I'm slightly frustrated too.) Articles such as these by their very nature have stability issues, as Iridescent notes, and by their nature will attract a lot of reviewers. My experience with a similar article with a similar number of daily page views that I managed to get through FAC as my first FA (inexperienced as I was and still am) is that the FA adds greatly to its stability and being able to curate. In the meantime, there's not really a lot we can do about others jumping in, and we do need to respond to comments. The most number of words have been added to the "Style" subsections in response to the image formatting issue, which on a visual arts article isn't a small issue and we really have to get it right - even if that means some sections will have to be bulked up to support the requested galleries. Anyway, sorry, this got long. Will ping in case you're still interested. But from your comments, it seems that you're on the verge of opposing. Victoria (tk) 22:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am still interested, I'm not on the verge of opposing, and I do appreciate the difficulties you have with so many people wanting to have their say here. All I'm saying is that I'll step back for a while, until the reviewing scrum dies down. This is intended to be helpful rather than censorious. I'll continue to watch the review meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the understanding that the article is more stable now, I'm resuming my review. I've struck all the resolved points from my earlier review, leaving just a few issues to be addressed or answered – see above. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, thank you for taking to time to check and strike - very useful. I see that a few were missed and a few were lost in the shuffle, but I believe the points above you've not struck are now taken care of in these edits: entrance to study theology; date supplied for lodging with miner; date supplied for "that March"; speculation about Sien's return to prostitution attributed here. I've looked at the batch below and wasn't as involved in those sections so handing off the baton to one of the other nominators and will pick it up again when necessary. On a sidenote: do you think we should be moving resolved comments to the talkpage? Thanks again, Victoria (tk) 00:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria, my apologies but I have undone one of your changes: we do not in my opinion need to explain that the entrance exam was to study theology as it is clear from the previous sentence. I don't think we need to repeat that in consecutive sentences. --John (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right and no prob. I missed it a week ago and again last night, and I've made similar mistakes with the dates. Except for the note added below re his illness, I won't continue to work on the FAC, and in fact might not get to that either. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, John, I have to disagree. "Entrance exams" implies entrance to an institution, not to an area of study. Thus I would talk about my "Oxford entrance exams", not my "History entrance exams". Why not name the institution here? after all, you do mention the Protestant missionary school where Vincent studied later in the year. Brianboulton (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, in the US it always applies to an area of study/discipline, not to the institution. So I never would have understood what was being asked for there. Victoria (tk) 15:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion Brian and I have implemented it. --John (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and here we go again. I have done down to the end of the "Life" sections – fewer comments reflecting the benefits of the substantial rewrites of the past few days. There are also various copyedits where I've corrected or revised minor issues.

    • Hello again Brian, nice to see you. I will comment in-line, if that's ok.
Paris (1886–88)
  • Is the correct expression "with" pastel" or "in pastel"?
    • Changed to "in".
  • Querying capitalisation of Pointillism and Neo-Impresssionism
    • I think this is correct, but I would be open to persuasion.
  • Why italicise "Grand-Bouillon Restaurant du Chalet"?
    • Agree, de-italicised.
Arles (1888–89)
  • "Arles" should be wikilinked at first mention after the lead – which I think is actually in the "Letters" section
    • Agree, done.
  • "in an exchange for works with Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, Charles Laval" should I think be "exchanges" rather than "an exchange"
    • Changed to "an exchange of works"
  • "That March..." – give year
    • Not done, see below.
  • " all intended for the décoration for the Yellow House" reads rather clumsily. I think I'd reword: "all intended as decoration for the Yellow House (no need for the French form in the pipe)
    • Agree, done.
  • "that June" – when?
    • Changed to "June"; should be clear we are talking about 1888.
Gauguin's visit (1888)
  • " Boch's sister Anna (1848–1936), also an artist, purchased The Red Vineyard in 1890.": This sentence interferes with the chronology and would be better as a footnote, especially as this is the first mention of The Red Vineyard, the painting of which is mentioned
    • Put into footnote
  • "...while Van Gogh painted pictures from memory (deferring to Gauguin's ideas) and his The Red Vineyard." Confusing and somewhat inelegant wording which I'm sure could be rephrased. The final "and his The Red Vineyard" reads most awkwardly. What "ideas" of Gauguin's was Van Gogh deferring to?
    • Changed to "Van Gogh painted pictures from memory, following Gauguin's suggestion."
December 1888
  • A "contretemps" by definition is a minor disagreement, so is it the right word here, bearing in mind Gauguin's version with open razors being wielded, etc.?
    • Changed to "argument"
  • I note what you say about the differences in view concerning how much of the ear was cut off. All I can say is that the TV documentary to which I've referred (broadcast on 6 August) produced specific evidence that the almost whole ear, with the exception of the lobe, was severed. Whether this evidence is otherwise available I'm not sure, or whether you need to take account of it.
    • Open to further discussion on this. Not yet finished watching the documentary.
      • I think it covers the various scenarios. We mention Dr Rey's sketch in the note; we cite the new book; we mention the ear was delivered to the hospital (had to be a substantial piece of flesh if not the entire ear), but like John, am open to discussion. Haven't seen the documentary. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is plain that he had suffered an acute psychotic episode"; as it stands, "it is plain that" reads as editorial opinion and breaches WP:EDITORIAL. You need either to attribute the opinion, or reword
    • Changed to "suggesting that he had suffered"
  • "Theo had proposed marriage to his old friend Andries Bonger's sister Johanna on 24 December, the day after Vincent's self-mutilation." Strange insertion, doubtful relevancy. Suggest omit.
    • Moved to footnote
      • Hi John, I would have done that too, but after today's reading when I realized that Theo received news of the self-mutilation the day he proposed, he then hopped a night train to Provence, spent Christmas day there, and then back to Paris the next night to Johanna, I decided to take it out of the note, because it seems important. I'm ok if you disagree and readjust. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Paul Signac spent time with him in the hospital, and Van Gogh was allowed home in his company. In April, he moved into rooms owned by Dr Rey after floods damaged paintings in his own home." Where was VG's "home" to which he was allowed to return, after the Yellow House had been closed by the police?
    • I presume Signac's is intended?
    • If so, the text needs considerable clarification. Something like: "Paul Signac spent time with him in the hospital, and was allowed to take him home. In April, Van Gogh moved into rooms owned by Dr Rey, after floods damaged paintings in Signac's home." Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has been adjusted. Van Gogh mutilated himself, went to hospital, was released home to the Yellow House, had to go back to the hospital when he lost access to the Yellow House. Signac visited him late in March while he was in hospital; after that Van Gogh lived for a short period in Dr Rey's rooms. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Saint-Rémy (May 1889 – May 1890)
  • "Many of his most compelling works date from this period" – another "editorial" statement that requires attribution
    • Agree, removed.
  • "It has been suggested..." By whom?
    • Inclined to agree, open to suggestions on how to resolve.
  • "Toulouse-Lautrec demanded satisfaction, and Signac declared he would continue to fight for Van Gogh's honour if Lautrec surrendered." What was the outcome of this belligerent episode?
    • Agree, defer to Modernist/Ceoil/Victoria on this one.
  • According to Rewald - "Henry de Groux (a realist, religious painter VvG once admired) declared that he was withdrawing his work because he didn't want them shown in the same room with the abominible pot of sunflowers by Monsieur Vincent." "But he didn't pull out of the show. Instead at the dinner 2 days later he called VvG an ignoramus and a charlatan. The dual was declared between Lautrec and de Groux (who was the same height as Lautrec) and Signac said he'd carry on the fight if Lautrec was killed....seconds were named.....however an apology from de Groux averted the duel; and de Groux resigned from the group"...Modernist (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brilliant, I have added a sentence to clarify the outcome. --John (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Auvers-sur-Oise (May–July 1890
  • I would prefer Barbizon school without the pipe to "Barbizon", as the longer form tells me what Barbizon means without having to use a link. But I am also wondering about the whole sentence: "The Barbizon painter Charles Daubigny had moved to Auvers in 1861, and in turn drew other artists there, including Camille Corot and Honoré Daumier." What is the relevance?
    • Agree on the first point, and so actioned. Open to input on the second.
  • Relevancy is that it provided context to VvG for his being there to work. The fact that he painted 2 versions of Daubigny's garden and that those others were working or had been working there made his stay there more viable and more relevant to him. Vincent held in high regard the Barbizon school (I prefer that to Barbizon) artists...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Modernist, I thought that was the case. Paragraph structure reworked here. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of these works are sombre, and reflective of a desire to return to lucid mental health". Again, editorial unless attributed and cited.
    • Not yet done. Sure can be referenced.
      • See below. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can supply a ref for sombre; will have to read re return to mental health. Hope to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet some reflect deepening concerns." – editorial again (you could easily omit this)
    • Not yet done, neutral.
    • I've now removed both of these, well spotted. --John (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • This will need a bit of re-reading but I think it's worth keeping. He was under considerable pressure in those last days and scholarly opinion tends to lean towards the belief that the last painting reflected his concerns. Will try to get to it tomorrow. Modernist, what does Rewald have to say about this? Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • About sombre and desire to return to mental health: imo, these points are important and should stay in. These last paintings, his last days, his moods, are extensively discussed throughout the sources. He was concerned about his health, about being a burden on Theo who provided Vincent support, about failing as an artist. It's generally accepted that the last paintings are sombre; I'd prefer not attribute to a single art historian here because that would single out. Nor would I want to put in a stream of refs proving that every one of the nine or ten books I'm currently surrounded by say essentially the same thing. I have added two refs there, which should suffice. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Death (July 1890)
  • We've reached July in the chronology, so it's disconcerting that the section begins: "Van Gogh underwent a further crisis in February 1890." I feel we've covered this ground adequately in earlier sections, and the whole first paragraph could be dropped or absorbed into earlier text, so that the section begins: "On 27 July 1890, aged 37..."
    • Moved into chronological order.
  • "Any of these could have been the culprit..." These needs an "according to" attribution.
    • Not yet done, sure it can be referenced. --John (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought we could easily use the source there to reference (Blumer), but after reading it today, I'm not at all convinced we should be using it. It's been in the article since it was added on 5 March 2006, [27] to cite the many diagnoses, and stayed in that position for years. The language about epilepsy and the wording re "culprit" has been in the article since 8 January 2006, [28]. Except for the text having been shoved around a bit and tweaked, the ref shoved around, it's all substantially the same as it was a decade ago. I'd like a small amount of time to dig into this and to verify and so on. I did find a promising article on Jstor last week, shelved it without taking the time to download, but have lost access. I will try to beg access from someone. Alternately I would like to suggest we simply follow Hughes' premise who writes "what his illness was, nobody can say." (Hughes, (2002), p. 8). In my view, we should avoid saying in Wikipedia's voice that Vincent suffered from epilepsy without a very strong source to lean on. Victoria (tk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Van Gogh wrote from Arles that the townspeople regarded him "a madman or an epileptic" — letter 589
  2. "Most epileptics bite their tongue and injure themselves. Rey told me that he had seen a case where someone had mutilated his own ear, just as I did, and I think I heard a doctor from here, who came to see me with the director, say that he too had seen it before." — Vincent to Theo, letter 592
  3. "I have every reason to believe that the attack which he has had is the result of a state of epilepsy" — letter from Dr. T. Peyron to Theo van Gogh
  4. Doiteau, V. and Leroy, E. La Folie de Vincent van Gogh, Paris, Éditions Æsculape, 1928.
  5. for example, Vinchon, J. 'Diagnostic de la "folie" de van Gogh,' in Historie de la Médecine Communications présentées à Paris â la Société Francaise d'Histoire de la Médecine en 1960 1960, pages 23 - 24, and Godlewski, G. 'Vincent van Gogh, prince des maudits' in Diamant Actualités Médicales, 1982, Volume 29, 12-16.
  6. Arnold, page 172 --John (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Dr Rey diagnosed him with epilepsy (see these notes), but what concerns me is that we say twice in the lead that he was a mad or a madman and I think we should avoid suggesting that having a seizure disorder = madness/mental disorder (because it doesn't). From what I'm reading, in France at that period mental disorders were defined as a "type of mental epilepsy" unlike the traditional definition of epilepsy or the modern definition of seizure disorders. I have managed to pull an article from an academic database but only skimmed it and I will take a closer look again at Blumer, which I'm a little uncomfortable using as a source or as the only source. Happy to move the discussion to FAC talk or the article talk to explain my concerns more in depth. I'd only want to adjust slightly and swap a couple of sources; will try to be as swift as possible. Victoria (tk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • For now I have trimmed out those like neurosyphilis and schizophrenia for which there is no evidence. I brought in a reference from the Health article, but I am unable to verify it. Can someone else, or are there other references out there? --John (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I have at least one more and want to swap out Blumer. Still working on this; I think it has to be done carefully and might take a little time. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illness section is now sorted, thanks to Casliber's edits. Victoria (tk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The final part of the review will follow soon. Much as I am enjoying this, I have a few other things that need attention! Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


More – not quite through yet but nearly

Artistic development
  • "Theo gave Vincent a donation, used to buy materials..." – a bit clumsy; suggest simplify to "Theo gave Vincent money to buy materials..."
    • Done.
  • " From early in 1883 he worked on multi-figure compositions, on which he based on his drawings." Can you explain more clearly what this means? I'm confused by "on which he based his drawings".
    • Reworded.
  • "received technical support" – do you mean technical advice or instruction? Otherwise, what "support" did they provide?
    • Not sure. Took out "technical" meantime.
    • Tweaked to say technical advice. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intermezzo" doesn't mean interval, which I think is what you intend here. An intermezzo is a short instrumental interlude between the acts of an opera. In an older meaning it was a short musical dramatic work inserted between the acts of a play, and in fact the whole genre of opera arguably evolved from that format – but I must stop the lecture and get on. Sorry.
    • Changed to "period".
  • "due to lack of technical experience" – do you mean "expertise"?
    • Presume so, changed.
    • Both really. Small tweak to clarify. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would probably omit the first three words of the last paragraph.
    • Done.
Major series
  • " many of his early works could be described as gauche." Whose opinion is this?
    • Removed.
  • Who is Melissa McQuillan?
  • Two close "believes". Perhaps one could be "supposes", "suggests", "posits" etc?
    • Changed.
Portraits
  • " but my means of..." I think that's a typo for "by", but it's in a quote, so...
    • Changed to "by means of".
  • "Regarding La Berceuse, we have "It had..." and "it appears to be..." in quick succession. We ought to keep tenses consistent.
    • Made tense consistent.
Self-portraits
  • "encircling the head with a background halo". I see this is cited to McQuillan, but is it McQuillan's voice? The next para also ends with a McQuillan citation where it's clearly not her voice.
    The quote isn't very clear, and now removed. I see the bit about the halo is also gone. Ceoil (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I swapped it with another quote, [29], and see comment below. Victoria (tk) 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't have McQuillan; swapped the source, added a direct quote (it's longer but I can live with it; it's an important painting). Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brian can you clarify what you mean that the "next para also ends with a McQuillan citation where it's clearly not her voice."?? I'm confused. I'm talking about the second paragraph in the "Self Portrait" section. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 17:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text has changed and I'm not sure what I meant now. Don't worry about it any more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Flowers
  • "Van Gogh painted several landscapes with flowers, including roses, lilacs, Irises, and Sunflowers: I don't think the links work properly here, in a sentence where you are listing subjects of paintings (roses, lilacs, irises and sunflowers etc) rather than actual paintings. The Sunflowers painting is already linked earlier in the text, and Irises a little further down.
    • Agree, unlinked.
  • "Both are built..." – is that "Both series..."?
    • Both series. Clarified.
  • Third para needs a lead-in, to give context: "In these series, Van Gogh was not preoccupied..."
    • Done.
  • "The only painting Van Gogh completed during Gauguin's first visit was Van Gogh Painting Sunflowers" – Eh? Names transposed, surely?
    • Swapped names.
Cypresses
  • "It represents an exalted experience of reality," – whose choice of words? Sounds like it should be in quotes. Does the citation at the end of the paragraph cover everything in it?
  • I don't believe it's a direct quote, but will check and either supply a ref or trim out. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Big sigh. I've left this in. When I read about Van Gogh's beliefs about nature and what he tried to achieve in his paintings of the natural world, I'm often reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay Nature. Not sure how many of you are familiar with it, but I believe he and Van Gogh shared the same beliefs. Van Gogh perceived that in Nature (with a capital N) one could see (if one looked carefully) the hand of God (for a better word). Hence, some of these paintings, particularly Starry Night and Cypress and Star can be seen as his personal religious iconography in which Nature is exalted to the sublime, which was done in the stylization/abstract. If that makes any sense? Regardless, I might have been the person to add that word, really can't remember, but I think it should stay in. That's many words to say that I've added many refs. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tempted to strike the big post above. Anyway, the language here is being picked up on mirror sites and I see that we once had a blockquote there citing Pickvance, but without that source to check whether the quote is accurate I've done the best I can. Modernist do you have Pickvance? If not, let's just reword (but I'd still keep exalted). Victoria (tk) 17:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found the original quote under about five layers of wallpaper and paint and more wallpaper. Yes, it's from Pickvance. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 18:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Orchards
  • " The transience of the blossoming trees, and the passing of the season, seemed to align with his sense of transience..." Repetition. The second "transience" could be "ephemera", or if that's too flighty, "impermanence".
    • Changed to "impermanence".
  • "and it presented him with a world of Japanese motifs which he revelled in". What's the connection? How did the "transience of the blossoming trees..." etc present VG with "a world of Japanese motifs"?
  • The transience of blossoming trees is a strong motif in Japanese art but it's not well presented. Cut out. Victoria (tk) 16:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified. I hope. Victoria (tk) 15:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Gogh was consumed by..." Not sure about "consumed by" in this context. A better word might be "fascinated", or if that's not strong enough, maybe "enthralled" or "infatuated with"
Wheat fields
  • "The weather worsened in July..." – which July?
    • 1890. Thanks for your thoughtful and highly diligent review. Only a very few points outstanding on which I will need to defer to Modernist, Ceoil or Victoriaearle. Look forward to resolving them and to your final review. --John (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks John for taking care of so many of these and I echo your words re Brian's excellent review. Brian I hope to take care of the outstanding issues at the soonest tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My final comments

Reputation
  • " After Van Gogh's first exhibitions in the late 1880s, his reputation grew slowly but steadily among artists, art critics, dealers and collectors.[255] In 1887 André Antoine installed Van Gogh's paintings alongside those of Georges Seurat and Paul Signac, at the Théâtre Libre in Paris; some were acquired by Julien Tanguy." All this seems to contradict the lead, which says: "He sold only one painting during his lifetime and was largely unnoticed by critics until his suicide, aged 37". It's probably the lead sentence that needs amending.
    • Lead changed to "He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his suicide, aged 37, which followed years of poverty and mental illness."
  • Within the quote: "even though the populace has not crowned to a magnificent funeral". Are you sure it says "crowned" rather than "crowded"? It makes no sense otherwise.
    • Ceoil has fixed.
  • "Theo had been the sole support of his family, and Van Gogh-Bonger was left..." I think in this context I'd call her Johanna (consistent with "Theo")
    • Done.
  • "... and the near-valueless works of her brother-in-law." Needs qualifying, since in fact they were far from valueless. I suggest: "... and what she assumed were the near-valueless works of her late brother-in-law."
    • Changed to "and the presumed near-valueless works of her brother-in-law."
      • Interjecting: I'd like us to check into this. Per the sources Johanna still had an almost full collection of his hundreds of works as late as 1906, so they weren't flying out to collectors, nor was she earning money from them. We need to explain that this woman, a widow after not even two years of marriage, found herself in possession of not only her husband's but her brother-in-law's possessions. They really were valueless at that point, and that she had to the sentimentality, fortitude, whatever it was to keep them is probably one of the only reasons we still have the paintings. I wouldn't want to suggest in the article that she kept the paintings because they were far from valueless, because that would be incorrect. Victoria (tk) 16:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a direct quote and moved it all to a note for now. Open to discussion. Victoria (tk) 16:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Gogh's first critical supporter..." reads ambiguously. I assume you mean the first art critic to support VG – but was he truly the first? Perhaps something like: "one of Van Gogh's earliest supporters among the critics..."?
    • Done.
  • I would link "Fauve movement" as it hasn't been mentioned since the lead
    • It's mentioned just above and linked as [[Fauvism|Fauvist painter]]
The museum
  • Only some general ce and slight prose reorganisation
Romanticised life
  • "...thus allowing projection by a wide variety of geographically and temporally dispersed view points". I'm afraid I can't make sense of that wording.
    • Changed to "allowing projection by a wide variety of audiences"
  • "His mental difficulties were never diagnosed, do not easily fit into any category and are thus left open". "Unexplained may be better than "open". And I wonder if the central phrase "do not easily fit into any category" is redundant. If the mental episodes were never diagnosed, they obviously couldn't be categorised.
    • Done
  • "everyman": The link is to a rubbish article, and I wouldn't use it. It would be better to explain what is meant in this article.
    • Done
  • "...he preferred rural settings, sometimes as a pauper." I don't think he ever preferred being a pauper, rather it was sometimes a consequence of his wish to work in rural settings. I'd tweak this to "he preferred rural settings, sometimes living as a pauper."
    • Done, and well seen
  • " He was single for most of his years" – "single" means unmarried, so he was single all his life. I would omit this short sentence entirely.
    • Done
  • I find it a little odd that the broad summary of Van Gogh's life and career contained in the penultimate paragraph is cited to a single page of one source. Surely many writers expressed themselves on this remarkable career, and we should have a range of views and a couple of quotations.
    Yes, looking. 01:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    Brain, working through this. As Iridescent pointed out in the PR its perhaps the main reason why well informed readers might look up the page and give a 30 second scan. Not sure its rightly structured yet, and am considering. Iridescent you have been pinged as as one such reader (though with a larger attention span), guidance and a POV would be appreciated. Re cites; yes Brian, np. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    On looking closely at it, I think the last couple of paragraphs here are problematic; to give a couple of examples, the Impressionists were certainly not "universally appealing" (a lot of critics loathed them, then and now), and He considered his art as more a line in the continuum rather than a break from the past describes every artist; even people like Picasso and Wyndham Lewis who are seen in hindsight as representing a clean break, saw themselves at the time as the heirs of Cezanne and Kandinsky respectively. The problem is, this article is effectively biographies of two people: Van Gogh the artist, and the comic book superhero Vincent the Mad Genius who Saved the World of Art. This section is necessary to explain how and why the "inventor of modern art" myth came about and that it isn't true, but it's a very tricky thing to write; in an ideal world we'd have point-by-point list of the Facts Everyone Knows ("he invented modern art", "he cut off his ear to impress a prostitute", "his style was unique at the time", "he was the first artist to work in bright colours", "nobody at recognised his talents until after he died", "he saw visions and painted his hallucinations"...) with an explanation in each case as to why it's untrue and what the reality was, but that's not really practical in the Wikipedia format. (I would expect to see Lust for Life mentioned, though, as that's where the fictionalised version of his life really enters the mainstream.) ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Iridescent - I don't exactly understand or agree with this: To modern tastes, Van Gogh's career lies between the now universally appealing Impressionists, while also providing a connection to the more alienating non-figurative abstractions of the 1900s and 1910s. He is considered an important Post-Impressionist along with Gauguin, Cezanne, Seurat, and Lautrec who extended the definition of advanced painting beyond the limitations of Impressionism; being in VvG's case an early example of Expressionism...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, yes, and this is now gone. Ceoil (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Iridescent, I'd originally wanted it all in the section now called "Reputation" with the idea that we'd simply present what happened after he died, his current popularity (i.e prints hanging in offices in Cambodia), a "show don't tell" type section, very dry (and in the version I wrote Lust for Life was included). But I suppose it became too factoidy, it went in another direction, and is now something else. The newer section called "Romanticised life" I would have thought could have been part of that what was supposed to be a reputation section, but I think I lost the plot somewhere along the lines or a request went over my head. I don't even know why I'm replying to this post, (because yours is in reply to Ceoil) except to say that in my view it can all be condensed, summarised, squeezed down. Very difficult to do with the swarm of editing we've seen. Which in itself proves the point. Victoria (tk) 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Vic, but I couldn't disagree more, and the danger here is hagiography. Show dont tell is fine for minority interest articles, where a certain knowledge can be assumed, but not for this.[Striking as realise I was in error 21/8/16] Ceoil (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't express that well (what I meant was that what I tried did not work) and disagreement is ok, it's how we get things to where they should be and is a normal part of collaboration. I might sandbox some ideas later today; don't want to clog up this page any more, and apologies for the post above. Pre-coffee you know. Always a bad idea. Victoria (tk) 13:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood V. Ceoil (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note this was kicked around a fair bit tonight between the nominators, the content of the sect is stable. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what we are missing from the very well informed request is that "it isn't true", but thats a can of worms I like to leave closed. Ceoil (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Also re "cited to a single page of one source"; moot now, given the restructuring. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " have been described as" always brings the questuin "by whom?" This needs to be stated; likewise the strong opinions expressed in the last paragraph about the letters must not read like Wikipedia's judgement. They must be attributed; citation is not enough.
On images: Normally I would say that 90+images is far too many. In this particular case I find the selection of paintings irresistible – perhaps the most attractive feature of the article. I would argue against the removal of any of these. If you want to lose an image or two, some of the non-paintings are less essential – Mrs Bonger-whatsit hardly merits an image. But please leeave the paintings be if you possibly can.
This is a particularly wonderful statement and underscores the attention Modernist and Ceoil have lavished over the years on the visual arts aspect of this visual arts article. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been one of my longest-ever reviews, and one of the most satisfying. I look forward to supporting the article's promotion in due course.

  • I really appreciate the time, care and thought you have put into it. Only a very few outstanding points left now I think. --John (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, echoing John. Meant to get here earlier, but multitasking <cough> watching Olympics. A few outstanding points left; hope to pick up again tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 02:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working through, but re "longest ever reviews", I am not likely to forget "[30]", and the PR. Brian is a reason why we can have nice things :) Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was a young man then... kind of you to remember, though. There appear to be a few unresolved issues arising directly or indirectly from my review. Perhaps one of the team would ping me when these are finally settled. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Ceoil (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:Brianboulton Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've not checked out all the responses to all my multifarious points, but I have every confidence in this team, who have treated my review with unremitting courtesy and appreciation. If there are a few loose ends still lying around I'm sure they will be picked up soon, and I'm not going to delay my support on that account. A great article which I am sure will have a consistently high and appreciative readership. Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Brian, for the excellent review and for the support. Victoria (tk) 16:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted!! Ceoil (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some amazing input...Modernist (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent[edit]

  • Support. All the concerns I had were already raised and addressed at the PR. I appreciate that this probably technically fails criterion 1e, but I'd be inclined to turn a blind eye in this case; it's impossible for an article on a topic with this degree of editor interest and about whom there's constantly being new material published ever to be truly stable. (I would be inclined to drop the last sentence, though. That visitors to the Van Gogh Museum are familiar with Van Gogh is surely not a great surprise, and "visitors come from around the globe" could apply to any significant museum, particularly in light of the fact that the VVG Museum is slap-bang in the middle of the main concentration of hotels in one of Europe's major travel hubs.) ‑ Iridescent 17:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did leave out the example of the poster of a Van Gogh painting hanging in the office of an official in, I believe, Cambodia, and went for the more generic, but I see your point. Will leave to Modernist & Ceoil to decide whether to keep or trim out. I'm not fussed either way. In terms of 1e, it's a well-curated article, which helps. I run into a similar problem with Hemingway (about the same page views, and also protected), whenever a new book or movie is released. Thanks from me, but the credit goes, overwhelmingly, to Modernist and Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 17:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we keep most of the new revelations out, especially of the "Van Gogh may have been suffering from..." variety. Last one we included was the naming of the 'prostitute Rachael', who it turns out was neither of those things. Ceoil (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did trim out the info about the visitors from around the globe, a day or so after you posted here but it seems to have come back. I've decided to leave it in. Victoria (tk) 22:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that there have been so many changes since my initial support, I'll reiterate that I still support it.

    One thing I would say though is that I'm not at all keen on the fact that we now state Between 1886 and 1890, Van Gogh changed the history of art in Wikipedia's voice (and without even a citation); there were artists active in France in the 1880s who are widely considered to have changed the history of art, but their names were Paul Cezanne and Georges Seurat. The notion of VVG as a game-changer is a somewhat fringey view derived from The Shock of the New; one of the striking things about van Gogh (and a recurring headache for curators of the Van Gogh Museum looking to pad out exhibitions) is that despite his popularity he had remarkably little influence on subsequent artists other than Matisse and the walled-garden of early Expressionism. (Picasso admired van Gogh, but neither the Modernists & Cubists nor the later 1960s movements inspired by them were particularly influenced by him.) That said, I'm not going to oppose over a single sentence. ‑ Iridescent 09:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the The Shock of the New was produced 1980. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading again, I am also uncomfortable with this, is now removed, and is in part what the "Romanticised life" sect, horribly titled, is trying to get at. Idealisation has overwritten history, as that sentence, based on sources, shows. You were pinged above on exactly this matter, to my mind we have not settled yet. Ceoil (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

  • Looking very good at first glance. Working through:
  • I have to say I really don't like the multiple image format, though I wouldn't oppose on that. Especially when there's above 2, mini-galleries are better, imo. Some gaps could do with images, especially a bright late painting (or two) opposite the TOC, as otherwise there's nothing really characteristic for some time after the lead self-portrait. There are also long stretches without pics near the end, and near the start some sandwiches that are avoidable.
  • I'll give small galleries a try as soon as possible...Modernist (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, for better or worst depending on the sect. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a huge white space below the lead pic. On my pc I have to go 8 screens down before encountering any images that most would think very characteristic of VG, then a further 2 before Provence. I think this is too far for the average reader. Given the dissention the images lower down have caused, I think some should be shown here, perhaps as a "Salon des refusees" for those dislodged below. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I was co-opted as a nominator (which I was delighted and flattered at, and I hope I have done a reasonable job in), when I was reviewing the article as an involved commentator, I had a lot of qualms about the number and formatting of the images. Comments made by Brianboulton, Iridescent and Sandbh in their support and Modernist's passion have convinced me that the quantity of images is essential for the article. Ceoil and Modernist have made some adjustments to the formatting, and again I am now satisfied with how the article looks on various devices. I see your suggestion above about putting one of the later paintings into an early position in the article. I am neutral on this. Now wearing my nominator's hat, Modernist and Ceoil, would you support this change? Could it be done without disrupting other things? --John (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a try...Modernist (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a fair point, and like Modernist's recent solution of two smaller images in the lead, which has also been used in other VA FAs. Ceoil (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the letters at the start.
    I think they need to be placed and explained upfront as so much biographical and insight by art historians are drawn from on them. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of paras are too long - especially given the younger/non-specialist readership this gets. Look at the "Cypresses" section, easily split at "Other...", and perhaps also "Referring...".
    Have trimmed down as much as possible. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still a few that should be split. Trimming may well not be needed - the paras are just too long on the screen. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be mention (outside the captions) of the VG Museum, if only for the size of its collections. I'd be interested in the number of paintings in the US, if you have it. The trajectory of his fame/value, and his large output, worked very well for US collectors and museums, and he is probably one of the first European artists with such a high proportions of his works outside Europe. His status as a Dutch national icon is worth mentioning, if you have sources. With being really good at at painting part of the national self-image, but not having produced any artists that even they could raise much enthusiasm about for some 3 centuries, VG has been seized on big-time. Generally a bit more peacock as to his massive reputation in the latter part of the C20 would not be excessive.
  • "There he lived in the so-called Yellow house,..." - check where that link go, heh, heh. It should be either "so-called Yellow House" or "so-called "yellow house"" I think.
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Johnbod. I have the exhibition catalogue for the 1990 centenary exhibition at the Rijksmuseum and I think I can glean some information re Dutch national icon from one of the various forwards, including the tribute from Beatrix of the Netherlands. Re the US collectors, I think I might have seen a paper on Jstor that touched on that point, but I didn't bother to download it. The reading will take a few days. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Beatrix quite hits the spot really. And isn't there a mistake in "The Rijksmuseum held an exhibition for the 1990 centenary of Van Gogh's death. The paintings came from their own collection and the Kröller-Müller Museum, which house the two largest Van Gogh collections in the world." - VGM & K-MM surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Johnbod, I thought that was odd. The catalogue says the Van Gogh Museum and the KMM are part of the Rijksmuseum? Are they using "Rijks" as a term I don't understand, or all these museums associated? Anyway, I've tweaked it and will again if you think it's not close enough. Agree re Beatrix; she's a little restrained. But until we find a source re his status as Dutch national icon, would like to keep this bit in for now and then add a little more when the little more is located. If that works? Victoria (tk) 23:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Rijks" (="reich" in German) means "State/National" in Dutch, and there are lots of "Rijksmuseum Footown", Rijksmuseum van Geologie en Mineralogie (now renamed), etc in the NL. Strictly the "Rijksmuseum" used to be the "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", but they have now co-opted the plain term. The Van Gogh Museum is a "rijksmuseum". See List of Rijksmuseums and Category:National museums of the Netherlands. AFAIK the VGM never came under the "Rijksmuseum Amsterdam", but it might have done. Hope that helps (if you find that confusing, try Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation). Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly gave you your own template (for a few moments). Yes, thank you. That makes much more sense and thanks for calling me on it. Victoria (tk) 01:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod, a follow up: I've added information to the "Posthumous fame" section re the Van Gogh Museum and the Kröller-Müller Museum, and in the second-to-last para mentioned collections. After trawling through databases etc., last night the closest I can come are the lenders the 1990 catalogue lists, though obviously out of date. Cannot find any firm numbers. Will this work for now? Perhaps Modernist or Ceoil have a better grasp of this than I. Victoria (tk) 21:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's close enough, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff now sorted adequately, and stuck. Dutch national icon not really done, & if sources appear a bit would be nice. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything yet, but I'm working from books. Might be on a website somewhere; will try searching later today. Victoria (tk) 12:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, will keep this in mind. I'm not even seeing it at the Van Gogh museum website, (which btw, does have very nice formatting), but if I come across it, will slip it in at a later time. Victoria (tk) 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
images[edit]

Tried to remove two images crammed beneath infobox, calling them "decorative", but was reverted "per FAC", although I can't find any discussion pertaining to it. It looks sloppy and amateur, fails to meet MOS:PERTINENCE. There is something bold and definitive about the lone lead image, and these random additions subtract from that. - HappyWaldo (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try the section with my comments. I wouldn't have chosen a 2nd 1887 self-portrait I think, but the images are certainly an improvement imo. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these specific images needed in this part of the page? How do they improve the article? - HappyWaldo (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The images look fine, no image clutter...Modernist (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's decorative, but why are they actually necessary? What are they adding to the article? Why should they be placed beneath the infobox? What are they illustrating exactly? - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are there because they improve the article and have made the article better; and apparently you do not agree. Read this WP:IDONTLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How have they made the article better? And again, why are these particular images necessary in this part of the article, and what are they illustrating? Simply saying "they improve the article" isn't persuasive. - HappyWaldo (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HappyWaldo, see this comment at the FAC where Johnbod made his second request for these images. As a nominator I agree with their inclusion and think that's an area we can use to swap various images throughout the year. Here in the Northern Hemisphere in eastern North America we are experiencing an unusually hot summer and those images speak to me quite well in that regard, but I can see how that's a subjective decision. Still it is August and they show August (I believe). Anyway, I think this discussion should be moved to Johnbod's section on the FAC. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is gaining traction here so might as well stay for simplicity's sake. Images should help the reader as an illustrative aid, not serve to remind one editor what season it is in their part of the world. To everyone else who isn't engaged in the FAC, the images will appear randomly selected and placed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Victoria, Johnbod and Ceoil; move it; or better yet read this: WP:STICK...Modernist (talk) 18:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist, can you at least answer my questions and present real arguments before killing off the debate? I'm open to being persuaded if you just put the effort in. - HappyWaldo (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWaldo, I thought Johnbod's suggestion was to fill the whitespace along the lines as he has here in Persian art, if that helps to persuade you. But it might be best to have him explain - in other words I'm punting for now. Victoria (tk) 19:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyWaldo, you don't seem to have read the section above. See: "Some gaps could do with images, especially a bright late painting (or two) opposite the TOC, as otherwise there's nothing really characteristic for some time after the lead self-portrait." and "There is still a huge white space below the lead pic. On my pc I have to go 8 screens down before encountering any images that most would think very characteristic of VG, then a further 2 before Provence. I think this is too far for the average reader. Given the dissention the images lower down have caused, I think some should be shown here, perhaps as a "Salon des refusees" for those dislodged below." You seem to think that all images should be right next door to some text directly relevant to them, which is, or used to be, a common mistake here. These images are no more "decorative" than any others here. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support the inclusion of the images as I have been convinced that they are an asset here, and I think that represents a hard-won consensus here. However, I am not sure the self-portrait is the best image to use. Is it possible to swap it for a different one, User:Modernist? --John (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can certainly swap that self-portrait out for another image...Modernist (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy response. I think that looks far better. HappyWaldo, can you live with that? --John (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. HappyWaldo? Victoria (tk) 12:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still not sold. It's literal filler. Filling up an empty space with whatever strikes our fancy, cause we can. I stand by MOS:IRELEV: "Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available." And make no mistake, if they haven't found a place in an article body with 95 images, they are of marginal value, and not integral to the story. But everyone seems fine with it so there's nothing I can do. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Johnbod makes a good point about there not being anymore representative images after the lead image for a good number of screens. On that basis I think the additional in the lead makes sense. I do appreciate where you are coming from, but disagre on this one. That said you cant win them all, and to get here has been a difficult task. In my opinion its ok to let this objection stand. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More[edit]

I've been waiting for editing to calm down, and now it seems it has. So:

  • Lead: "In just over a decade he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life. They include landscapes, still lifes, portraits and self-portraits, and are characterised by bold, symbolic colours, and dramatic, impulsive and highly expressive brushwork that contributed to the foundations of modern art. He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his suicide, aged 37, which followed years of poverty and mental illness." Slightly begs the question of "which decade?" Might be rearranged along the lines of: "In just over the decade before his suicide at the age of 37 he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life. They include landscapes, still lifes, portraits and self-portraits, and are characterised by bold, symbolic colours, and dramatic, impulsive and highly expressive brushwork that contributed to the foundations of modern art. He sold only one painting during his lifetime and became famous after his death, which followed years of poverty and mental illness."
  • "Constantijn C. Huysmans, a successful artist in Paris, taught the students at Tilburg." Odd - was the success earlier or later? Don't see how being both at the same time makes sense. Or did he just turn up for a talk?
    Done...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Van Gogh refused to attend church, quarrelling with his father as a result, and left the same day for The Hague.[note 6][62] Within a month they fell out, possibly over the viability of drawing from plaster casts.[63]" "They" is VG & Mauve, but I think needs spelling out.
    Done...Modernist (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was one of seven canvases sent to Pont-Aven on 4 October 1888 in an exchange of works with Paul Gauguin, Émile Bernard, Charles Laval and others." - the colony needs explaining, maybe "sent to the colony of artists at Pont-Aven in Brittany on 4 Oct ..." The Pont-Aven article is not so informative.
  • "The portrayals of the Arles landscape are informed by Van Gogh's Dutch upbringing; the patchworks of fields and avenues appear flat and lacking perspective, but excel in their use of colour." No doubt both points are true, but it is not too clear how they are related.
  • "Artistic development" section is illustrated with 2 paintings of 88/89. Earlier ones would be nice.
  • No other points. Good job all! Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton[edit]

  • Support - All issues now seems to now have been resolved or are under way to be resolved. I am happy to support. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the letter to the New York Times a reliable source?
  • I find the article referenced on FN 230 about the Annenberg, and that's ok. Am I missing one? Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I'm talking about "Van Gogh Myths: The ear in the mirror". nytimes.com. Currently FN 190. It appears to be a letter to the editor from a reader. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thanks. I've replaced it. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is the publisher behind Vangoghgallery.com? From what I can tell the site seems mostly devoted to selling art prints. Is it reliable?
  • I lied. I hadn't realize we still have refs to vgallery imbedded in the notes (nor that we have webarchives imbedded in the notes). I think I noted one of the biographies discusses how the name is pronounced - will have to trawl through and it might take some time. In the meantime, I think Lingzhi is the best to confirm whether the IPA is correct or not (not my field). Will try to get to these this weekend. Victoria (tk) 16:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vangoghgallery.com has been removed. Vggallery.com is a different site, and judging by this article in the New York Times it might qualify as a reliable source. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes vangoghaventure.com, waymarking.com, theartwolf.com and arthistoryarchive.com reliable sources?
  • All gone except theartwolf.com about the price of the painting. Searching for an alternative. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artwolf is now gone, too. Victoria (tk) 23:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Art History Archive (arthistoryarchive.com) is still in the footnotes.P. S. Burton (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • I would recommend linking all letter to http://vangoghletters.org and staying clear of webexhibits. For consistency, it would also be nice if all letters are cited in the same way.
  • I've deleted a few webexibits and of what's left only one doesn't have a RS to accompany it (which can probably be located). I don't mind having them if readers want to look online, because searching in the books aint easy. Leaving this to the others for a decision. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. But I would suggest that the link to webexibits in footnote 6 is formated fully instead of just being a link: "Vincent's nephew noted some reminiscences of local residents in 1949, including the description of the speed of his drawing." –P. S. Burton (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am worried that the extensive citing of Van Gogh's letters shows an over-reliance on WP:Primary sources. Be mindful of not including your own original research
  • See above, most secondary research is based upon them, and why the letters sect was deliberately placed before the bio. Not finding vangoghaventure.com, cn you point me. Vangoghgallery.com is gone, euf, but at least ws one of two refs supporting a claim. The literature here is vast. Bear with us! Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Ceoil. One reason the article should lead with the letter section is to explain where the information about his life comes from. The letters are overwhelmingly used in the sources to the point that each source is littered with quotes. Van Gogh was unflinchingly honest and self-critical, extremely introspective, and there's really no reason, given the nature of his letters not to use them. In my view, every rule has an exception and this is the exception that breaks the rule. If I hadn't been reading hundreds of pages in books and seeing quote after quote after quote, then I'd be more hesitant as I generally am about using a writer's letters (i.e Hemingway for lots of reasons). Our options are to leave as is, because there really are an enormous number of scholarly reliable sources backing up the information (and I've just dragged home three more books from the library), add a RS next to each letter (which will take a year or two or five), get rid of all the letters and swap out with Pomerans annotated print versions (his analysis and annotations = secondary source). My feeling is that we've achieved a nice balance between scholarly reliable sources and the letters that readers can read online, and to leave as is. But as I said above, it's up to consensus. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The letters were annotated by Theo's widow, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger, who later said that she was reluctant to publish because she wanted to avoid details of the artist's life overshadowing his work. She had the letters published in 1913." The chronology hear is a bit confusing. Was it after the annotation or after the publication that she said she was reluctant? Could this perhaps be rephrased to clarify?
  • And apparently re-ordered again. Will re-read the source, verify, and note when she said that if the source tells us explicitly. (Sorry, can't remember off the top of my head). Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from mirrors of Wikipedia, I can't find any mentions whatsoever of a Galerie Delareybarette. Is the spelling correct?
  • I was trying to work my way through that section and will return to it in a few days. Removed the paragraph for now. Victoria (tk) 01:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the paragraph. Yes, Galerie Delareybarette is correct; that's where he first saw Monticelli's work in Paris in 1886. That it shows up in mirrors probably means this article has been mirrored, but that no one has bothered to look in the deadwood books. Victoria (tk) 15:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Burton (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi P. S. Burton, thanks for reviewing. I think it would be more effective to post your comments here instead of tagging the article like you did here without an edit summary, for two reasons. One, when too many people are working the same page at the same time it causes edit conflicts, and two, when someone steps away and then comes back to the tags it's difficult to see who added them and when, but these are valid points that need addressing. We're working our way through the comments and hope to get here as soon as possible. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 23:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. S. Burton Your comments about webexhibit etc. are valid. These are things we have known about for a long time, and discussed on the article's talk page. I will fix them in the next week or two.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  • Victoria Ok, I will do so. Just ask if the two issues I tagged are confusing. I think they both should be obvious enough to not really need an edit summary. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already removed one and replaced the link with an RS (but I did want to eat supper first!). There have been many many edits in the past few days, which is wonderful - it's exactly the attention this article needs and deserves - but I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up. That's really the only problem, but thanks for understanding. Victoria (tk) 00:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a tag in the note saying the Gauguin stayed in hotel and arrived back at the Yellow House at about the same time as the police, which is well sourced and maybe even in Gayford at the end of the para (I haven't checked). Anyway, I have a cite for it, but seem to be unable to unbundle the note, so I'll get back to it later. Victoria (tk) 01:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been unbundled and cited. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two further comments on the letter: (1) This article says the letters were published in 1914 and not 1913, as our article currently states. Could this be checked? (2) Per this article we should probably say that there are more than 650 letters from Vincent to Theo, rather than more than 600. P. S. Burton (talk) 12:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to John Rewald some letters were published in German in 1906, some more in English in 1913 and the vast majority were published in 1914...Modernist (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay. Will work through the letters section tomorrow. I honestly thought this had been sorted by now. Victoria (tk) 03:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pomerans says "more than 600" and that was the source I was working from. It's since been moved or something, I don't have the sources used there, so maybe someone else will pick up this issue. I've removed 1913, although technically correct b/c Johanna wrote the introduction before the publication, but as noted, it's confusing. Fwiw, I think "more than 600" suffices for the purposes of this article and the more minute details should go the subarticle. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations to the journal articles Arnold, WN (2004), Perry, I (1947) and Hemphill, R.E. (1961) should be formatted like other cited journal in the article. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  • Thanks for noting. It's only been a little over 24 hours since those were added and the section is still under discussion so let's give them time to settle. Someone will check all the refs once the text is taken care of. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has now been done. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 156 "Jules Breton and Realism, Van Gogh Museum" is a dead-url. Is it possible to find the original content online, or could this citation be replaced with a more stable source? P. S. Burton (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added another but kept the dead url for the moment (it's not totally dead, just goes to the museum). Let's give someone a chance to hunt that down. Won't get to the others right (below) right away. Victoria (tk) 23:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead url removed. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 233 "Letter 806" should be formatted the same way as the other letters in the references.
  • This has been fixed. (not by me). Victoria (tk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of ref 234 ( Van Gogh, Vincent (22–23 January 1889). "Letter 573, Vincent to Theo" . vggallery.com.) does not seem to support the text "Van Gogh painted several landscapes with flowers, including roses, lilacs, irises, and sunflowers" P. S. Burton (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed this, probably got misplace from somewhere else. Victoria (tk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that some language confusion might have crept in to this sentence which is cited to Hulsker: "He undertook, but also failed, a three-month course at the Vlaamse Opleidingsschool, a Protestant missionary school in Laeken, near Brussels." I do not have access to the Hulsker's book, so I can only see snippets online, but I am not sure that Vlaamse Opleidingsschool is the schools proper name, it simply means Flemish training college. Judging from these two letters 145 and 148. Also is seems to be a three-year course that he failed after three trial months. It might perhaps be better to write something like this: "In Fall he undertook training to become an Evangelist at a Flemish training college in the Brussels suburb Laken, but failed a three-month trial course." Although it is a minor detail it would be be great if the two letters and Hulsker could be checked to clear this up. P. S. Burton (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks P. S. Burton, that's a good catch. I've swapped the source and made a tweak (might need more) before I'm off on a break. I haven't checked the letters, but yes, essentially that's what's in the biography. Victoria (tk) 03:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Perhaps this could be further simplified and the information about the three months and the three years is an unnecessary detail that can be left out. I think that the main point is that he trained to become an Evangelist/missionary during the autumn months, but failed/"dropped out". P. S. Burton (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've put it back as written but left out Vlaamse Opleidingsschool, which as you correctly point out can be mistaken for a school proper name. Victoria (tk) 13:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you P. S. Burton for the excellent review and for all the work you've done. The article is greatly improved because of your suggestions and your many tweaks. Apologies for the delays btw, and thanks for your patience. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your hard work; greatly appreciate your valuable input...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59[edit]

  • Early life, paragraph 1: "his grandfather, Vincent (1789–1874)" – is this the paternal or maternal grandfather?—Noswall59 (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Paternal...Modernist (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I think it might be best to clarify that, unless it has already been done. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yes, added "Van Gogh" to family to indicate paternal. If you don't think that's clear enough we can change to "paternal". Victoria (tk) 18:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. I may come back to have a closer read through if I have time. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I've got a bit of time, so I shall post some comments. While much of the article seems well-written, I feel the 'Posthumous fame' section has some awkward phrases and other issues:

  • who is Tanguy? (If he is already linked, I apologise)
  • what is "Le Moderniste"?
  • The repetition of the word 'champion' at the end of the first para is awkward. In fact, the last sentence refers to Theo as though we know him, and suggests that he was the first champion even though he did a year before Aurier, who is called his "first critical champion". Perhaps a better construction might be "Aurier was Van Gogh's first critical champion, but died of ttyphoid fever in 1892,[218] a year after Theo van Gogh's death, which had removed Vincent's most vocal and well connected supporter."
  • we jump from Joanna to Gauguin person without explanation and this felt a bit awkward
  • "wrote that Van Gogh's suicide was an "infinitely sadder loss ..."
  • The dates seem to jump around out of chronological order in the fifth para.

As a general comment on this section, I feel that it does not provide a clear explanation (or address art historians' competing opinions) about how and why a largely obscure artist in his lifetime became one of the most famous after his death. Maybe I am wrong, but I am not sure it all ties together so nicely in this final section. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Noswall59, those are good observations. We want it to be as clear and accessible as possible to the lay reader. Some of your suggestions have been addressed but I think it needs a little more work. Will report back. Victoria (tk) 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Victoria. I appreciate there is a lot to do, and you are all doing a great job. —Noswall59 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Noswall59, I tried to address a few of these points and will go through this section again. I did mention up-page that I'm almost tempted to add a scholarship section as I have in previous FAs, but the amount of reading required is enormous and should be done slowly. In the meantime, will do the best we can here, but I'd prefer not to just throw stuff at it without giving it a lot of thought. Victoria (tk) 22:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Victoriaearle: This is good, much better and clearer now. The chronology works and the awkward champion sentences reworked. The section flows much better. I have two comments. The first is that reference is made to "Bacon", which I assume is Francis Bacon (artist), but ought to be made clear. Secondly, I still feel that a more general comment placing van Gogh's rise in context might be helpful. I assume that his success after his death owed much to the more general nascence of the post-impressionist movement as part of broader developments in modern art; it just so happened that he died just as this movement, which encapsulated his works, took off. If we could perhaps have something placing his rise in a wider context, that would be fantastic. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks Noswall59 for striking and posting. Yes, Francis Bacon has been fixed. I added a sentence to the beginning of [31] that might be what you want. Please let us know if that doesn't work, because I suspect there are other sources that might delineate more along the lines of what you've requested. Victoria (tk) 20:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

Images[edit]

I probably won't formally support or oppose here as I have been extensively involved in copy-editing, but I wanted to query the image formatting. I see it has been discussed in article talk. I am uneasy at having so many images emphasised by non-standard formatting. It looks terrible on my big monitor, and the overall effect of so much emphasis is not an asset. Generally, images should be left at standard formatting, with a very few larger for emphasis. What do others think? --John (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think having lots of pictures enhances the article. The appearance will obviously depend on the width of the screen. I've tried viewing the article on an ipad and on my 13in laptop. The ipad in portrait mode works very well with galleries as 2 x 2; in landscape the galleries are 3 + 1 which is less satisfactory. On my laptop it is mostly good but there is white space produced by having too little text to accommodate the picture on the right in Portraits after L'Arlésienne and similarly in Self-portraits. But the overall appearance is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing against having "lots of pictures", but these two are problematic for me as well. --John (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added text to the "Portraits" section, but still having some trouble with the other sections. I posted a comment at the talkpage. If it should be here, anyone can move it over (I don't mind). I hope to be around less next week - I'm exhausted and have a busier week ahead. Victoria (tk) 01:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this sort of formatting is counter-productive. User:Modernist, what does it add? --John (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are far more visible on large screens and they are important images...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are all important and beautiful images I agree. The trouble is they muck up the formatting on smaller screens. We have to have a compromise between the different platforms. A good starting point is to use the standard formatting and choose maybe one or two key images to display at especially large size. Emphasising too many this way makes it look very cluttered at smaller screen sizes. I have been looking at the page with mobile and laptop using different browsers. Another thing that leaps out is that there are so many images. Do we really need all 67 paintings (or whatever the current number is)? I know he was prolific but we need to be selective about which ones we show on the article. On a big screen they look great but again on a phone they make the article awkward to navigate. I think this is my last remaining qualm about this article's promotion. Otherwise I think it is looking great. --John (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a glut of second and third tier Van Goghs in my opinion. Some might be necessary for inclusion but many are not. I think we can begin by removing versions of the same subject, such as Wheat Field with Cypresses and Daubigny's Garden. - HappyWaldo (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are first rate paintings make no mistake - it's useful to show the repetition and the fact that Van Gogh (who was clearly a sophisticated and knowledgeable painter who was aware of Monet who also worked and reworked the same subject) also like other of his contemporaries worked in series...Modernist (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ear[edit]

When I last worked on this in February, the article said

That evening, Van Gogh severed his left ear (either wholly or in part; accounts differ) with a razor, inducing a severe haemorrhage.[note 13 According to Doiteau & Leroy (1928), the diagonal cut removed the lobe and probably a little more.]

We now state:

That evening, Van Gogh wholly severed his left ear with a razor, inducing a severe haemorrhage. A note from his doctor Félix Rey, written in 1930 for Irving Stone and including a drawing of the severed ear, made clear that Van Gogh had cut off his whole ear, except for a small part of the lobe.

I am not happy with the language, especially "made clear". Where uncertainty exists, we should report the uncertainty. I am also unhappy with "cut off his whole ear"; the human ear is mostly inside the skull and cannot be "cut off". We are talking about the pinna or external ear, and that should be made clear. --John (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I was in there early this morning and I think it all needs reworking. A new book was released last week or so, the section got edited, edited again, fixed and so on, and is now the way it is. I'm waiting for a few books to arrive from the library next week (I had to return some and then reordered), because I think it's important we get that right. At the moment I'm not able to view anything on g-books and the books I have aren't bios, so decided to wait. Victoria (tk) 13:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, Modernist, maybe we should use Rewald's account of the mutilation? He seems the most accurate. If so, can you have a go at that section? Victoria (tk) 14:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoriaearle In his book Post-Impressionism From van Gogh to Gauguin pp 243 John Rewald says Van Gogh returned to his room and there, assailed by auditory hallucinations, suddenly cut off his left ear. and footnoted (45); on page 248 the long footnote reads: the question of whether van Gogh cut off his whole ear or only the lobe has given rise to many discussions. Dr. Rey and the policeman Robert agreed that van Gogh had severed his entire ear (a version supported by Gauguin although he probably did not see Vincent without bandages), but Dr. Gachet and his son, as well as Theo's wife and Signac, maintained that the painter had only cut off the lobe of his ear; the note goes on to say that Dr. Rey could not try to put the severed ear back in place because it came to the hospital in Arles too late. Rewald also mentions see Doiteau and Leroy: Vincent van Gogh et le dramede l'orielle coupee, Aesculape, July 1936.....among other things...Modernist (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Modernist. That's quite interesting. It's the most concise and best version I've seen and has the benefit of mentioning both possibilities, entire ear vs. earlobe. What do you think of re-working that section per Rewald's account? If we use that version we can replace the Doiteau ref I removed in this edit. I took it out because it contradicted the previous sentence. Victoria (tk) 18:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria please give it your best shot...Modernist (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I will need page numbers. And I need to have a break for a while. Victoria (tk) 19:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewald, John (1978). Post-Impressionism: From van Gogh to Gauguin. London: Secker & Warburg. pp 243-248...Modernist (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I was able to get a snippet of Rewald, and Sweetman's account is essentially the same, so that's nice to know. I've done a preliminary swing through. Does this work for you, John? And for everyone else? P.s, there is a newspaper ref in there that needs formatting, but I'm clueless. Victoria (tk) 22:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I'm way way behind the curve here so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said, but very recently on some history channel show or other I saw that recently-discovered sketches made by the initial examining doctor showed that almost the entirety of the external ear had been removed. The key words in that sentence are "recently discovered". I hope I am not opening a debate here.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those sketches were by Dr. Rey. The controversy has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use any sources written in the last 25 years (except I left in the recent art news webcite for the girl's name, which I didn't read and may or may not be correct, because I was too damn tired to deal with it). I looked at the recent book but, no, don't think we can use it. That said, the section needed rewriting because of the recent activity. I've done the best I can. Anyone else can give it shot. I'll be unwatching here for a few days. Victoria (tk) 03:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. I've moved the discussion of the various accounts of ear damage into the note; it's vital to include this and to cover the uncertainty but I think having the detail in the main text is a bit prurient. I think it is much better now. What do others think? --John (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I removed that he would have bled to death. This seems very unlikely on the face of it and is debunked in the medical ref. This is part of the myth, and not a plausible part. --John (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good call. Ceoil (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One (probably final) comment here; following some research, I thought the claim about reattachment would have been highly cutting edge in 1888. Possible but pretty unlikely. I made this edit to reflect that. --John (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's fine. It wouldn't have been possible - the technology is very new - but the ear was carried around. Still, it's fine to take it out. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather surprisingly, I found that there are accounts of successful nose and ear reattachments going back to Biblical times, but basically you're right, it wouldn't have been as routine a possibility as it is now. I didn't remove it, just altered the wording slightly. --John (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, didn't mean that it's gone (and have struck). Your edit summary made me laugh and I thought the edit appropriate. At some point I wondered about even having it in (I believe I added it), and I think I was channeling that thought. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pronunciation[edit]

I really hesitate to raise this here, but I used this article as an example at another article, where there is a debate about including pronunciation in the lead. Although I stand by my argument that this article uses best practice in using a footnote and a source for the different pronunciations, it also leapt out at me that the source we use for this is not the best. I am sure better sources for this could be found; could they, Victoria, Ceoil, Modernist? --John (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to raise it. I've added Sweetman as a source: he doesn't go into as much detail as that essay from the VVG gallery so I've kept that too, but he does mention "Gogh" in English is "Go" or "Goff" and that "Gog" is simply wrong. It should be that guttural ch sound found in so many Swiss words (or how I'd pronounce "Loch") - not sure I've placed the ref in the right place. I've checked other sources but not Naifeh & Smith yet; if they say more, I'll add. Victoria (tk) 19:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not finding anything else re the pronunciation. Still looking. Victoria (tk) 15:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a wee hack at this myself. I think it is ok now. --John (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Editør[edit]

  • The IPA transcription and audio don't match: the first includes "Willem", the second doesn't. The best solution would be to link a different audio file with a native speaker of Dutch pronouncing "Vincent Willem van Gogh". – Editør (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "Willem" to the audio. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great! – Editør (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Painting thumbs should be standard size or standard upright size. Modernist reverted my edits and stated "per MoS" in the edit summaries, but this is rather vague and unspecified. Paintings are not diagrams with vital details that would be invisible in standard size thumbs (MOS:IMGSIZE). Thumbs will always be a poor representation of a full size painting, and an image scaled with a 1.3 or 1.4 factor isn't changing that compared to a standard size thumb. So there are better arguments for conformity than personal preference. – Editør (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subsections of "Posthumous fame" are "Early popularity", ranging from the late 1880s to 1914, and "20th century", ranging from ca. 1914 to 1993. So not all of the 20th century is discussed in that latter, so I think a different title would be more appropriate. And didn't anything significant happen since 1993 including the sixteen years of the 21st century? – Editør (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section wasn't mean to be a year-by-year description of what happened when, but rather an explanation of how a painter who was almost unknown when he died in 1890 quickly gained in popularity. If we've failed to convey that, then I think the section should be deleted or rewritten. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the section "Early popularity" is discussing exhibitions during his life, which are obviously not posthumous. – Editør (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but again, this explains the rise of his popularity. Will work on it. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HappyWaldo[edit]

  • Some suggestions re lead: the opener reads that Van Gogh "was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter whose work had a far-reaching influence on 20th-century art." This is certainly true, but does anyone else think it's too limited a description? Van Gogh's influence extends into the 21st century, and I think there's consensus that he has a timeless quality that few others possess, regardless of evolving trends in the art world. I think his unique place in the full history of art should be emphasised, something like: "was a Dutch Post-Impressionist painter whose works are among the most famous and influential in the history of [Western] art". The next lines I think are problematic: "He was highly prolific and often completed more than one painting per day. In just over a decade he created approximately 2100 artworks, including around 860 oil paintings, most of them in the last two years of his life." Isn't this contradictory? He painted most works in his last two years, so it's not true that he "often" painted one per day. I don't think he was more prolific than other impressionists either. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at those specific complaints but we are hampered by what the sources tell us. We must follow the sources instead of picking what we choose from the sources. Victoria (tk) 22:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, no I don't think this is contradictory. People who suffer from illnesses are often unable to complete work. There were times he was quite prolific and times when not. Hence the "often". I think you're asking for a breakdown of when he painted prolifically and when not. Am I correct? Victoria (tk) 23:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the posthumous fame section: "In 1896, the Fauvist painter Henri Matisse, then an unknown art student, visited the artist John Peter Russell, on Belle Île off Brittany [246]Matisse had never previously seen Impressionist work, and was so shocked at the style that he left after ten days, saying, "I couldn't stand it any more."[246] He returned a year later as Russell's student, abandoned his earth-coloured palette for bright colours, later stating, "Russell was my teacher, and Russell explained colour theory to me."[246]" What's going on here? Three sentences in and no Van Gogh. Russell and Matisse's artistic relationship is rightly mentioned on their respective pages, but what is it doing here? Confusing way to go about explaining Van Gogh's influence on the Fauves. Should be removed. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why it belongs. It doesn't explain Van Gogh's influence, just that Matisse received one of his drawings from Russell. What did Matisse or the other Fauves have to say about Van Gogh? Include that instead. Van Gogh's impact on Expressionism also needs coverage. - HappyWaldo (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'd be happier with letting these sentences go. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly it seems fine to me - it clearly belongs - somewhat obvious - Matisse learns about Impressionism and Van Gogh initially from Russell and essentially invents Fauvism...Modernist (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose what I mean is that the point could be made more succulently. Will address M, but in a few hrs. I agree with you on substance. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a causal link between Matisse receiving the Van Gogh drawing from Russell and Matisse inventing Fauvism, then it could be summed up in one sentence. But I highly doubt this actually happened. When did Matisse come into contact with Van Gogh's brightly coloured paintings? How did this effect Matisse's art, if at all? This is far more relevant and should take the place of this Matisse/Russell diversion. Quickly scanning Google Books there are so many great sources that deal with Van Gogh's influence on Matisse and the Fauves, they clearly venerated him. In fact it seems that a meeting at a Van Gogh exhibition in 1901 basically kick-started the movement. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the source and looked extensively at how it is presented in this article, I think it is a fascinating story but I think on balance I agree that as it stands it does not belong in the article. It says more about Matisse (and should perhaps be in his article, if it is not) than it does about Van Gogh. My worry is, it looks like we are trying to imply that Russell gave Matisse a Van Gogh drawing, and this changed Matisse's art. But the source doesn't actually say this, so there is a bit of WP:SYNTH going on. If a good source can be found that actually makes the claim, we could use it, but not on this. --John (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given who Matisse is (one of the 2 most important artists of the 20th century); and that this episode took place when Matisse was in his late twenties and (like VvG) just beginning to become an artist - he was on a vacation from art school - and was unexpectedly introduced to Van Gogh's work is highly relevant...Modernist (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW according to the source - Whether or not Russell possessed any of van Gogh's paintings, he certainly talked about them to Matisse. At some point the Australian gave his young visitor one of his van Gogh drawings–something he had never done for anyone before, and would never do again, which suggests that he found in no one else the depth and strength of Matisse's response. Matisse by the spring of '98 began to grapple for the first time with van Gogh on canvas. Maybe I'll add that...Modernist (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Better summed up along these lines: "Henri Matisse learned of Van Gogh through John Peter Russell in 1896, and in 1901, along with Vlaminck etc, attended a Van Gogh exhibition which inspired a radical change in their art. Their paintings became more brightly coloured and abstract, and they became known as the Fauves". - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference that? That would be bogus - totally bogus...Modernist (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick. Here's a nice summary from Vincent Van Gogh: The Drawings: "Introduced to Van Gogh's work at close hand through the suite of drawings Russell owned and those Vollard had in stock, Matisse took in the great 1901 Van Gogh retrospective at Galerie Berheim-Jeune in the company of Andre Derain and Maurice Vlaminck; having absorbed its impact by the time of the memorial tribute held at the Independants in 1905, they emerged as the Dutch artist's heirs under the banner of "Fauves" (wild beasts)." By the way calling things "totally bogus", "obvious" isn't helpful. - HappyWaldo (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Matisse had already changed his paintings by 1901 and was already what could be called a Fauve or by the very least a Post-Impressionist he was by 1901 a mentor figure to Derain and Braque who were 10 years younger. Yes, the Van Gogh show of 1901 was enormously important and Vlaminck especially was influenced...Modernist (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. But lets leave it at that, maybe two sentences for Vincent's bio. I think if we underplay it like this, casually stated, this instance of his reach will have better impact. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's more concise and makes Van Gogh integral rather than tangential. This is a biography about Van Gogh after all. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Left the opening sentence, then Influenced by van Gogh, he abandoned his earth-coloured palette for bright colours, which is quite the statement. Ceoil (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone else concerned by the amount of images in the article body (107 by my count, surely some kind of arts biography record)? The galleries have bloated the article size and reduced the scroll bar to a slither. This is off-putting to readers. "I have to go through all this?!" If they want to look at more images from a particular series, they can go to the article on that series. That's why they're there, to avoid this kind of overload of text and imagery in the first place. - HappyWaldo (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We discussed this above. I slightly share your concern; I love these images and they are all individually important but I am a great believer in "less is more" and you may have a point that 97 paintings are too many for the article. Even a 10% reduction would aid navigation and improve the article, which is in every other respect ready for promotion, in my opinion. --John (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've begun by cutting eight. I agree with John, and this is a pity. I think that any further removls should be from series, or of images where other included paintings already convey the points made in the text. Ie NOT from development, early career, portraits or self portraits, as there are wide stylistic ranges there. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking this through further, imo the issues isntn the absolute number, but density in a few specific areas. Ceoil (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few days ago I tried this experiment in my sandbox. The galleries are downsized and the "perrow" parameter removed; on my screen it looks fine - in fact it looks quite nice. This was done after going to a computer store and looking at a lot of different devices, but the problem is that I can't seem to convince anyone, partially, I suspect because I don't know how it looks like on someone else's screen. Might look like crap. But, equally, as formatted now the galleries are not looking great on my screen (that's an understatement). I think the best thing to do is to take screen prints and send them out via email. We all want to get this right but the technology isn't helping. Victoria (tk) 15:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can try downsizing and removing the perrow...Modernist (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken screenshots. If you reply, I'll send them to you. Of course I can't guarantee that's what everyone else is seeing, but the Macbook's screen seems fairly good. I found that taking out the perrow allows different browsers to position the images along the entire width of the screen. It's not always perfect, but I don't think we'll get perfection. Victoria (tk) 15:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 160 a desktop/laptop will display 5 images across; depending on its size a tablet will display 5 across, or 4/1, or 3/2. Phones seems to display each image singly, centered. They look great but it's a lot of scrolling. At 160 we can have galleries of five and will only need to cut out a few. At least I think that might work. Victoria (tk) 16:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator request[edit]

A summary of progress, given that this has become [happily, given the resulting improvements] become so large. IMO: all non trivial points met. In the last 2 weeks there has been top to bottom c.e [John], the addition of a sect on why he is a house hold name,[ahem] context for the letters as the primary source [Modernist, Vic], an overhaul on the nr and placement of images, [Modernist] logical corrections,[Vic, Modernist, John] and tightening of matters of scope.[John] All this is difficult to see and navigate here, I ask that valued reviewers strike resolved issues, so that we can properly gauge. Thanks so far all. Ceoil (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- I think the nominators have done a wonderful job with this and it has certainly improved over time. I conducted some fixes myself, all of which were minor, and further improvements have been made since, by others. It is informative, nicely written, excellently researched and thoroughly engaging. I'd perhaps not add any more images as I think there are more than enough; in fact, I might say that it has one too many, but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Great work by all and a shining example of what can happen when everyone pulls together. CassiantoTalk 22:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cassianto, for reading and for the support. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes thanks Cassianto for both, and the talk page suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

I read the lead a few days ago and found some sentences to be too long, with too many concepts, sometimes unrelated. I've had a go at copy editing it to try and make it easier to read. I adjusted the positioning of some commas where these appeared to be slightly out of place.

At the end of the lead, it now says, "His reputation began to grow in the early 20th century as elements of his painting style came to be incorporated by the Fauves and German Expressionists." I couldn't see anything about the German Expressionists in the main body of the article, unless I've missed it. Should this be addressed?

The painting images make me feel like I'm in in art gallery, looking at his pictures and reading about him. Not many articles do that. Sandbh (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading and commenting. I have added a sentence to the body about German Expressionism, well spotted. --John (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandbh, I had added and then deleted from that section (see the deletion here) specifically about Die Brücke artists because the section was getting long, but I think I trimmed out too much. I'll put it back, but perhaps in a more succinct manner. That's a good catch, btw. Thanks for noting it. Very nice comment about the images. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seppi333[edit]

I figured I'd do an image/MOS review (criteria 2 & 3) due to the large number of images in this nomination.
Question to the nominators: has anyone gone through and verified that the images have appropriate copyright licenses yet?

  • Images: Given the fact that this article is about an artist, the number of images included seems reasonable to me; however, the layout needs a little bit of work since there's some text MOS:SANDWICHING on my laptop browser (chrome, wide screen display), but not on my mobile browser. The 2nd and 3rd images under Vincent van Gogh#Early years, the first 2 images under Vincent van Gogh#Etten, Drenthe and The Hague, the 2 images under Vincent van Gogh#Death (July 1890), and the first 2 images under Vincent van Gogh#Reputation are creating text sandwiches on my laptop browser. The most obvious fix would be to right-align both images, but I'll leave it up to the nominators as to how to address this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm striking this per the discussion below because I'm viewing this in a high resolution. I imagine most people aren't using my settings so I'm not going to require this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book citations: There doesn't seem to be any consistency in formatting ISBNs in the references. There's a mix of 10-digit and 13-digit ISBNs with inconsistent hyphenation (e.g., compare ISBN 0-8109-1632-0 to ISBN 0-679-43428-3 and ISBN 978-0-520-02515-8 to ISBN 978-1-58093-301-8). These should be consistently formatted. I'd suggest picking either the 10-digit or the 13-digit format (the 10-digit seems to be most prevalent in the article at the moment) to use for all book references and removing the hyphens from all ISBNs to keep them consistently formatted. Edit: I know that what I'm asking is a pain in the ass to do (I've routinely formatted ISBNs ever since Sasata asked this of me in my first FAC), so if you guys can let me know which ISBN format you want to use (10 or 13 digit), I'll help reformat at least half of the book citations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC); Updated 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied with the consistent use of 13 digit ISBNs, excluding the ones that have issues with converting the 10 digit to the 13 digit format. Removing the hyphens would be a plus, but I'm not going to require this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book publication dates: The vast majority of references in the article are book citations that list only the year of publication. A small handful include the month and only 1 lists the day. I'd suggest removing the month and day from the |date= parameter in all the {{cite book}} templates in the article to keep the date formatting consistent; alternatively, the month or day and month of publication could be added to all the book references, but that would be a lot more work. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that you guys standardized every date to the year format. While I only had the cite book templates in mind, I think the citation section looks a lot better now that all the citations use only the year in the publication date. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks Seppi333. I'm a little surprised that you're seeing text squash because we've spent a lot of time discussing this, working on the images, looking at them with different devices. Is your image size above the default 220px in your Wikipedia preferences, or are you boosting your text in your browser? Basically after hours working through to get it as good as can be but not perfect, we've decided we can't format for all browsers/devices, so we've been giving the mobile view a bit more preference. About the ISBNs - I can run them all through the tool to convert, but for some reason I'm sometimes hesitant to convert speciality foreign-language books that are sitting on my lap and only showing a 10 digit ISBN to 13. Anyway, I might be able to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure the main reason I'm seeing sandwiching on my browser is because my resolution is set to 1920x1080. My default thumbnail size is set to 300px. In any event, the easiest way to be absolutely certain that text sandwiching never occurs is to keep all images on 1 side of the article. I realize that some people don't like doing this though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    After logging out, I still see sandwiching between the four sets of images that I mentioned above so it doesn't seem to be arising from my non-default image settings. As for the foreign language textbook ISBNs: if for some reason there isn't a 13 digit version listed and the 13 digit format is used for consistency in the cite book templates, I'd consider the non-standard ISBN formatting in that particular reference to be a reasonable exception. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Seppi333, I didn't quite finish this morning before having to leave the computer for a while, but now I think I've got all of the ISBNs converted, with a single exception that the tool doesn't seem to be able to convert (the publication is a 1990 exhibition catalogue for the Centenary held at the Rijksmuseum, so I'm not surprised). Dates are fixed and various other fixes. Thanks for finding those. We're very close to having consensus on all the images and once that's achieved the alt text will go in (if it's not already been done as I'm writing). As far as the text squash - I'm still not seeing it and I'm working on a laptop. I've checked with various browsers, logged in & logged out, so my sense is that we're as close as we can get and this formatting won't be perfect on every device. Hope that works. Thanks, again. Victoria (tk) 19:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had been going through the images on commons and checking and updating the copyright licences until about two weeks ago, when all was ok, but a final audit might be in order. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just saw this re checking licenses. Yes, agree. Seppi333, I just looked at my monitor setting (1280 x 800), I guess that might explain the difference? Victoria (tk) 01:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. There appears to be a new set of sandwiching issues; some of the image pairs that I pointed out previously are no longer causing sandwiching though. I'll follow up later and point out the current problematic image pairs when I have more time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's only 2 minor sandwiches that I see while logged out at the moment. These are screenshots of the article w/ the sandwiched text marked - [32] [33] - both sandwiching image pairs are in the last section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Seppi, that's how they appear on my screen too. They're pretty minor cases compared to the others that were actioned though, I think we could allow a bit of leeway there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt is done...Modernist (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Seppi333 for the comments and for the support. Yes, we're still working on the formatting issues. Getting there. Your comments have been useful in that regard. Victoria (tk) 15:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

  • I'm seeing the same sandwiching in the same sections Seppi notes at the top of their comments above; my screen res is the standard 1366x768 for my laptop, and my WP image prefs are default. I would've thought the sandwiching could be minimised by pushing the last image in each section down a paragraph, which doesn't look like it would encroach on the following sections (except in the Death section, you may as well leave that as is). Let me know what you think anyway.
  • I'm also seeing several harv errors, per this script, which may mean broken links between citation and reference -- pls check.
  • Possibly more later as I walk through... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Iain, re sandwiching, I've at least sorted the examples highlighted by Seppi. There is one broken link per that script - frankly I don't understand cite templates so can't help. Lingzhi did all the heavy lifting in this respect; if he could do one last act of kindness. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ian, I don't have Ucucha's script installed but just went through and checked manually. I found a few mistakes (my mistakes, as it happens), and fixed them. If it's not too much trouble, can you run the script again and let us know if it's still showing errors. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks guys, I tweaked a couple of things after you did; the sandwiching seems less pronounced. I definitely saw half a dozen harv errors before but they're certainly gone now. Will aim to return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the tweaking. I don't see the sandwiching so it's all guesswork. Re the refs, yes, about a week ago I changed a lower case "v" to uppercase on a source used at least half and dozen times, and well ... Thanks for noticing and mentioning. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: I think this is ready, but I'm going to hold to see if you have any other remarks. I don't see the sandwiching but I'm at a stupidly large resolution. --Laser brain (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Andy, I think we can wrap this up -- since I only queried image placement as part of a pre-closure check, I think I can proceed with promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 15 September 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) 07:13, 15 September 2016 [34].

Komm, du süße Todesstunde, BWV 161[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unusual cantata among the many of Johann Sebastian Bach. We look at it because it was (most likely) performed 300 years ago, when Bach's productivity in Weimar dwindled. Later, when he composed cantatas again with enthusiasm in Leipzig, he wrote new ones instead of using this one again. The thought expressed in the title seems strange to our thinking: "Come, you sweet hour of death". Please read why scholars and performers love the work. - The GA review was performed by Ceoil, about a year ago, who also helped with the prose. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just the lede for now, due to limited time and spotty internet:

  • "Bach had taken up regular cantata composition two years before when he was promoted to concertmaster" two years before what?
should it say "before this piece was probably first performed"? - (Probable) date given the previous sentence. --GA
Something along those lines, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The date is now given, the details about the "probably" would be hard at that point. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shloss I would add a suitable translation (palace, most likely) in parentheses.
We have an article Schloss, linked for those who don't know. Weimar - unfortunately - is a complex thing, started as castle, palace added. --GA
  • Should Knoll be linked in the lede?
yes, done --GA
  • "appears already in the first movement" I'm not sure what is meant by "already"
The closing (or concluding) chorale is the last movement. It's an unusual feature of this cantata and a few others to introduce the melody already in the first movement. --GA
OK, but there's a prose issue. I would replace "already" with "unusually for Bach" or "unusually for a Bach chorale" or whatever it is unusual for, with commas before and after.
What do you think of improving the wording first in the body, then decide up to which detail it needs to be said in the lead? - Help to better English is always welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continuo" link?
In the lead and infobox (of these similar articles), we link the group Baroque instruments (... ensemble), later in Scoring the individual terms. --GA
  • "While the libretto was published in a collection in 1715, Bach possibly led the first performance only a year later on 27 September 1716, due to a period of public mourning." I'm having trouble grasping this. Was it usual for a longer period between publication and performance?
No, usually it was composed immediately. Written 1715 would normally have been composed 1715. But now, as there was mourning in 1715 - no cantata music - it was either composed in 1715 but performed in 1716, or composed and performed in 1716. --GA
Then you need to make that more clear because it's not clear what "due to ... mourning" relates to. W
Public mourning after the death of a young man from the duke's family, - seems a lot of detail for the lead, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the prose does not convey what you think it does. You need to rephrase it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added more detail in the body, and some of it in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bach revived the cantata in Leipzig, but not during his cantata cycles when he composed three new works for the 16th Sunday after Trinity." I'm not sure what is meant by "but not during his cantata cycles"
He composed three cycles of cantatas, one a week, in 1723 / 1724 / 1725. We have articles for the second and third so far, but not the first. Would a link to Bach cantata#Leipzig help? --GA
No, again it is prose. perhaps for the text I've quoted above, "but did not include it in his cantata cycles" or similar, and continuing "composing instead three new works ..."
But the new compositions were rather the expected thing, - unusual that he revived earlier works, for example never composed a new cantata for Easter Sunday in all three cycles. I hesitate, therefore, to say "did not include". Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also assigning it to the occasion of Purification," should be past tense, "assigned", though I'm not sure that is the proper term. "designated", maybe?
yes, better --GA
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, helpful already, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

I might begin with Bach’s year of birth, so the reader knows when his teen years were.
Will do. I will look in detail tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
done now ---GA
  • He was appointed concertmaster” I might say “he was promoted to concertmaster” to tie in with the headnote. I would begin the following sentence “In that position” to avoid the repeat of “concertmaster”
following sentence done, - I was criticized before for using exactly the same wording oin body and lead, - a fine difficult for me to judge ---GA
  • I would add a comma after “Specifically”.
done ---GA
  • "the regular chance to compose and perform a new work” possibly “the chance to regularly compose and perform a new work”
yes, better ---GA
  • ”program” consider “programme” since you are using day month year, this spelling is more common in the UK, which uses day month year.
I usually stick to British, but "programme" seems so needlessly long, and "bar" ambiguous, therefore I am not consistent for those two, using program and measure ;) - In this case, perhaps we can find a better word altogether. ---GA
  • ”Cantatas in 1716” I might say “of” rather than “in”.
taken ---GA
  • In the second sentence, I might add a “have” before “survived” and “contemporary” before “interest” (assuming I have grasped what is meant correctly)
"have" taken, don't understand the other ---GA
  • "Bach turned again to prolific writing “I might rephrase “From the start of the liturgical year on the first Sunday in Advent, Bach wrote prolifically”
taken ---GA
  • Why is the table of 1716 works necessary in this article?
It is not necessary, but similar to the list of the early cantatas in BWV 4 and the 1715 list in BWV 165, - for context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expressed in words of desire to die soon” possibly “expressed as a longing for death” or similar.
taken, but let's think about it, - how to include the "soon" ---GA
  • You link and introduce Franck twice in close succession.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got the new ones now. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The prescribed readings for that Sunday were from the Epistle to the Ephesians" If they remain so, would say "are" rather than "were"
Reading schedule probably changed, --GA
  • "was first performed on 6 October 1715" This is clearly the 16th Sunday after Trinity, from the other dates provided. I would identify it as such, and use less text to identify the other dates (for example the November date could be identified simply as "the 21st Sunday"
not sure I understand what you mean, - the first line of the lead established the 16th Sunday after Trinity, and the readings, - it would not have been performed any other occasion than a 16th Sunday after Trinity, - until much later when he also took it for Purification (February) --GA
  • I would find a way to combine the first two paragraphs of "Performances". I think that argument can be consolidated into one paragraph, and I think the paragraph break weakens the structure.
tried --GA
Sorry, am traveling and doing bits and pieces. Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no problem, thank for your feedback --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he feast of the Purification of Mary on 2 February" year?
every year --GA
  • The German text beginning "Auf den ..." should likely be italicized.
In musical articles, we most often don't italicize quotes, - compare the incipits of the movements --GA
  • Why are the names of the movements italicized in the table but not in the following text?
because they are names of movements in the table, but just quoted text in the following text, - sometimes longer text than the movement name (= first line), to make more sense --GA
  • "In a later performance in Leipzig, a soprano sang the stanza with the organ" What year? If Bach supervised the performance it is important, but if he didn't, it may not be.
Unfortunately we don't know, see higher up: "some time between 1737 and 1746". --GA
  • In Movement 2, I would give the reader the English after each quote in German.
The first is a quote from the bible, you get the translation clicking on "Phillians ...). Do you think it should be repeated? --GA
  • " (My longing is, to embrace my Savior),[1] is the first movement with the strings, expressing a deep sense of longing" Yes, likely so, but the repetition does not give the reader more information than he already has (and "longing" awaits him twice more before he exits this short paragraph). Suggest a synonym here.
This was done by a helper, did you notice?
  • It might be helpful to add the date of the 16th Sunday after Trinity in 2000 in Later Performances where it is mentioned (in parentheses).
done --GA
That's it. I'll make a second run through once this is done but I expect to support. I've made some edits, feel free to revert any not liked.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thorough reading, it's already improved! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. I've made some final tweaks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Oppose pending a usable Recordings section. Meaning should not be conveyed solely by colour per accessibility requirements (someone who can't see the red would be very lost, and even someone who can would not easily understand the explanation). Sortable fields should not contain multiple values since only one can be used to sort. Happy to strike oppose and provide more comments once this is fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After midnight where I live, so only briefly: the section looks like that of other featured articles on the subject, - what is different here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not having tracked down which articles you refer to, I would say if they really are the same, those others should be altered also. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I altered this one, - no more red. Will look at a different header line tomorrow. Compare BWV 4, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one needs editing also. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again, at both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colour now fine, just the sorting issue left to address. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made column "soloists" not sortable. I think people might want to sort by conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could then make conductor its own column. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but some have long names. With typically four soloists, it's much better for the layout to combine the conductor with the groups of singers and instrumentalists, also they form a kind of unity. We could make a footnote saying that it's sortable by conductor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If width is the concern, perhaps combine the choir and orchestra descriptions, or even put them under title? I'm not sure I agree that people would like to sort by conductor but not by ensemble. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they wouldn't want to sort by ensemble, but for width reasons, I don't want a column for each, it would mean one for chorus and one for orchestra, no? With the added difficulty that some have both in one. - Actually I'd think to have the conductors in a separate column would give them a prominence I would not like to grant them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so if conductors shouldn't be prominent and shouldn't be split, don't make that column sortable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Short and sweet article. Just a few comments.

  • "Herzlich tut mich verlangen" --> is this right with quotation marks, or should it be, like the names of cantates, in italics? Same question for choral tune "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden"
songs (including hymns) and poems in quotation marks --GA
  • "For details on Bach's promotion, see Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 § Background." --> Would it not be better to include the relevant info here, in a footnote?
I feel that the relevant info is here: that from then on he had the right to compose and perform a cantata per month. It's just a (rather long) paragraph for those who want to know more. --GA
  • "a complete annual cycle" --> might benefit from a little explanation
Would another link to Church cantata (Bach) help? (in the lead and in the infobox) --GA
Yes --E
done, and liturgical year added, with another link ---GA
  • "on Wolff and the Bach scholar Alfred Dürr" --> makes Wolff look like he is not a Bach scholar
You are right. Wolff was introduced before, Dürr not. I tried to drop the Bach scholar there. --GA
  • In the Readings and Text section, I find this repetitive: "The text for this cantata, as for many others of Bach's Weimar period, was written by the court poet Salomon Franck, and published in his collection Evangelisches Andachts-Opffer in 1715", repeating what was said in the earlier section.
Good catch, that happens when paragraphs are added at the beginning ;) --GA
  • "one of the most richly inspired of all Bach's Weimar cantatas" --> any indication how many all is would be helpful
by math it would be 4 times 12 (1 a month), however - as we know from above - there was mourning, and Bach stopped altogether the last year, so only 15 in 1714+15, and 6 in 1716, - I could write 21, or "around 20" but wouldn't that be original research? --GA
I assume there is a list somewhere with Weimar cantates. --E
If it was I'd link ;) - all we have so far is this on Bach cantata, ---GA
It will be a tricky question to answer, the number performed in Weimar may be different from that certainly composed there, and for some cantatas we just don't know, including the two which may have been composed earlier elsewhere. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to a recent study" --> would be helpful to know the reason why. And ideally the reference is the primary source
The reason are stylistic considerations in that "recent study" by Rampe and Sackmann, which are summarized by Jones as "technical novelties". --GA
  • "In his first year as Thomaskantor" --> a bit more clarity would be good: which year?
ok, I keep forgetting that :) --GA
  • "also composed at Weimar" --> that is 2 times also in short succession
tried a change --GA
  • "He later used the juxtaposition of a chorale cantus firmus against vocal music later " --> repetition of later
yes --GA
  • " the version performed in Weimar in 1714" --> I think 1716
You are so right. (At least this time I didn't write 2014.) --GA
  • The movements table: a legend is more helpful, explaining A, Fl etc. I know it's in the text but readers should not have to hunt down the text. Table should work standalone. Therefore I think the continuo should be added.
will think about it (but we have a few FAs on Bach cantatas already, BWV 4, BWV 165 ...) --GA
  • "and the cantata Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis, BWV 21, among others" --> perhaps that "among others" is not needed, since we already have "one of several"
yes --GA
  • "the Monteverdi Choir" --> the Monteverdi Chor perhaps? And wikilink?
Monteverdi-Chor is not Monteverdi Choir, Bach Cantata Pilgrimage is a redirect to the latter --GA
  • "The table entries are excerpted from the selection on the Bach-Cantatas website" --> I don't think the source is that important. Better to introduce what the table is about.
other reviewers (in earlier FAC) asked for it --GA
  • The BWV note needs a source. Schneider?
It's in 100 articles, but nobody asked for a source. It's there to explain the abbreviation, - and the short explanation helps people perhaps not to have to click (to an immensely long article) --GA
I've added a source. I think everything should have a source. --E
  • I haven't been able to deduce the rationale for the grouping of the sources. Some general ones seem online.
Would you know a better word for general, to summarize basics such as score and collections of sources? --GA
I see. Difficult. Let me think about it. --E
  • The (in German) doesn't seem right for the Breitkopf and Carus online sources
good catch again --GA
  • the isbn numbers are a mix of 10 and 13
I fixed one, but where would I find a 13 number for the 1971 printed book? --GA
I have done it using an isbn converter. --E
For future reference, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second OUP is linked. Not sure if only the first should be, or all, but second doesn't look right
swapped --GA
  • Reading through the sources to see if anything else might be included, I came across this about movement 4, for your consideration: "the onomatopoeic effect of the striking of the hour", on bach-cantates.com
will look --GA
  • I noticed how FA Tosca has audio excerpts. I do believe that if any audio is available it should be included.
will check --GA

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking closely and asking good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing to think about: I like the infobox image. Is there anything to add about the manuscript and Bach's annotations? Edwininlondon (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asking Mathsci who made it available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, two more answered above, ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Montanabw[edit]

Overall a nicely written and understandable, well-researched article. A few minor nitpicks:

  • I'd like to see a few more terms wikilinked for the benefit of the non-aficionado: concertmaster, duchy of Weimar ( I think Saxe-Weimar?), Schlosskirche or palace church (looks like Castle chapel is the closest for a piped link), aria, recitative, recorders (Recorder (musical instrument) for sure, as the non-musician may not have endured their use in elementary music class...), secco (glossary link exists: secco), Tadashi Isoyama.
We need to split it:
  • concertmaster - no because that is a different fundtion today
  • duchy of Weimar Saxe-Weimar - done
  • Schlosskirche or palace church (looks like Castle chapel is the closest for a piped link) - well I don't believe we need to send people away for that article
  • aria - done
  • recitative - done
  • recorders (Recorder (musical instrument) - yes already, but not in the lead, where no instrument is linked but Baroque instruments
  • secco (glossary link exists: secco) - no good link, the secco section in recitative is better
  • Tadashi Isoyama - no, will stay red link. --GA
  • Might want to rephrase "period of public mourning of six months in the duchy of Weimar from August 1715." in the lead, perhaps something like "period of public mourning for the Duke's brother that fell during Trinity..." or something like that, still short, but giving context...
The sad story has not really to do with the music, - I thought too much for the lead --GA
  • Overall, I think a copyedit for phrasing and smoothing out would be helpful, nothing really jumps out, just overall some spots where a "the" or another word or two would improve the flow.
will ask Corinne --GA

Montanabw(talk) 07:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My concerns have been addressed or answered appropriately. Glad to support. Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:BWV161-P124-staatsbibliothek-berlin.jpeg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriate parameters have been added to the existing PD-Art template, based on the 1887 publication date given in the article.—Odysseus1479 08:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

  • "the 16th Sunday after Trinity": Very few Main Page readers will know when Trinity is. Perhaps "24th Sunday after Easter", instead of or in addition to Trinity.
No, sorry, it's a fixed term, those who don't know can click on the link. We can't explain in 60 or so cantatas the fifty days from Easter to Pentecost. --GA
  • "In Bach's time the story pointed at the resurrection of the dead, expressed in words of desire to die soon.": I'm not sure what that means.
I am afraid we all don't. It was a very Baroque approach. (Baroque#Etymology originally means something strange and crooked.) --GA
Thank you very much, for diligent reading and especially for the prose help! - with a ping to Montanabw ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Gerda, any time. Btw, I agree with all of Montana's points, and I fixed some of those as I went, such as adding a link for secco. - Dank (push to talk) 11:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Has this had a source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited except as follows:

  • Dürr 1971: "(4 ed.)" Is 4th ed. meant?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 14 September 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) 02:35, 15 September 2016 [35].

William Borah[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... William Borah, a senator whose tenure might be dismissed as more eccentric than effective, were it not for the gripping hand he had on U.S. foreign policy for most of the crucial interwar period. He may still have influence today, a commenter on a comments page elsewhere mentioned his foreign policy as what he would like to see. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Browsing new nomination statements as I do, and never having heard of Borah, I was intrigued by the bit about foreign policy someone would like to see. Spotting a couple of things in the lead I wanted to change, I decided to recuse from coord duties and copyedit/review, at least in part. For now I've just gone through the beginning and end, and obviously won't declare a position until/unless I get through the rest. In the meantime:

  • In the lead, I altered "one of the greats" as it seems a bit strong for WP but there may be a better way still of getting his importance across while keeping the language neutral.
  • Moving forward to the Assessment/Legacy section, these can be quite a challenge to get right but it seemed balanced and thoughtfully organised to me. One thing though: "cited as evidence of naiveté in those who believe in the power of pure diplomacy" -- can I confirm we mean the naiveté "of" those, implying that Borah is of that mindset? If so I think the word change might make it clearer.
I've found that a difficult passage. The implication is that Borah, in seeking to talk with Hitler, was of that mindset, but I'm reluctant to imply that Borah really felt that way. We have this comment, second-hand, contained in what is a laudatory tribute to Borah. That doesn't mean he actually felt the way Rumsfeld portrays him as feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it first up, I look forward to others' comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, I doubt that I'll have the time to complete a full review but I'm satisfied with the responses to my initial comments and wouldn't wish closure of the nom to be held up on my account if consensus is achieved among the other reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "final years" section raised some questions for me. I guess there is a sense that it has been blown out of proposrtion in certain quarters, so maybe, understandably, you did not want to dwell on it too much.

  • "Borah was unwilling to back large-scale immigration by Jews from Germany, feeling that was impractical with millions of Americans unemployed." "unwilling to back" - Could you not just say that he "opposed" Jewish immigration, or is it more nuanced than that? How much significance did his opposition have (I think this is important, for example in relation to the spectacular failure of the Evian Conference, with its resulting boost to Nazi propaganda)?
None at Evian, Borah never went to Europe. As the Republicans were a minority in the Senate, his formal influence was not high. He reflected a feeling in the country that Roosevelt had to reckon with. He opposed large scale immigration at a time of unemployment. That it was Jewish immigration was incidental. I'll make that change.
  • "By 1938, Borah was speaking out against Hitler's failure to end persecutions." (same paragraph). "failure to end" - This could be taken to imply that he had expected Hitler to strive to end persecutions(?!) (If so, this seems bizarre enough that it should be spelled out.) However... could you just say "continuing persecutions" (or something stronger than that) instead?
That change as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McKenna noted, "It was fortuitous that the march of events prevented Borah from joining those pacifists and liberals ... who trudged up the hill to Berchtesgaden to lay before the Fuehrer their plans for world peace"." (end of same paragraph). Revealing the depths of my ignorance, I am surprised to discover that "pacifists and liberals" went to meet with Hitler. Could you provide an article link, or a footnote perhaps, to elaborate on that? [Adding... immediately after posting this, I just realised, he probably is just referring to Chamberlain.]

I haven't finished it yet, but I think this is one of the best articles I've read so, cheers! zzz (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cut out the actual names to focus on Borah. One was George Lansbury. Chamberlain never went to Berchtesgaden. Thank you for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed trying to put the whole German thing in context. Remember that Borah died in 1940, and for him the name "Hitler" conveyed something rather different than it does to us. If someone said today, if only Borah could have talked to Hitler, the whole war could have been avoided, we'd think he was mad. And that is the light in which Borah's comment is being presented. So I'm trying to be careful.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and a few more minor/trivial points:

  • Haywood trial: "The first was a trial for conspiracy in the murder of ex-governor Steunenberg" - perhaps call it a joint trial; if it was not, is it singular?
  • "Borah urged the jury to convict" - unnecessary, since we know he worked for the prosecution
  • Progressive insurgent: "Borah stated that their alleged actions compared to the murder of Steunenberg" - perhaps specify the purported similarity and/or how the comparison was taken.
  • "Republican leaders had heard that Borah was an attorney for corporations, who had prosecuted labor leaders; ... In fact, Borah supported unions" - possibly this is a bit vaguely worded. zzz (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got all these. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I was really happy to see this article on the FAC list. Borah's a fascinating figure and I've enjoyed reading your article about him. I have only a few nitpicks:
  • "...he studied alongside students who would become prominent, like William Allen White and Fred Funston." I think "like" here has too many possible meanings. "including" might be better.
  • Link tuberculosis?
  • "blew up with dynamite" could maybe just be "dynamited"?
  • Maybe link United States presidential election, 1916?
  • "...an invalid Wilson refused any compromise." "Invalid" here, although I know what you mean, is confusing (could be read as "very ill" or "not valid".) Maybe "ailing" or "bedridden" (if the latter is accurate).
  • "Borah did agree with Hoover on one issue..." This sentence is confusing, I'm not sure what you're saying here.
  • That's all. Great article, good luck with the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Coemgenus, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was wandering the stacks of GMU's library, and wondered why there were so many books on Borah. I've made those changes, sometimes using my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That all looks great, Wehwalt, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Borah.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and the source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped that for another image and cleaned up the form on that one. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I confess I'd not heard of Borah. I missed the peer review, so my comments are a bit more detailed than I normally provide at FAC, but they are for the most part fairly trivial:

Lead
  • It seems almost too rivial to mention, but he was 71, not 70, in 1936
Childhood and early career
  • "not a good student" and "eager learner" in consecutive lines is a trifle puzzling.
  • Add "to train for the ministry" after: "... academy at Enfield"?
  • Date (year) of expulsion/running away?
  • "In his teenage years, he became interested in the law..." – I'd say "In his later teens..." He was 16 when he went to the academy, and presumably older when he ran away.
  • "finally accepting his son's ambition" suggests a degree of reluctance that you haven't previously indicated
  • "The bar examination was rudimentary and Borah passed it in September 1887, going into partnership with his brother-in-law." Two distinct events, therefore needing something between "1887" and "going", e.g. "before".
  • You might mention somewhere that Lyons was a pretty small place. References to "the mayor" and "city attorney" give the impression of a metropolis, but I see from our article that its population in 1880 was around 500. Little wonder Borah wanted to get away.
Idaho lawyer
  • I'm not sure that, in the circumstances you describe, Borah can be said to have "gained" the dismissal of the case agaist his client. Rather, he benefitted from a quirky judge.
Senate contender
  • "Borah also involved himself in politics". In the previous section you said that he "prospered in law and politics", so you don't need this here.
  • "an unapologetic return to the Republican Party" – did being a "silver Republican" mean he had been outside the party?
Yes, I think so. They walked out of the 1896 convention, ran candidates against the Republican one, and did not heed the party platform. I'm closely paraphrasing the source at this point in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1902, Idaho Republicans elected a governor, the state's only House member, and a large majority in the legislature." Can you explain what this means? Does it mean that Republican candidates were elected to the state's governership, to the state's House seat, and formed a large majorityu in the state legislature? If so, this needs clearer wording.
  • but then the other candidates backed Heyburn" → "but the other two candidates withdrew and backed Heyburn"
  • "acclimation" → "acclamation" (unless it's some peculiar mid-west method of signifying approval)
Haywood trial, lumber accusations
  • "Until 1933, Congress's regular session began in December, allowing Borah time to participate in two major trials, one of which boosted him to national prominence for his role in the prosecution, and the other, with Borah as the defendant, placed him at risk of going to prison." Too much info for one sentence, and some awkwardness in the phrasing. Suggested split: "Until 1933, Congress's regular session began in December, allowing Borah time before taking his seat to participate in two major trials. One of these boosted him to national prominence for his role in the prosecution; the other, in which he was the defendant, placed him at risk of going to prison."
  • I'm slightly concerned about a 200-word verbatim extract from the trial transcript, which seems unnecessarily long. Suggest paraphrasing the mushy stuff at the beginning into a few words and beginning thje quote at: "I saw murder...".

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've dealt with the above, I believe.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise for the delay in competing this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll resume today and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and here's the rest:

Progressive insurgent
  • "the fiery Ohio senator..." possibly POV/non-neutral?
No, Roosevelt was after someone who could outflame Foraker.
  • "in 1972, after the death of Roosevelt, Borah, and most of the soldiers..." That should be "deaths", and given the intervals (53 years for Teddy, 32 for Borah, perhaps make it "long after"
  • "progressive": in view of the different understandings of this word when used in its political sense, a pipe-link here would be helpful. In the lead, too.
  • pipelink "primary" → Primary election, and perhaps "convention" to Political convention
  • "sent 80 Republican legislators out of 86 to Boise" – not entirely clear to less-aware readers, so perhaps: "sent 80 Republicans to the state legislature out of 86..."
Wilson years
  • First sentence: the "both" is awkwardly placed. As this is a new section you might begin: "After the 1913 elections, the Republicans lost the presidency with Wilson's inauguration, and went into the minority in the Senate".
  • Link Panama Canal, and maybe say "completion" rather than construction, as this had been going on for decades
I've adjusted the text to make things clearer.
  • "completely out of it" – "completely" is unnecessary
I think it emphasizes the strength of Borah's feeling.
  • "infringements against Americans by British forces." "Infringements", eh? What did our boys get up to?
I thought you would raise that. Regrettably the source does not say.
  • "Reunion was not achieved": My understanding is that the 1916 Progressive convention nominated Roosevelt again, but he declined to run and pledged support to Hughes. if that is so, then reunion was largely achieved.
Yes, but in between those broad facts is much. See 1916 Progressive National Convention.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the text to explain more.
World War and Versailles treaty
  • "Gooding narrowly won Brady's seat, with Idaho's two senators giving the Republicans a 49–47 majority". Not really: any two Republicans could claim the same, and the Idaho seats were defended rather than won, so I would severely prune this sentence.
  • "the principle of a league": You've not mentioned the League of Nations previously, only an allusion to "a postwar organization to assure peace" so I think you neeed to expand a bit here.
Harding and Coolidge years
  • "eventually strongly" – adjacent adverbs always a problem
  • Perhaps a line to explain B's objection to Taft as chief justice?
  • "remained" → "were still in office", otherwise the sentence is unclear
  • (Sidebar: I'll add that Coolidge comment to my slim collection of Mr Taciturn's witticisms)
  • "Salmon Levinson, who had formulated the plan..." – what plan?
Hoover and FDR
  • Pipe-link "lame duck" → Lame-duck session
  • I think I'd omit "looms" from the caption
1936 presidential campaign and final years
  • "utterly disgusted" – just "disgusted" will do (the neutral voice)
I think it helps with the near occasion of Hitler later in the section, to balance that.
  • "Borah issued a statement far more critical of Britain and France than of Germany." Briefly, on what grounds?
Death
  • The first sentence seems a mite unpunctuated
  • Was the Idaho ceremony truly a "state" funeral? I thought that "state" in that expression meant the whole nation, the United States
  • Will all readers know that T.R. means Roosevelt?
Marriage and family
  • "According to one family friend, "everybody called her 'Aurora Borah Alice.' " Clarify that "her" refers to Longworth, and also mention that she was TR's daughter.
  • I suggest you remove the "clear" template, which creates a large white space much more distracting than allowing the image to leak into the next section.
Sites and memorials
  • "At the University of Idaho in Moscow..." That, without explanation, will raise many eyebrows. (Not that Moscow, surely?)
Appraisal and legacy
  • V. minor quibble: the first three paragraphs all begin "Borah's..."
  • "Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer has referred to the quote in at least three of his columns..." Can you specify which "quote"? Does this refer to Borah's "comment", which is not presented as a quote?

Superb job, needs a little final attention and I look forward to supporting. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per comments/responses above. Fascinating career, but I doubt I'd have voted for him. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. He was certainly a unique character.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Another quality article, on a personality I never heard of, riding the top of a train, and jumping from it to the platform, - thank you. Minor points only:

Infobox: do we have to mention "Bill" as a nickname for any William?

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headers and structure:

  • Can we (less American) have FDR spelt out?
It is only in the heading, where I sought brevity.
Brevity is fine, but what if a reader not familiar with US abbreviations gets no idea what the section is about? I'd prefer "Roosevelt".
  • Any way to have marriage before death?
It is mentioned in the text, I think that is the best I can do. I don't like jumping around in time.
  • How about legacy first, then sites and memorials?
I think the legacy has to end it because of the blockquote.

Idaho lawyer

  • "a union that produced no children" is probably fine, but makes a child just a product, no?
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much for now, will return later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Later is now: All fine, lovely reading. Please give an alt to all images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not a FA requirement and I do not feel I do those well, so I leave the matter alone. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with thanks for the changes and explanations. For the alts for images, I try to win RexxS ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The link in fn 2 is dead.
  • You're not consistent with "pp.204–15" v. "pp.204–215". I think either is OK, as long as they all match.
  • Everything else checks out. Quality sources, sufficiently cited, well-formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the source review, I've fixed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • @Wehwalt: Is it possible to replace the dead link in ref #90 as well? (I searched, but couldn't find a replacement) Or just remove the link, if the ressource is unlikely to be restored - a credible offline source is perfectly fine. Aside from that minor oversight, (fixed) I completely agree with the source review. GermanJoe (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems adequately sourced to the first article, so I've removed the deadlink and the third one as well. I dislike cite strings, but sometimes they happen. Doesn't seem necessary here. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 10 September 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) 01:15, 15 September 2016 [36].

Lazarus Aaronson[edit]

Nominator(s): P. S. Burton (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the English poet Lazarus Aaronson. Along with Isaac Rosenberg he was one of the Whitechapel Boys, and although he never received the same widespread recognition as his friend, he gained a cult following of dedicated readers. I created the article in early 2015 and have been working on it since then. In March this year it became a Good Article. It is rather short, but I truly believe that I have now have exhausted all available sources and that the article is ready for nomination. I am looking forward to your feedback. It would be nice to see the article on the frontage on 9 December this year, the fifty year anniversary of Aaronson's death. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - any chance of an illustration of the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only picture I have found is this one, unfortunately it is quite weirdly cropped. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer sure that the picture depicts Aaronson. It looks a awful lot like Alfred Wolmark. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport Reading through. Its short, but I appreciate the difficulty in piecing together articles like this. Have reorganised the lead a bit, from four to two paras. I don't see an image as a possibility, giving that cropping. I would decorate more though, maybe another poem extract in the final "poems" section. The Radio Times page seems to have a wiki function, undermining it, so another source, even a fixed page from the same site, would be preferable. The writing and (otherwise) sourcing are very good - leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting, on prose, sourcing, formatting, and happily, image. 11:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing and copy editing. I agree that some more decoration would be nice, but I am worried that adding one more poem might be too much fair use for one article. The Radio Times archive page does have a wiki function, but the information is sourced to the original Radio Times, and the page is maintained by the BBC, with additional entries to the page needing approval from BBC staff. P. S. Burton (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I think the article is short but comprehensive. I am happy with the prose, and while not familiar with the literature, the spuources seem to be of a high quality, and are consistent, though I dont like ----- for rerpeated authors, just list again. Comment: I was intrigued by his image being described as weirdly cropped, so I had a look. For a poet, it looks fine to me for inclusion in the article. Sandbh (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

third para in Life section needs inline references.
This has now been fixed. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
since Aaronson's poetry does not display formal innovation - I am not sure what this sentence means.
I am not entirely sure. This is the explanation given by Baker.
I don't get a sense of why he converted to christianity -is there any source material discussing this that could be used in the article?
I have not found any discussion of this in the sources. They do not make clear why he converted, only that he struggled with his religious identity. I have found one further source that might discuss this. If it does I will add information once I tracked it down.

Otherwise reads nicely. Can't really comment on comprehensiveness but not glaring gaps apparent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber. Thank you for reviewing. I have tried to answer your questions above. P. S. Burton (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok points taken. I think it is comprehensive enough for a support from me and anything else is icing on the cake. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 28 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) 22:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- have we had a source review for formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, will take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs formatted consistently.
  • Using this version for ref numbering,
  • Glasgow Herald ref material consistent with source.
  • FN 11, 12 and 13 pass muster (i.e. material consistent with source)

Ok @Ian Rose: I am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 14 September 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) 01:16, 15 September 2016 [37].

Ride the Lightning[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Metallica's sophomore studio album. I think it satisfies the FA criteria and I hope to get it promoted.--Retrohead (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maunus[edit]

Thanks for bringing this article to review. I have read through it and I think the article is quite good, well cited and fairly comprehensive.

I think the language is at times a little terse and condensed - and that sometimes more elaboration and description could be added. For example the way that Fade to Black made several fans react negatively to the record and accuse them of having sold out could be elaborated, also the event where Hetfield felt uncomfortable singing seems to need some explanation (why would he be uncomfortable singing? and what happened when John Bush declined? Maybe Eglinton's biography of Hetfield has information on this?), also where they declined the offer from Bronze records (apparently Gerry Bron hated Rasmussens work and wanted the entire record to be rerecorded and mixed in the states! [described at some length in "Metallica: The Music and the Mayhem" by Dome and Wall (2011)]). Also there is some jargon (A&R people).

Thanks for the notes and your time reading the article. I've made corrections on the Hetfiled/Bush issue. Apparently Hetfield was not confident with performing double duty on vocals and guitar, but eventually gained confidence and the band moved on. If it reads unclear with the recent changes in the prose, let me know what to correct. Also thanks for expanding on the label issue in the same section. Made some c/e to be consistent with referring the band in singular.

I also think that the music and lyrics section could be elaborated with attention to each song, and perhaps with dedicated summary style subsections for those tracks that have their own articles (Fade to Black, Creeping Death and For Whom the Bell Tolls). Dome and Wall appears to have detailed descriptions of all of the songs - describing for example Mustaine's influence and Hetfield's vocals on the title track (enough, I think, to write an article specifically about this track). Certainly there is more to write about the music and lyrics of this groundbreaking album.

Each song has musical/lyrical analysis. I have a slight reservation about using lines from the book you cited such as "Mustaine has a real feel for melody" or "the music never goes far over the top" because the authors are mixing facts with opinions. I've used only facts in this section, such as tempos, lyrical meaning, etc.
I dont think you should use lines from the authors, but paraphrase them in a more encyclopedic style. And the authors of sources are allowed to state their opinions, and we can represent their opinions, as long as we attribute them as such. I think that at least a full paragraph about each song is necessary to make the section completely comprehensive.
Fair enough, I've used segments for "Escape", which had the smallest description, and I'll see what else can be incorporated.

At the same time, I think that some of the evaluations of the record should be more directly attributed - for example I am a little iffy at mentioning twice in Wikipedias voice that the record exhibited "greater musical maturity". I think this is a subjective evaluation and should be attributed either as a a general "critics have described" (if that is supported by the source) or by naming the specific critic(s) (McIver?) who have made this evaluation.

Replaced maturity with growth. About addressing the author, virtually all critics agree that Ride the Lightning is a more mature effort than Metallica's debut, which makes that claim a fact. Adding "critics think that" to "Ride the Lightning exhibited greater musical maturity, with sonically broader songs" is not that necessary for me.
I disagree about that. That several critics share an opinion does not make the opinion fact. Some kinds of evaluations will always be opinions and never facts - for example which album is better or "more mature" whatever that means - these are inherently subjective evaluations.
Alright, presented it as journalists' opinion.

Not being familiar with literature on Heavy Metal music I looked through google scholar and turned up only a couple of sources that could be used but are not. Glenn Pillsbury's 2013 "Damage Incorporated: Metallica and the Production of Musical Identity" has an entire chapter on Fade to Black and the way that it challenged Thrash fan identity by incorporating elements from other genres. An MA thesis by Aglulub analyzes the development of Metallica's riffs and has an analysis of the riff in Creeping death - even though it is not technically published i think it might be suitable as a source.

I've read Pillsbury's analysis on "Fade to Black" and wrote why the song disappointed some fans at the time. The chapter is really detailed and it would certainly serve the song's article well. I'm just not sure where you draw the line what falls under the album's topic. If you have something specific apart from revolutionizing thrash metal, I'll gladly add.
I think that the songs of an album that has songs that are sufficiently notable to have standalone articles I think those songs need to have subsections summariing those articles. I also think each song on an album is inherently relevant to a description of the album.
Scattering each song description into its own paragraph and naming sub-sections on three songs is more of an aesthetical preference than a prose issue. My point was whether you think the current description of "Fade to Black" is good enough or do I need to further expand it with guitar tabs or chord progressions as written in the Pillsbury book.
I think it is a MOS issue actually, which requires us to summarize spin-out articles in the main article in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. And my basic point here is that I think the section on music and lyrics needs expansion with more coverage of each song, since those songs are clearly notable enough to have a more detailed description. It is off course a question of editorial judgment which details should go in the specific article on Fade to Black and which should be included in the summary of the song in the article on Ride the Lightning.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've included Dome and Wall's opinion on "Escape" as well as some anecdotes from a Metal Hammer interview I found regarding "Creeping Death" and "Fight Fire".

Reading the previous review I can see that some of these same specific concerns were brought up in the first review round as well - I think the fact that I noted them independently suggests you really need to fix them - maybe you should go back to the first review and make sure that all the comments you received there are addressed. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were mentioned here. There's the tour naming issue, which I believe other editors will comment on. Also there were suggestions to drop the Grammy award for "The Call of Ktulu" which I believe is not off-topic and not that necessary.
  • Having looked at the Wiederhorn source, I think there is more information that could be included. For example which tracks were written before the studio and which were written in the studio. Also the fact that during the tour immediately prior to going to Denmark their gear was stolen, meaning they had to arranged for gear for some of those concerts and that Rasmussen had to borrow amplifiers for them for the recordings. This aspect of their gigs prior to recording seems more relevant than the fact that they had to sleep in fans' homes. Also apparently Hetfield used the desperation at loosing his amplifier as inspiration for fade to black - which is again relevant.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The accident with the stolen equipment is partly explained in the third paragraph of "Music and lyrics" (the inspiration for "Fade to Black"). The bit with Anthrax lending instruments was added. Also wrote about the tracks written in the studio.
Maunus, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are some things I would do differentlyin terms of writing, but I think it is a fine and comprehensive article at this point.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar[edit]

Support I've read through the article and am happy that this meets the FA criteria. One thing though, wouldn't it be best if the quote box in the Music and lyrics section be moved to the bottom? I think having the beginning of the section squashed to the left interferes with presentation, when it can be moved to the bottom left. Anyway, other than that, this article is in great shape! JAGUAR  10:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the boxed quote and added it to the prose in the first paragraph of the section. I could've put it at the end of the section as you suggested, but Irwin's analysis better fits the first paragraph because he discusses the overall lyrical content, not a particular song. I think it's less jarring this way. Thanks for the support and for reviewing the GA nomination as well.

Image check - all OK

  • Since the last FAC's image check (see archive1 on top) only 1 image has been added: File:Roseland-front.jpg with Creative Commons license, sufficient source and author info. All OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

Thanks, much appreciated.
  • Metallica and heavy metal (and anything else not linked) should probably be linked at first occurrence outside the lead.
Linked.
  • I'm thinking the image of a building in the background section would look better if right aligned; the building faces the left, and the adjacent text would be less disrupted.
Moved to right.
  • "The song discourages the "eye for an eye" approach, and its lyrical themes focused on nuclear warfare and Armageddon" Why the change in tense?
Applied past to the first.
  • "Michael Kamen" Introduce him?
Described him as conductor.
  • Shouldn't the section "Background and recording" include "release" in the title?
There's a sentence about the release in the second paragraph of "Reception", so it's not the only section that exclusively talks about the release.
  • "first cover story for British rock magazine Kerrang!" You present the magazine only on second occurrence. Presentations should be on first occurrence.
Corrected.
  • Could any reviewer criticism be mentioned in the reaction section? It seems a bit fawning now, there must have been some negative criticism in even the good reviews?
The only negative aspect I found in books and reviews was fans' reaction to "Fade to Black" as a ballad. Reviews in general were extremely positive, and retrospectively the album is eulogized by critics. Even Colin Larkin in Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which was the least generous review, said nothing bad about the album.
  • To be honest, I'm not sure how the touring section is related to the subject of the article at all (apart from the very last sentence)? Apart from simply having taken place after the album was released? No mention of how the songs fared during concerts etc? Seems like WP:Coatrack, and could be shortened by half. Why is it important to the album what Hetfield yelled during a concert?
The Hetfield quote was because Metallica loathed glam metal bands and was set to perform in between them. Not that he says something essential, but I think it reads amusingly and catches the reader's attention.
Yes, but what does it have to do with the album? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Metallica (pictured in 2009) began using Ennio Morricone's music as its concert introduction in 1984.[5]" I think it is discouraged to put info in image captions that is not found in the article body. Also, I don't see why this info relates to the album.
It is related because concerts from that particular tour began with Morricone's "The Ecstasy of Gold" played on tape. I've seen other FA albums have image captions that repeat the prose from their section and I find it awfully dull. Presenting exclusive information in the caption was merely an editorial discretion.
As above, what does it have to do with the album? FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All changes look good, but even after reviewing quite a few articles about rock albums, I've never read one that goes as much into unrelated minutiae about a subsequent tour. Could you point me to some other promoted articles where this is the case? I suspect it is because there is not a specific tour article where this info could be dumped? Since other reviewers don't seem to have taken issue with this, I'm inclined to let it go, but would like some more rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS guide on albums says it's allowed to write about festivals, supporting acts, on-stage guest appearances related to the tour in promotion of the album. It is up for discussion whether the coverage is too broad and has unnecessary details which you pointed above.
  • Support - though I still think the touring section goes into unrelated detail, the rest of the article looks good, and I think extra text is less harmful than too little text. But if other reviewers bring this up later, it should probably be dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lewismaster[edit]

I’m sorry for the delay in delivering my comments, but health issues and other works took most of my time. I’m not an expert in FAC, as I passed through the process only once, but I think that the article is well written and appropriately referenced. I found only some minor issues mostly in the section Background and recording. Lewismaster (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The album artwork is cited in the lead, but there is no text or reference about it in the rest of the article. You should add a description and something about its production in one of the sections of the main article.
Wrote a sentence about the production. The artwork is referenced in the middle of the second paragraph from "Background and recording" (ref 11).
Background and recording
  • "The album was seen as the birth of thrash metal", seen by whom? The sentence appears excessive and inaccurate, especially coming from Malcolm Dome, who coined the term thrash metal in a review for Fistful of Metal and in other statements declared Venom as the originators of that subgenre. You wrote much better in the Kill 'Em All article "regarded as a groundbreaking album for thrash metal" or "considered crucial in the thrash metal genesis".
Re-wrote it as "helped to establish". This way it doesn't imply that one album was single-handedly responsible for creating a genre, just that it helped defining and popularizing it.
  • I think you should switch or change a little the next two sentences. It is not clear during which tour Metallica were guests at fans' homes. If they composed the songs after finishing the Kill 'Em All promotional tour, in which concerts were they playing new songs? Are you talking about a second tour where they took advantage of their fan's homes?
The tour for Kill 'Em All was named Kill 'Em All Tour. After the tour ended, Metallica wrote some songs for Ride the Lightning and then started playing clubs. That was when members stayed at fan's homes, but it wasn't a classic tour (it's not named), just a number of gigs. I see I wrote it as "throughout the tour" and I'll change that. Have an idea what to replace it with?
Maybe "while completing this round of club gigs." Lewismaster (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote "while playing club gigs across the US".
  • Again a small problem of pacing. The sentences about the choice of the producer, Rasmussen 's opinions and Mercyful Fate practice room should be placed before the start of recording, IMO.
  • I don’t want to fuel an endless controversy, but you should at least hint at why Ulrich needed teaching in basic drumming.
This was handled by Maunus, very kind of him.
  • "Although four tracks were already arranged, the band members were not used to creating songs in the studio, as they had not done so for Kill 'Em All". This sentence is about composition and not recording and maybe it would be better placed at the beginning of the period, after the selection of riffs. Lewismaster (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This happened while recording. The band simultaneously recorded the finished songs and put finishing touches on others.
So maybe this way it is more clear: "While recording and putting finishing touches on four already arranged tracks, the band members learned how to create songs in the studio, as they had not done so for Kill 'Em All." Lewismaster (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done, although I explicitly mentioned which tracks were created in Copenhagen, and that the four already written songs were slightly modified.

I dug out my vinyl LP of Ride the Lightning, which is a Music for Nations issue and there are a couple of discrepancies about the credits, that maybe you can explain.

  • On the LP sleeve the album results produced by Metallica assisted by Flemming Rasmussen and Mark Whitaker, who is also credited as concert sound engineer and production manager. Are you sure that his role was only as executive producer, as reported in the Personnel section?
I don't have the album on vinyl and I don't have a clue about the production. I bought a CD five or six years ago, but I've put it somewhere in the basement and I'm not very eager searching for it. The personnel is the same since I started editing the article, so if you can make the adjustments, I'll be very grateful. I was also surprised to see Whitaker listed as executive producer, but I can't confirm whether he is or not.
  • When this 1984 issue was released band management was still in the hands of Crazed Management from New Jersey and not Q Prime. Q Prime managed the band when the Elektra edition was released, so I think that a distinction should be done or, more simply, the management entry from the Personnel section could be removed.
I'm also ok with making a note that Q Prime Inc and Alago were on the reissue, or I can remove them if you insist.
Since CDs were introduced in 1983, I think, but I'm not 100% sure, that the album was released on vinyl, CD, and cassette at the same time. I've rearranged the tracks to read like on vinyl, though I'm not sure that's the case.
  • Support - I fixed the Personnel section using the LP and CD sleeves as sources. I think that all the other issues were addressed. Well done! Lewismaster (talk) 16:45, 24 August 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) 01:17, 15 September 2016 [38].

Cortinarius violaceus[edit]

Nominator(s) J Milburn (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn and I have buffed this one intermittently over the years. I reckon it's as complete as possibly can be and we've even had some input from a world expert on the fungus :)) Anyway, take a look, we'll answer queries pretty pronto and have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley I am completely ignorant about fungi, but here goes.

  • "Forming mycorrhizal relationships with various tree species, C. violaceus is found predominantly in conifer forests in North America and deciduous forests in Europe.". You say below that it also forms mycorrhizal relationships with other plant species such as bracken. I think it would be helpful to say here that it is not wholly dependent on trees.
  • I assume from what you say that C. violaceus is wholly dependent on its symbiotic relationship with plant roots and cannot survive without it. If so, I think you should spell this out.
    • I would strongly assume that this is the case, but some fungal species can grow under various conditions. I don't have a source either way. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other populations once identified as C. violaceus or close to that species have now been described variously as C. palatinus, C. neotropicus, C. altissimus, C. kioloensis and C. hallowellensis." I find the word "variously" confusing here. It could mean that the same species are variously described by different names, but I assume you mean they are different species. I would leave out the word "variously".
  • "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as 1 January 1821, to coincide with the date of the works of the "father of mycology", the Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries, which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." I find this sentence incomprehensible, no doubt due to my ignorance of the subject. Why is a starting date needed at all, and how could Fries sanction the names of species which were not discovered until after his death?
    • Sanctioned name and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants may provide some clarity. The starting date (it is my understanding) more-or-less corresponds to the beginning of more formalised study of fungi (and the same kind of thing exists with animals). There's no need for Fries to sanction names after his death; names only need to be sanctioned if the formal description came before the starting date. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I think I understand what you mean. The general rule is that names are sanctioned by the first describer, and for any species described by Linnaeus that is him, but mycologists initially ignored him and only counted descriptions from 1821 on. I was confused by you saying that the rule applies to all species, not just the ones known at the time. It would be clear if you changed "which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." to "which meant the name of any species described by Fries required his sanction (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid". Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No no, Sanctioning was done by Fries (and to a lesser extent Persoon). So what happened was that Fries selected and used a name by an earlier author and this was signified by the ":Fr". But finally in the 1980s this whole situation was overhauled and the official starting date set at Linnaeus/1758 like other organisms. I was/am tempted to leave this whole sanctioning thing out but lots of older textbooks and articles still have the notation in it, so thought it was worth noting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: for all organisms, the official name is the earliest legitimate name, so which one came first is really important to establish. Now naturalists have been naming things for centuries and many organisms have a host of early scientific names that predate Linnaean taxonomy. But Linnaeus was set for plants and animals as he established binomial names. Fungi were set later (Fries/1821) but then recalibrated to Linnaeus anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I see I misunderstood "The starting date of fungal taxonomy had been set as 1 January 1821, to coincide with the date of the works of the "father of mycology", the Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries, which meant the name required sanction by Fries (indicated in the name by a colon) to be considered valid." I thought you were making a general statement that names of fungi required Fries's sanction (and was confused how this could apply to fungi discovered later). If you changed to "the name Cortinarius violaceus required" I think it would be clearer. Does "L" stand for Latin? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "L." stands for "Linnaeus", who first described the fungus. All naturalists have a specific name that is used as an authority after the binomial name of the organism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fact that these species diverged relatively recently indicates that some form of dispersal must have taken place across large bodies of water." Has there been any discussion of the means of dispersal? Presumably the spores could easily have been transported by migrating birds.
    • I do not have access to this source, so I defer to Cas. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source article is actually online here. It states that long-distace dispersal was originally thought to be unlikely for ectomycorrhizal fungi due to geographic and climate barriers and lack of host plant at the destination. However, the timing of the spread of C. violaceus and relatives (as well as other species), suggests that this dispersal is actually not uncommon - the dispersals are often "founder events" where a small sample makes it to a remote location and spreads. Article doesn't say much more than that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • "developed a symbiotic relationship with pines, as well as multiple flowering plants;" You do not mention flowering plants as symbionts below.
    • Flowering plant has a technical meaning, according to which (say) oaks are flowering plants, even if you won't find them in a florist's. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These species are differentiated due to the latter population's rounder spores." And by their preference for pines or deciduous trees?
  • "Fruit bodies of C. v. hercynicus are less robust than those of the nominate subspecies." This implies that C. v. hercynicus is a valid sub-species, which you suggest elsewhere is controversial.
    • Yes; this is tricky as there are at least three possible explanations for what's going on with the "subspecies". I've reworded. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with mosses of the genera Hylocomium and Pleurozium, and, in moister areas, big shaggy-moss (Rhytidiadelphus triquetrus), as well as the buttercup-family shrub Hepatica nobilis" Is it known whether C. violaceus has a symbiotic relationship with these species?
    • I do not have access to that source at the moment, so I defer to Cas. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These species are not mentioned as symbionts of C. violaceus. As the article discusses hosts extensively, I suspect it isn't known Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not cover nutrition, if that is the right word for a fungus. The article on Ectomycorrhiza states that the fungus assists the plant in getting access to water and nutrients and receives carbohydrates in return. Does this apply to C. violaceus?
    • Yes- I'd imagine that this species's relationship is fairly typical of mycorrhizal fungi, and I've not seen any sources suggesting otherwise. I'd be inclined to think that we don't need to spell out the whole nutritive process for the same reason that we don't need the full details of the digestive system in each mammal species's article (unless it's unusual). Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a brief comment would be helpful, such as "C. violaceus has a similar nutritive system to other mycorrhizal fungi with x and y", and a link to an article with a fuller explanation - if there is a source for this. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, all sources talking about the mushroom assume the reader is familiar with the general ecology of mycorrhizal fungi, and hence do not describe the mechanics. I could get a source unrelated to this particular species that talks of ectomycorrhizal relationships and maybe put it in a footnote or something... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cite this source] for a statement that C. violaceus is a mycorrhizal fungus, which obtains carbon from plant roots and supplies them with mineral nutrients from the soil. I would put this in the main text rather than a footnote, although this is of course up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If different populations have preferences for different trees and there is no genetic difference between them, then that implies a cultural preference, which I assume would be extraordinary for fungi. Do biologists who think C. violaceus is a single species deny that some prefer pines and some deciduous trees, or do they have an explanation for the different preferences?
    • It could be that they don't have different preferences at all; that any particular C. violaceus organism could with either kind of tree: "Emma Harrower and colleagues, on limited molecular testing, found no genetic or ecological difference between the two taxa." I note, too, that people who disagree about classification here might disagree about the best explanation of the data or they may have differing ideas about "species" (see, for instance, lumpers and splitters) or both. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Harrower concedes the testing was limited and did not conclusively sink hercynicus as a taxon just yet. Genetic testing is more complicated than it looks.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I assume the dispute is between those who think that hercynicus is a separate taxon with a different ecology, and those who think that there is one taxon and ecology. No one thinks that there is one genetically identical species with different cultural symbiont preferences in different populations? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To a certain extent; there is inevitable variation within species (for an extreme example, compare a pug to an wolfhound), so it could be that there are some organisms in the the species which prefer pine and some which prefer hardwoods. These separate groups within the species could be delineated as subspecies, varieties, forms or some other sub-specific grouping, but, alternatively, they could just be thrown together as the same species (depending on both the data available and the views of the scientists in question), so there are a range of possibilities; the "there is only one" and "there are two completely separate species" are at either end of that range. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: My reading is that the two forms have been accepted for decades if not centuries on the basis of ecological and some morphological differences. Limited genetic testing has thrown that wide open but the latter researcher (Harrower) is cautious in dismissing the two forms though states that at the moment the testing is looking to show no distinctness. I find that alot of scientists are cautious and conservative in either splitting or lumping taxa until the data is pretty firm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting article and I learned a lot, but I found some points puzzling, no doubt due to my ignorance. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking a look; I've made a start on your comments and will be back shortly. Cas may also offer comments in the mean time/subsequently. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right then, here now...Some stuff looks obvious to me but I miss that it might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the topic... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just two points outstanding. I have replied above on nutrients and you have not replied to my comment on the starting date of fungal taxonomy. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok added now - how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FunkMonk[edit]

  • This article was in good shape after my GA review, so I cannot find anything to add other than: "Cortinarius violaceus extract demonstrate" Should it be demonstrates? Extract is singular? FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Verb tweaked..and thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
Copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hence, the name no longer requires the ratification of Fries's authority": Someone who died before 1900 can't give his authority today, so this needs some sort of rewording. Also, I'm probably going to trim the bit about the colon unless it has special significance.
the colon is important as it is the postscript for the name. Fries might be dead but his authority was required until 1987. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. If someone said "You'll need the ratification of Casliber's authority for that at FAR through at least 2100", what would such a statement possibly mean? On the colon: I'm dubious, because it isn't the postscript any longer; defunct orthography generally isn't a burning interest at FAC. But you'd know better than me. - Dank (push to talk) 08:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fries (and to a lesser extent Persoon) are/were the only two mycologists to offically Sanction names and get the colon treatment. I'd describe Shakespeare's plays in the present tense and he's been dead alot longer.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The implication seems to be that they needed a dead man's approval for something. I'm sure it means something else, but I don't know what, and I bet the readers won't know either. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the primary appeal ... are their appearance.": First: "the appeal is". Second: this seems to me to be phrased in the form of an opinion. If you want to keep this wording, it would probably be best to attribute it in the lead, just as it is in the text.
I get where you're coming from - there is clear consensus they are pretty boring to eat and pretty colourful to look at so am in two minds about attributing it to arora only. Need to think about this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Lots of things would work for me, including "Though they are edible, the appearance of these mushrooms is more distinctive than their taste". - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm never happy with the first sentence of mushroom articles. It's not your fault (or mine I hope) ... the problem is that, for some readers, this is an article about a mushroom, and for others it's an article about a fungus that produces a mushroom. I'd prefer something that makes sense to either POV, something like: "Cortinarius violaceus is a fungus with a mushroom commonly known as the violet webcap or violet cort. Native across the Northern Hemisphere, ...".
I agree this is frustrating on how people viwe and describe fungi. Will try to play with it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works, as long as we don't take too long to mention "fungus". - Dank (push to talk)
Ok, how is this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A thing of beauty. I've got that saved as a go-by for future mushroom TFAs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stem": This word doesn't seem out of place to me, since you read the same word on any can of mushrooms, so I won't change it. But if I remember right, it seems imprecise to Sasata and some others. If the issue comes up, "stalk" seems to work for everyone.
Personally I am happy using stem, stipe or stalk - have changed to stalk in intro and introduce the more exact "stipe" in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "sporting gills with an adnate connection to the stem": I'm going to have a talk at WT:FAC sometime soon about my preference for leads that make more of an effort not to leave non-experts in the dust. I get that "adnate" is an important classifier for mushrooms, but couldn't we either leave it out of the lead, or give an approximate description of the shape? Something like: "... adnate (right-angle) connection ..."
How about this then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Forming mycorrhizal relationships": "Symbiotic with tree roots" would be so much easier for the typical reader, especially the typical Main Page reader.
part done - have left mycorrhizal in parentheses there as an important concept Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are appropriately cited except as follows:
    "Gottingen, Sweden" Likely not.
    "Stockholm" given that you require countries of greater prominence to have countries named, the errant Sweden might be moved here.
  • That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
gosh! wonder how that happened? fixed now. thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

The article seems impressive. A few niggles:

  • "C. kioloensis" is mentioned in the lead but not in the body of the text.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention "German botanist Otto Kuntze", but other people mentioned in the Taxonomy section could also have descriptors.
added a bunch. Am stumped as to how to describe Persoon though...I think most folks have avoided that as his nationality can't be done in one descriptor... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Molecular investigation of webcaps" - What are webcaps?
The genus - I added this. is that ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group ... originated in Australasia and began diverging" - diverging from what?
a common ancestor. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hercynian Forest" - I think you should mention where this forest is.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "smaller spores and mushrooms" - I would prefer "fruiting bodies".
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what are the phylogenetic relationships of this species?
Its closest relatives are the species listed in the section at the bottom. I forgot to mention that so added now. Does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6 to 12 centimetres (2 1⁄4 to 4 3⁄4 in) tall - I'm not too keen on this conversion. If one of the metric numbers is twice the other, so should the imperial equivalent be.
is now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "4 centimetres (1 1⁄2 in)". At the beginning of the paragraph, you had 3.5 cm being equivalent to 1 1⁄2 inches. Why not simply use decimal conversions?
here's the thing. I don't use imperial units as I am in Oz, but some folks that do recommended fractions rather than decimal places for them at one FAC some time ago. Works ok most of the time but the three digits in question here defy the template....will do a bit later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no pleasing everyone. Here in the UK, we started going metric ages ago but never got around to completing the process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok, have dispensed with convert template and found fraction markup so have rejigged so two cms don't make same in now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. violaceus mushrooms contain around 100 times more iron than those of most other fungi." - Fruiting bodies again? I prefer to use "mushrooms" more specifically as the white things one buys in the supermarket or gathers in pasture, using fungi and their fruiting bodies for other types. Perhaps I am wrong.
No clear cut answers here - I'd use "mushroom" for accessibility and is technically accurate in lay terms. If you walked though the forest and saw one, wouldn't you call it a "purple mushroom"? Not hugely fussed though.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call them fungus, and in the UK, people speak of going on "fungus forays" in autumn. I'm not hugely fussed either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ok changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. Something strange seems to have happened to the diameter of the cap! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My brain went to sleep - was looking at wrong value when detemplatising that bit. Now fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I am happy with the alterations and improvements made to the article and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 11 September 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) 01:19, 15 September 2016 [39].

2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2003–04 football season was a memorable one for Arsenal players and supporters, their team became the first over a century to go an entire league campaign undefeated. Arguably manager Arsène Wenger's greatest achievement since arriving at the club, I'm hoping to get this to FA standard before his 20th anniversary in October. It's an comprehensive account of how the season panned out, filled with the essential statistics. I feel it satisfies the criteria hence the nom, and welcome any sort of comment, cheers. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

Arsenal fared below par in the cups, - speaking as a Spurs supporter, I take offence that "par" is assumed to mean Cup Final level or above. I'd just say "less well" here....
''.... meant Arsenal were considered front-runners for the Premier League +"title" here? Otherwise it sounds like they were in the Championship and frontrunners for promotion...
Tottenham had not beaten their rivals since November 1999 and their last win at Highbury came a decade ago - "a decade previous(ly)?"

Nothing is jumping out at mre prose-wise after reading through a couple of times, hence support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "scored five past Inter Milan..." I would change past to against
  • "Pirès in the second half scored the winner.." I would switch it around so it reads Pires scored the winner in the second half
  • "Manchester United who now lay in second place." -> Manchester United, who were now in second place
  • "on 20 December 2003, the setting for where their title challenge "derailed" eight months ago." I think this could be worded better
  • "...put on a display Wenger reflected as being one of the best of the season." Why did Wenger rate the performance so highly? A quote would be nice
  • "Arsenal stood in first spot – two points clear of Manchester United." -> Arsenal were in first place, two points clear of Manchester United
  • "...winning five out of five matches." -> winning all five matches
  • "...which eclipsed a club record set by George Graham's team of 1990–91." Unless i'm missing something, the club record that was broken isn't specified.
  • "although they played one more game..." -> although they had played one more game
  • "as of 2013 is still the youngest player to turn out for the club." Is this still the case in 2016?

Looks good apart from these. NapHit (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC) @NapHit:, cheers for taking a look, I've made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I did a copyedit pass; please revert if I screwed anything up.

  • Suggest changing the table headings to "Loan expired" since they are all now expired.
  • You say 13 unbeaten matches was a record, and then later say 24 was the old record for Arsenal, and later say 30 was the league record. Presumably 13 beat the Premier League seasons record only -- if so, I think that should be clearer. When they reached 30, whose record did they beat? Come to that, when they beat 13, did they beat their own or someone else's record?
  • "who cut it back for Pirès to sidefoot": I don't see "sidefoot" in the source; am I missing something? All I see is "steer".
  • Any reason why you explain the competition for the League Cup and FA Cup, but not the Champion's League? I don't think I care which you do, but is there a reason not to be consistent?
  • "defensive improvements, which rued them a year ago": "rued" is the wrong word here; I think you mean something like "since defensive mistakes the previous season had been costly".
  • "the first scheme was a relative success as only a third of all bonds were sold": I don't follow; why does this make the scheme a relative success?
  • Tweaked this, the bond scheme didn't do as well as the club anticipated but they made lots of money is where I was going with it.

-- That's everything I can see; the article is in fine shape and I expect to support once these issues are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article; even a Chelsea fan like me can appreciate it. One more suggestion, since I had to look this up: when you say that 30 matches unbeaten from the start of the season is a record, I think it would be good to add a note explaining that the Preston North End unbeaten season was only 22 league matches long. I'd assumed (without really thinking about it) when I read about their record at the top of the article that it was 42 matches, like the old First Division. However, I'm happy to support whether you add that or not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mike, have added a note now. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

  • Kit images: Is there a source somewhere for how the kit looks?
  • File:Arsene Wenger.JPG: Free image on Commons. It's a photo of the manager of the club, the caption is supported by the text, seems pertinent insofar as the section of the article in question discusses his role in the club. Plausible EXIF, license supported by external source, but the source link should not directly point to the file especially when it's broken. Also I see that the file exists elsewhere on the web in higher resolution, but these files look like they are zoomed in; some are attributed back to Commons.
  • File:Robert Pires2.JPG: Free file on Commons. Caption is supported a bit farther down in the article text, the image seems pertinent as it illustrates a person with relevance to the events described in the paragraph. Same comments on the license and EXIF and web presence as above.
  • File:Thierry Henry 2007.jpg: Free image on Commons. Caption seems to be supported elsewhere in the section (it was one league match?), the image shows an individual who is mentioned a few times in the section - moderately relevant. No EXIF and the often inconsistent EXIFs of the uploader's other files bother me a little. Doesn't appear elsewhere on the web though, mostly.
  • File:Trophy presentation Highbury 2004.JPG: Free image on Commons. Same comments on the license and EXIF and web presence as on Wenger and Pires files, but no higher size files online. A bit confused by the caption - the ceremony takes place at Highbury which is Arsenal's home stadium but the trophy ceremony mentioned in the text takes place at their rivals' stadium?
  • File:Revie Stand, Elland Road.jpg: Free image on Commons. Caption supported by the filepage, the stadium photographed is apparently the place where one of the events described there took place. Image is from Flickr and has plausible EXIF; why does the Flickr link redirect to a login page? Image appears elsewhere on the web, sometimes with attribution to Commons and sometimes not.
  • File:Sign, Highbury Stadium - geograph.org.uk - 293931.jpg: Free image on Commons. File comes from an external webpage which shows a matching license. I wonder about commons:COM:Freedom of panorama though, does it apply here? Otherwise, image is pertinent to the section; I presume the caption is taken from the Commons filepage?
  • File:Arsenal open top bus parade 2004.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image is pertinent to the section and has plausible caption. I notice from looking at the deleted revisions that the Commons file has a lower resolution than the deleted enwiki file, may be worth remedying. No EXIF, but no larger resolution copies on the web.

Otherwise, all the ^files need WP:ALTTEXT. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Jo-Jo, have added the alt text. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain[edit]

  • Fn 5 - dead link, fix or link to archive
  • Sometimes you've used the "subscription needed parameter" and sometimes you haven't, for The Times. I checked fn 170 and a subscription is needed, so make sure they are consistent whenever you provide a URL.
  • Why did you group two sources into fn 104 but not anywhere else where multiple sources follow a statement?

Otherwise, looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers @Laser brain: for the source review, have seperated the citations and made other adjustments. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:50, 13 September 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) 01:20, 15 September 2016 [40].

CMLL World Middleweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, not just a list of champions but an article on the history of the championship, rules etc. This follows the format of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship which was recently promoted to FA and I have taken all input from that FAC, plus various GAs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be.  MPJ-DK  22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from starship.paint[edit]

  • Why does The championship has not been vacated since then have so many references?
  • Well that's the problem with claiming something has not happened - I don't have a source stating it, but sources for each title change to show there is no interruption, I am not sure how else to prove a negative like that. MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - I think Wrestlingdata and cagematch would be the way to go, I will replace the source.  MPJ-DK  13:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the relevance of the The exodus from CMLL to AAA also meant that paragraph to the CMLL World Middleweight Championship
  • It is about how CMLL promoted their middlewight division, that by the exodous they lost the Mexican National version of it, so the division focus was even more so on the CMLL version. It gives you the context of the division.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and of course the fact that the champion left CMLL, forcing the title to be vacated.  MPJ-DK  22:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest some reordering and rewriting. In June 1992, many wrestlers left CMLL to join the newly formed Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA), which significantly affected CMLL's middleweight championships. The Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission allowed AAA to assume control of the Mexican National Middleweight Championship as then-reigning champion Octagón joined AAA. Meanwhile, the CMLL World Middleweight Championship was vacated due to then-champion Blue Panther's departure. Thus, CMLL held a 16-man...
  • El Dandy holds the record for most CMLL World Middleweight Championship reigns with three and is one of only three wrestlers to hold the title more than once, the others being Negro Casas and Emilio Charles Jr also has too many references...?
  • Again the challenge is that it's only by comparing all championship reigns it can be definitively proven it is the longest/most/etc. I am not sure how best to source that - even if I found say a 2008 source to cover it that still leaves a 2009-present gap. Any ideas? MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will see what's in the FA and yes I probably can. MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and I will research the last major show the Middleweight Championship was defended at to add that info to the article.  MPJ-DK  22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the Wrestling Title Histories book have both 2000 and 2006 version cited? starship.paint ~ KO 13:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has to be a typo, there is no 2006 version that I am aware of.  MPJ-DK  22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPJ-DK: Does the DragonRojoJr source mention the date "November 18, 2011"? (May have to use wrestlingdata and cagematch) Likewise, does it support the info for the paragraph "In June 1992"? starship.paint ~ KO 05:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPJ-DK: bump on above starship.paint ~ KO 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Starship.paint: - Good point, this is covering CMLL's weekly show the day before but never states the date it took place, which can be a challenge since this and other sites do such regular coverage of the night before they never state "last night" or anything like that. I will see if other sources mention the date or Cagematch will serve for the date as well.  MPJ-DK  16:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found a source, someone who covers lucha libre on a regular basis had a "roll call of champons" and listed the date. I added it to the source already used.  MPJ-DK  16:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work! I'm now satisfied with the quality of the article. Support starship.paint ~ KO 06:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by LM2000[edit]

  • The last paragraph of the lede seems superfluous as the preceding sentence describes pro wrestling's scripted nature. WCW International World Heavyweight Championship was recently promoted to FA status and doesn't do this, the WT:PW RfC regarding how much of a disclaimer is needed on PPV articles may apply here as well. The one sentence disclaimer on CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship seems like a better alternative.
  • In "History" section, commas follow some dates but not others. For example, "In the late 1980s, EMLL..." and "On May 3, 2010, Jushin..."
  • In "History" section, " which was the first time the middleweight championship", "middleweight championship" should be capitalized as it's a proper noun. Alternatively, the "middleweight" could be dropped.LM2000 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LM2000: - I have addressed your concerns. As for the the WCW FL, that should have a disclaimer of some sort otherwise it implies the championship was won competitively. So I adjusted to match the Feature Article disclaimer, I agree that one is better.  MPJ-DK  13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll Support this now.LM2000 (talk) 19:13, 20 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) 00:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NatureBoyMD[edit]

  • Is there a reason "Middleweight" is capitalized in the third sentence of lead paragraph one? The other appearances of "middleweight division" have a lowercase m.
  • Link the first instance of Octagón in "History" section paragraph three, rather than four.
  • De-link second instance of Negro Casas in "History" section paragraph five; it is already linked in paragraph three.
  • Remove the period from the Liger image caption (not a complete sentence). Alternatively, remove the comma and add "is" after his name.
  • It looks like you should capitalize "Champion" in "CMLL World Middleweight champion" under the 1991 tournament. Yes?
  • Is there a reason Kato Kung Lee is red-linked when other wrestlers without articles are simply not linked?
  • Overall, the article appears well written and sourced. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed all the grammatical/linking issues.
  • As for the Red linked articles, I went by the guideline at WP:RED to figure out what should and should not be linked in that section. Basically, any subject that is believed to be notable enough to have an article but don't currently. I know Kato Kung Lee is notable enough for an article (I have a half-written, half-researched article on him in the works) as for Ponzona, Guerrero del Futuro, Espectro de Ultratumba, Espectro Jr. and Javier Cruz I am not so sure if they are notable enough to warrant their own articles. Ponzona and Cruz are for sure not. The other three I'm not sure, they're borderline notable so I went with not linking them - but I also have no problems adding Guerrero del Futuro, Espectro de Ultratumba and Espectro Jr., like I said I am on the fence on those three.
  • And thank you for your review and input @NatureBoyMD:, I appreciate your efforts to improve this.  MPJ-DK  22:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. I changed the first mention of the AAA to show an English translation as you've done with other wrestling companies: Asistencia Asesoría y Administración ("Assistance, Assessment, and Administration"; AAA). I also added a few commas for clarity. My edits.. Feel free to revert fully or partially if you see fit. Well done! NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

  • File:LuchaLibreObrera153.JPG: Free file on Commons. Not sure if this is the best image for the infobox as the individual depicted appears to play a minor role in the match. Where does the caption come from? Image appears elsewhere on the web in lower resolution and appears to be taken from Commons when. EXIF consistent between the uploader's other uploads, some were deleted on derivative work grounds which probably isn't an issue here.
  • File:Averno closeup.jpg: Free file on Commons. Subject does not appear to be mentioned in article and caption is unsourced. Flickr file, currently tagged as "All rights reserved" but was previously free, and free licenses cannot be revoked. Plausible EXIF that doesn't display on Flickr though, and other uploads follow the same theme.
  • File:Jushin Thunder Liger.JPG: Free file on Commons, I wonder about the copyright - if any - of the costume. File is a section farther down from the one where the topic is mentioned - the caption is sourced there as well. Both the theme, location and EXIF of the other uploads are consistent from this uploader.
  • File:Blue-Panther.jpg: Free file on Commons. File is in the section where this character is discussed. No EXIF and small resolution, as well as the general inconsistent EXIF of the other uploads by this uploader and some deleted files (and files that look like copyvios) make me suspect that we are dealing with a copyright infringing photo here.

All files have good ALT text, but some relevance and copyright issues need to be sorted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Jo-Jo.
  • LuchaLibreObrera153 is of a two time champion (2004 to 2006, and again in 2010), since this article does not contain a full list of champions (that is in List of CMLL World Middleweight Champions) his reigns are not described in great detail here as there were not "stand out" details. The caption claims are covered in the List article, but can be added to this article easily enough if required.
  • Averno closeup - another champion as per the list
  • Blue Panther - since there are questions I have removed this image fro the article.
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - and sourced, I believe that addresses your concerns?  MPJ-DK  09:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Laser brain[edit]

  • Fn 12 - What makes cagematch.net a reliable source? They have an "about" page where they say that employees (though they call them volunteers in another place) fill out entries, but I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight or fact-checking processes. I don't see any indication either that contributors to the site are noted experts.
  • So the pro wrestling project actually mailed them and asked about their process since it was not clear to us either. They have people who are responsible for each region (US, Europe, Japan, Mexico etc.) who are well versed in wrestling in that region. Users submit results but each person provides independent verification before results are posted. It is listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources as reliable for results. See note below on why I used this one
  • Fn 13 - Same question about wrestlingdata.com. There's even less information on that site about who they are and what processes they follow.
  • I am not so sure on this one, I will remove it completly to err on the side of caution.
  • Make sure your citations to the Duncan/Will book are consistent. In one place you noted the edition and city of publication, but in others it is missing.
  • Done, good catch on that one - I've looked at it hundres of times and did not see it.

Otherwise, looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Laser_brain thank you, I appreciate the review. So the Cagematch data was my way of finding one unifying source for the title history - at List of CMLL World Middleweight Champions each reign is sourced independently of Cagematch but for me to state "longest reign of any champion" I would technically have to use all sources in that list a total of 8 sources - it looked odd to have a citation stack that was basically [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] so I took the cagematch source (since it matches the sourced table) and had that serve as a shorter version. I am not sure of how else to source it. Any suggestions? I think someone suggested stating "See sources in X table" but I don't think that's appropriate.  MPJ-DK  01:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, MPJ-DK. I am satisfied that everything is in order. If the pro wrestling project is satisfied with the response from cagematch, that's good enough for me. --Laser brain (talk) 01:52, 13 September 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) 01:22, 13 September 2016 [41].

J. R. Kealoha[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about J. R. Kealoha, the only Native Hawaiian combatant of the Civil War whose gravesite (in the island) is known by modern historian. Efforts to posthumously honor him especially his unmarked grave occurred at a period of renewed interest in Hawaiian soldiers who fought in the American Civil War while Hawaii was an independent kingdom. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure. I believe it is not far from a Wikipedia:Very short featured articles. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing from coord duties...

  • I've copyedited so pls let me know any concerns there; outstanding points re.prose/content:
    • "he and another Hawaiian soldier met the Hawaii-born Colonel Samuel Chapman Armstrong, who recorded their encounter in a letter home" seems over-detailing for the lead.
    • Does it really take three citations to source the sentence "The marker was formally dedicated and unveiled on October 25, 2014"?
  • Re. images, I'll take Nikki's review as read.
  • Re. sources, all links work, and nothing leapt out at me as a serious concern reliability-wise; formatting looked okay as well. I'm not sure that the documentary Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War needs to be in External Links when it's cited in the text, but that's a minor thing.

A nice, succinct, article -- I can see the number of sources employed and appreciate that info on these guys is often thin on the ground. Before I support, I'd like to see further commentary from others more experienced in Civil War-related history, perhaps Wehwalt and Coemgenus, to name two who come to mind, though I appreciate there probably aren't many editors that familiar with Hawaiian participation... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know a thing about it, though 'll take a look at it, and will poke around for sources, but you must allow me a few days, as I am traveling and have also promised Montanabw a review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take a look today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys -- I've checked the edits made since my last pass, and see no issues and no reason to withhold support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • There's not a lot known about Kealoha, which concerns me, but everything that is known is presented in an orderly and readable manner. Articles like this are always hard to assess for FA, but I think there shouldn't be a problem.
  • The sourcing all seems impeccable, no complaints there.
  • The only error I noticed concerns the location of Camp William Penn--it was in Cheltenham, Pennsylvania, not Philadelphia. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the location for Camp William Penn. I got that connection with Philadelphia from Benjamin Cox's source. As for the additional info about Kealoha, this is all that is known about him. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Hawaii-born", "Hawaiʻi": consistency
  • "has come to represents": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Wehwalt about the Sons of the Civil War. We don't repeat information in the lead, and this information is prone to misinterpretation. I tried to fix it, twice. - Dank (push to talk) 08:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked at the article. I don't see anything glaringly wrong or problematical. My internet's sort of intermittent right now but when I get a chance I'll run some searches through my GMU databases and see what I come up with. A number of specific comments:

  • "unconditional surrender" (lede and body) Was Lee's surrender truly unconditional? There were certainly terms granted, everyone was paroled and allowed to go home with small arms, horses, etc.
  • I don't see why Hawaii is sometimes spelled with the ', and sometimes not.
  • It is an okina, glottal stop commonly used in Hawaiian spelling. It is pretty consistent in the article. the only instances It is not used isin quotes, when referring to the state or territory unit (this is in the MOS for Hawaii wikiprojects), and or when suffixed by -ian. This is common practice used in writing about Hawaiian history.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was among a group of more than one hundred documented Native Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants, the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War", who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi was still an independent nation." I think some rephrasing should be done to make it clear they didn't fight as a group, as this sentence could be read to imply. I also don't see the need for the whole long title twice in the lede, especially given its evident recent coinage.
  • I'm reverting back to the version used in the intro for Henry Hoolulu Pitman's article. If it work there I think it should be fine here. I don't think it would come off as they fought in a group..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " a United States Colored regiment" I would cut all but "a regiment", piping to those two words perhaps
  • Abbreviated to USC to add variation.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "volunteered and enlisted in the military regiments of various states in the Union and the Confederacy." I might consolidate to "volunteered for service in the forces of the Union and the Confederacy" That should be broad enough to cover state regiments
  • It is unclear if the clause in the first paragraph of "Life", relating to opposition to slavery, refers to Hawaiians or New Englanders.
  • I don't see that problem and it can mean both to be honest because both the New Englanders and Hawaiians apposed slavery. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear why DVA changed its mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they never did. I restore the original wording because the 2009 policy change which came into effect in 2012 is a significant reason why they were denied. The Hawaiian group relied on a private monument maker to create the marker. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Let me know if there is anything else to address. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've now run some searches, and came up with articles in the Hawaii papers that are already used as sources or contain analogous information. So although the subject is small in available information, the article appears comprehensive and it's well written and otherwise seems to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "only next of kin could request VA memorials" Presumably VA means Dept of Veteran Affairs but you need to explain this.
  • Unsure what you mean here. Do you just want me to clarify what VA means or explained the ruling? I mean the previous sentence already mentions United States Department of Veterans Affairs in full. It might be redundant and repetitive to mention it in full again and VA is a common abbreviation in the US. The latter I won't know how to do yet, but I've read how cases such as Kealoha have influenced the VA in changing their stance in recent years in regards to veterans who died more than 100 years ago. I plan on expanding that in the future once the sources are more available.
  • It would be better to show it as "United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)" at first mention. Then it is clear to non-US readers what VA stands for in the next sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 looks odd. Why the "&" at the beginning?
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) 01:21, 13 September 2016 [42].

St Botolph's Church, Quarrington[edit]

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St Botolph's is an Anglican church in Quarrington, for much of its history a small village in the English county of Lincolnshire. The oldest parts of the building are from the 13th century although a church has existed in the village since the Conquest. The church has some "puzzling" architectural elements, according to Nikolaus Pevsner, while its age mean it is grade II* listed. This article complements the GA-class one on the village itself, and forms part of a project to improve coverage of Sleaford articles. After a bit of an editing hiatus (owing to my studies), I am bringing it here. I believe it is comprehensive, reliably sourced throughout and neutral; the structure seems to follow many of the other Anglican church articles. As only my second FAC, I am not expecting this to be perfect; any constructive comments, queries and suggestions are welcome. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed, but it would be nice to see some images of the interior. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for conducting the image review. I agree that it is a shame there are no photos of the interior, but I haven't been able to find any free ones and won't be able to go there any time soon. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I am not familiar with how the word "fee" is used in the lead.
Linked to fief.
but the Bishop of Lincoln presented the rector during the early 16th century - ditto "presented" here?
Linked to advowson.
link tracery in the lead?
Done.
Charles Kirk the younger - should the last word be capitalised here?
Capitalised 'younger'.
I'd unabbreviate Rev.
Expanded both instances in the 'Description' section to 'the Reverend'
The rectory was constructed in c. 2000 - why not put year or year range in?
The source says 'in about 2000', so I've used that wording.
Incidentally, I'd change all c.s to "around" to make it prosier.
All instances should now be changed to 'about'.
Thank you very much for your comments. I will correct them within the next 24 hours and ping you when I'm done. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Casliber: Thank you once again for these comments. Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns, do let me know if there are any more. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
A "very narrow" chancel arch existed - why the quote marks? Maybe just say "slender" or "narrow" and drop them.
I've reworded as you suggest.
Also, for completeness, any info on surrounding grounds/churchyard?
@Casliber: Thanks for your comments. I've been unable to find anything about this online or in the printed material I have. I suspect that the churchyard has long closed, and burials now take place in the cemetery in Sleaford (see St Denys' Church, Sleaford); this is managed by Sleaford Town Council, which is responsible for Quarrington. Stating this would be OR, however. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Not my forte though... cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • " the present priest-in-charge is the Reverend Mark Stephen Thomson, who took over from the Reverend Sandra Rhys Benham in 2016". The word "present" is better avoided as it may become out of date.
  • Removed.
  • "1–3 were under 16" 1 to 3 or 1 in 3?
  • the former, I have used the word 'to'.
  • First paragraph of the background section. There is very little about St Botolph's in this paragraph. Most of it belongs in the article on Quarrington (where it is briefly covered) rather than in this article.
  • While the first sentence or two are not relevant to the church directly (and I have now removed these), much of the remainder of the paragraph deals with whether Quarrington had a church (or two) in the early medieval period; even if this were not St Botolph's, it would have been a predecessor to it. I have altered the last sentence to be more explicit about this. Let me know if this is still a problem.
  • "In the latter half of the 16th century, the living of Old Sleaford became "extremely poor" and the church probably fell out of use." presumably you mean Old Sleaford church - "its church probably fell out of use" would be clearer.
  • Yes, I've changed this accordingly.
  • "some time after the restoration" Which restoration - the one in 1660?
  • I've corrected this and linked.
  • "This was replaced in 1812 by a Georgian-style building" But you say above that parts of the medieval building survive.
  • Do you know where it says that the chancel itself survives? If it's the sentence saying "A slender chancel arch existed until the mid-19th century and might have been pre-Conquest", then that chancel arch—the arch connecting the chancel with the rest of the church—remained intact until the mid-19th century (presumably till Kirk's restoration in the 1860s), despite the chancel itself being rebuilt in the meantime. I've made it clear later that Kirk also widened the arch, along with adding his chancel.
  • "building" implies that the whole church was rebuilt. I would suggest "Georgian-style chancel". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Church had 120 sittings" I assume you mean space for 120 people, but I think this needs explaining.
  • Yes, I've used your wording.
  • "Historic England suggest" No reason for the italics and Historic England is not italicised above.
  • You're right, well-caught.
  • I'm not seeing an error with ref 23 – let me know if it's still playing up.
  • It is ref 20 now. I am not sure what the problem is as I do not use the citation template. You have to have the User:Ucucha/HarvErrors tool installed to see harv ref error warnings. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your comments above, I've replied to all of them and hopefully addressed them through this edit. If you have any further feedback, do let me know. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thanks again for clarifying those points - they should be addressed now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
There is still a problem with ref 20. When you click on refs 4 and 5 you go to the source, but when you click on 20 nothing happens. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Okay, I've fixed it – the name didn't include the word "Council" and so was not linked. I've installed the script and it's not showing any errors. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

  • Casliber, Dudley Miles: Are you both comfortable with the Description section? It doesn't sound very FA-like to me. I wanted to give this one a third support, but I don't think I can get past that section. - Dank (push to talk) 04:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, could you perhaps be more explicit anout your issues with this section. I'm happy to make changes where appropriate. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 07:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • I take your point Dank. Most of the description seems to be in the 'Architecture and fittings' section. How about merging the two sections as a single 'Description' section? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd make the 'Architecture and fittings' a subsection of 'Description' yes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. My point is that if I came across the Description section as a web page, not knowing what I was looking at, I would guess that it was a page from a travel guide or a local advertisement; I would never guess that it was a page from an encyclopedia. But I get the sense that I am unanimous in this, so I'll move on. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, I have now merged the 'architecture and fittings' section into the 'description' section and put what was already there above it under the sub-heading 'location, services and facilities'. To be fair, a church is home to an Anglican community, so details of services, seating capacity, available facilities and the incumbent priest seem to be appropriate (past reviewers of similar articles have suggested that I should have put more in). Besides, this sort of information may well come under Wikipedia's scope as a gazetteer. Anyway, do take a look and let me know if there are any bits which really do need trimming. Casliber, Dudley Miles: do let me know if you are still happy with the layout. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to copyediting, and rarely make calls on content. Thanks for your efforts here. I'm moving on. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, okay, thanks for the input anyway. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I would leave out the details of services. They are not encyclopedic, and anyone interested would need to check the church's own website to see whether they are up to date. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, I've done this now. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

The article looks in good shape. Just a few comments.

  • "It was granted to Haverholme Priory in about 1165, but the Bishop of Lincoln presented the rector during the early 16th century, before it passed to Robert Carre and his descendants." I think this needs a touch more explanation for those who've never heard of the right of presentation. The link to advowson will explain it for a persistent reader but it takes a bit of working out, since usually the right rested with the diocesan bishop anyway. I take it that what's being said here is that the right to appoint the rector first belonged to Haverholme Priory? Otherwise there's no reason to have a "but" in the the middle of the sentence. Then it's not clear from the lead that it's the advowson that Carre's family inherited, because "It" at the start of the sentence means the church, but "it" at the end of the sentence means the advowson. How about "It was granted to Haverholme Priory in about 1165. The right to present the rector was claimed by the Bishop of Lincoln during the early 16th century, and then passed to Robert Carre and his descendants after Carre acquired a manor at Quarrington"?
  • Yes, the Abbey did seem to present rectors in the 13th century, as I outline below. I've adapted your wording to reflect this, so let me know what you think.
  • "quingualgular": do you mean "quinquangular"?
  • Changed. I don't know what happened there!
  • "and chancel screen in a Decorated style": should be "and a chancel screen", surely? Or am I misunderstanding the intended syntax?
  • You're right, I've changed it accordingly.
  • I'd identify Trollope as an antiquarian on first mention.
  • Done – this became muddled when I made some of the changes outlined above.
  • "and, by the time Domesday was compiled, this included two churches": suggest "which, by the time Domesday was compiled, included two churches".
  • "A slender chancel arch existed until the mid-19th century and might have been pre-Conquest, but the earliest visible part of the church is the 13th century north arcade": I think the "earliest visible" part of this would benefit from an adjective such as "extant" or "remaining", to make it instantly clear to the reader that we are moving from past elements of the church to present elements.
  • Changed as per your recommendations.
  • I'm curious to know how Trollope, writing in 1872, can describe as "very miserable" something that was replaced in 1812. Is it clear from the source how he can say this?
  • He doesn't make it clear, so I've removed it.
  • As far as I can see there is only one rector linked to an article -- Charles Blomfield. Are there other rectors who went on to be notable? (You might also add a note on Blomfield's appointment to his article, which doesn't mention it at the moment, though of course that's not an issue for this FAC.)
  • I would like to add a full list of rectors, but the only source would be Trollope's 1872 book plus later newspaper articles or references in Crockford's. While Trollope's work is useful for other details, he makes no claim that his clergy lists are complete and I am aware of plenty of cases where the lists he gives are not comprehensive. The Lincoln Record Society has admirably started a series devoted to compiling a full and scholarly list of clergy for every parish (past and present) in the county derived from original sources and providing biographical details. Unfortunately, it is only on its second volume out of roughly 12 (there are 23 deaneries and each book deals with two in alphabetical order). It will be some years yet before Quarrington (in the Lafford deanery) is covered. I was planning on waiting until that is published, but if you want me to add a partial list, it shouldn't take long, but do let me know.
  • "The Victorian period witnessed extensive restoration work at Quarrington, where most of the nave's windows were altered, and the chancel and part of the vestry were rebuilt by Charles Kirk in 1862–63; he also widened the chancel arch." Suggest: "The Victorian period witnessed extensive restoration work at Quarrington. Most of the nave's windows were altered, and the chancel and part of the vestry were rebuilt by Charles Kirk in 1862–63, who also widened the chancel arch."
  • Changed as per your recommendations.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie, I believe I have replied to all of your comments. In all but two cases I have amended as per your suggestions. For the first point, I have adapted your suggestion, so do let me know whether it's okay. The other issue is with the rector list, and I've replied to that above. Thank you ever so much for posting these comments, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Your changes look good, except that I don't think you needed to delete Trollope's comment -- I was just curious how he knew that; perhaps sketches were made, or something like that. Unless you feel it's actually an unreliable statement I would restore it. Other than that, I made one change I think you missed, and deleted a comma I don't think you need. For the rectors, I think you're right not to rely on Trollope, so a complete list isn't possible for now. However, I'd say if any of the rectors Trollope lists have articles in Wikipedia already, or should have articles (e.g. they later became bishops), you could list those in a separate section titled "Notable rectors" or something like that. Up to you -- it's not necessary for FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, thank you very much for your comments and support. I've reatored Trollope's quote so all should be in order now. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Source review: I can't speak to the pay site, but all the other sources are in order. Citations are correctly formatted and sufficient to support the text. Everything appears to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coemgenus, thank you for carrying out the source review, —Noswall59 (talk) 09:27, 11 September 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) 01:20, 13 September 2016 [43].

The Ecstatic[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2009 album by American rapper Mos Def. It was his first album after changing labels and was viewed by journalists as a creative comeback, after two poorly received albums and his greater devotion to acting roles. It was titled after the Victor LaValle novel, whose titled Mos Def felt evoked his singular, unprecedented creative vision for the album. The Ecstatic has been noted for having an internationalist quality, sampling a range of global styles while including references to global politics and Islam in Mos Def's eccentric, conscious raps. It performed modestly sales-wise, but was a widespread critical success and named one of 2009's best albums by several publications. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)

This is an interesting and well-researched read! I have left some comments below:

  • The infobox should have the date(s) in which the album is recorded. It is great that you added the studio information, but the recording dates are also important.
It should if they're available lol... unfortunately they're not :( Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this would be the case, but I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following phrasing reads a little awkwardly to me: (After venturing further away from hip hop with an acting career and two poorly received albums…). I do not fully see the connection between Mos Def’s decision to pursue an acting career and the poor reception of his prior works fully connecting with his decision to not be involved with hip hop. The same goes for the sentences in the “Recording and production”. It is merely stated without much support explaining the claim.
The music on his previous two albums found him venturing away from hip hop (especially The New Danger), and him devoting more time to acting meant him being involved less in music, i.e. hip hop. It wasn't a conscious decision to not be involved in hip hop, just a trend in his work. This seemed self-explanatory to me. Maybe if I add "in his music" after "along with his repeated ventures away from hip hop"? Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition of "in his music" would be helpful, because I honestly didn't get that meaning from that. I actually read it as a conscious move away from hip hop on his part. Then again I know absolutely nothing about this artist so that could be a factor, but I feel clarity is always important. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think charted needs to be linked in the lead, as it is a pretty basic concept. The same comment applies to still, blogs, and download.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the "No disrespect to [the club]" quote is necessary as the information is clear from the rest of the sentence and it does not add much of anything to a reader's understanding of the material.
It's part of the whole quote. I didn't want to cherry pick the rest and give readers the impression he's some narrow-mindedly moralistic conscious rapper who's against that otherside of hip hop's dichotomy, i.e. the club. If anything, I left it there for character, or insight into his character, or just to end the section with some character of its own. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that is okay then, I am still not 100 percent sold on the inclusion of the quote, especially as it is just thrown at the end of a sentence, but if you feel that it is that important, then it is fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest splitting the “Release and reception” section into two separate sections, with one focusing on the release, promotion, and commercial performance and the other focusing on the critical reception and accolades.
I never liked that school of thought on arranging this particular information. "Commercial performance" sounds like such a clumsy heading to me, and the prose wouldn't flow as well IMO; the last paragraph in particular would feel out of place. I often consolidate this information into broader, fleshed out sections rather than smaller, more specific ones in my articles--like Agharta (album), or WesleyDodds's work at In Utero (album)--and I feel it works best here as well. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the paragraph about Preservation’s production and release of a remix album directly after the paragraphs about the tour and the album’s release (as the information directly deals with that as opposed to the critical reception of the main album).
It's the last item, chronologically speaking, so I wanted to leave it last; the remix project was done over a period that went far past the time frame of the information in this section. It's also least important to the article's topic, which is the original album, and it includes a review, which should be gotten into after the response to the original album is explored IMO. For those reasons, I'd prefer to leave it as is. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not 100 percent sold on this idea, but it is your article so if you strong believe in this structure, then that is also fine. The infromation about Preservation just seemed to come competely out of left field when it is put after the nominations for the album itself. Aoba47 (talk)
  • I would recommend adding the total length of the album at the end of the track listing
According to Template:Track_listing#Parameters, this is not useful in most cases as the infobox will have this information already and "useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)", or releases with different editions; The Ecstatic was released in only one edition. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference where you received the information for the “Personnel” section. You have the citation in the "Track listing" section, but I would advise moving it directly into this section instead.
I have a hidden comment in the Personnel section, advising would-be editors of that section that the source is Downtown Music, just in case. Otherwise, I think the citation is implied for both sections, since they're both full of credits: "Credits are adapted from Downtown Music"... and repeating it would feel tacky. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works fo rme. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend including a link to Mos Def discography in the “See also” section
Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the comments that I have noticed while looking over the article. Everything looks great and I I learned a lot while reading through the article. I will cast my vote after my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes and responded to other suggestions @Aoba47: Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: support - great article - one that can be held up as an example for all others.Timtempleton (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks clean and organized to me, I suggest for it to be featured. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well-written article. Good candidate for FA. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jonesey95[edit]

Reviewing criterion by criterion:

  • Well-written: Yes. Prose looks good to this veteran copy editor. I may have missed a tiny thing here or there.
  • Comprehensive: Yes. All normal aspects of album articles are present.
  • Well-researched: Yes. Sources are abundant in all sections.
  • Neutral: Yes. No evidence of POV.
  • Stable: Yes. One primary editor improving the article over the last few months, no significant reverts or talk page drama.
  • Lead: Yes. Well done.
  • Appropriate structure: Yes. All normal aspects of album articles are present.
  • Consistent citations: Not quite (98% done) Yes. Find some way to deal with the date errors using the {{harvid}} template and some creative renaming of the "Anon n.d." sources, possibly using the titles of the articles.
  • Media: Yes. Licensing appears to be in order. Number and size of images is appropriate.
  • Length: Yes. Appropriate for the subject.

Summary: Very well done. Find a way to deal with the date errors in the Anon citations, and this should pass easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed @Jonesey95:, thanks to DrKay ([44]) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this FA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Fair bit o' images here, so...

  • File:The Ecstatic.jpg: Nonfree album cover, as these usually are. Has a default non-free use rationale with all the details, which seems to fit. Inclined to say that each WP:NFCC item is satisfied.
  • File:Mosdef (300dpi).jpg: Free file on Commons, it seems like using it to illustrate the creator in the section for the background of the album's creation makes contextual sense. Comes from Flickr, plausible EXIF, file elsewhere on the web at lower resolution. Caption refers to the Commons description, yes?
  • File:Auditorium - Mos Def.ogg: Non-free song sample. Fair use rationale seems to check out all the points, including WP:NFCC#8 but the context the article provides for the sample is a bit thin - if the sample was removed, would a reader lose much of the understanding? Caption is sourced, I'll leave it to others to assess its significance.
  • File:Moorish Science Temple 1928 Convention.jpg: Free file on Commons, it was used as the back cover and thus its use in the section on the packaging is pertinent. Caption is sourced in the article. The {{PD-US-no notice}} tag requires publication - do we have proof of it? I agree the "No notice" bit is met unless the notice was cropped out.
  • File:Preservation in Budapest 2007 - 01.jpg: Free file on Commons, is in a section where Preservation is extensively discussed so I'd say it's pertinent. File is from Flickr, plausible EXIF which points to the Flickr account. No indication whatsoever of any impropriety by the Flickr account.

The infobox file has an ALT text but I wonder how old that fellow is. The other files need ALT text as well, per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added ALT text to the other images. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 14 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) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK[edit]

  • section Personnel - source? (Probably best to add a small intro sentence to include the source(s), similar to "Track listing")
  • Other than that, thorough and consistent referencing - OK.
  • No dead links - OK.
  • No DAB links - OK.
  • The citation style (for example: using shortened footnotes for single-use references, labelling 10+ references as "Anon", specifying only the year of publication when a full date is available) looks a bit odd and overly complicated in my opinion. However, this style is used consistently and provides all necessary information. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CITEVAR my personal taste is irrelevant here ;) ==> reference structure is OK.
  • Information is based on reliable sources for the topic (acknowledged websites, magazines, newspapers) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • A quick comment about File:Auditorium - Mos Def.ogg. I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus, that the written context between file and article is a bit thin. But assuming the sample is a representative example of the album's general style, it significantly helps the reader's understanding of this album and is within common WP:NFCC practice. Usage should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and I've added a citation to the personnel section @GermanJoe: Dan56 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All OK now - status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this article has now met a consensus to be promoted and would like to ask @Ian Rose: if he can determine the same and formally close the nomination. Dan56 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • The Ecstatic charted at number nine on the Billboard 200 and eventually sold 168,000 copies–These are first week sales or total US sales?
"Eventually", so it would be referring to the latest sales figure. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Eventually" means "in the end" per Google, and I thought it was by the end of the week (from reading the lead only). Can you modify it like this: "Released on June 9, 2009, The Ecstatic debuted at number nine on the Billboard 200 selling 39,000 copies, and moved 168,000 copies by March 2014."
But there's nothing about the end of any week in the lead, and that flows/reads less smoothly than what's currently in the lead. According to Merriam, "eventually" means "at some later time" or "in the end". Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And can you replace eventually with "by March 2014", so that we know when the latest sales figure was registered?
It's a tad bit much detail for my taste, with no neat way of writing it, while begging the question of when the charting took place and creating the impression the lead is jumping back and forth chronologically. Just keep it simple and concisely written. I don't see the problem with how it is now. Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we replace deejay with DJ (or disc jockey) and link it?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For The Ecstatic, Oh No reused some of his productions from his 2007 album Dr. No's Oxperiment–This sounds somehow illogical to me. Writing and recording occurs before production, therefore you can't use old production for songs that were recorded afterward.
You're referring to the process (of making recorded music); the sentence is referring to the recorded music (eg. "a production"). Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • He sang elsewhere on the album–I assume elsewhere are the sing-song vamps? If that's the case, why not write "He often broke into sing-song vamps during his raps"?
They aren't necessarily just "sing-song vamps", as the source cited adds: "...the frequent times when he drops into quasi-aimless sing-song vamping-- or straight-up attempted singing". Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, "elsewhere" means "some other place", and has unclear meaning. Be more precise in what you mean by "elsewhere"–singing over the guitar solos, having multilayered vocals, etc. (just throwing guesses).
I disagree. Read the previous sentence; songs/moments on the album are being listed, so the context is established and clear enough: on other songs (throughout the album). Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard factored the T-shirts as album units–You mean Billboard counted one sold T-shirt as an album? Is that even possible?
Stranger things have happened. I also cited a source lol. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt this. May I have a link to the actual page on Google books? I can not enter the page cited, but you can provide a preview.
Doesn't the link I provided work? This is the relevant text: "...offer a physical product that contains the code for a free download of your album. Mos Def was so successful with the T-shirt release of The Ecstatic that Billboard magazine even began counting it as a music release on their charts. Prince did the same with an inclusion of his 20Ten in the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper." Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok now, the previous link you gave me only showed the book's cover and information about the content and the author.
@Retrohead: Did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Ian, that would be all.--Retrohead (talk) 13:58, 10 September 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) 00:54, 10 September 2016 [45].

Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your point of view either one of the earliest works of art with an explicitly feminist theme, or an early antecedent of torture porn, Candaules, King of Lydia, Shews his Wife by Stealth to Gyges, One of his Ministers, as She Goes to Bed is a genuine oddity of art history, and not just for that ungainly title. It was intended to inspire in viewers a belief in women's rights, a rejection of the then-prevalent notion that it was the duty of women to obey their husbands in all things, and an understanding of the then-radical concept that women had a right to use violence to defend themselves against an abusive husband. Unfortunately none of the audience actually realised this, and it was almost universally considered an attempt to slip a piece of creepy and violent pornography into the mainstream. ‑ Iridescent 15:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: other than a couple of newspaper reviews, the sources for this are identical to those on the just-promoted The Dawn of Love, and the most recent image used dates from 1870.

Comments from JM[edit]

How interesting. Happy to take a read.

  • To parrot Tim, who was responsible for converting me, false titles are sometimes considered non-standard in British English; I'll note them in my review and you are free to change them if you agree with me that it's better to do without them.
    • "by English artist William Etty"
    • "by horse dealer Robert Vernon"
  • I've never agreed with Tim about false titles; while it may have been unacceptable in the 1920s when Fowler's was written, it's become the standard practice now on both sides of the Atlantic (as I write this, the first sentence on the BBC News website begins "Rower Katharine Granger makes history…"). It's not something I feel strongly about either way, if anyone wants to add "the"s, but I consider them redundant and archaic-looking. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their bedroom" is ambiguous
  • Agreed, reworded to "the couple's bedroom". ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would "chattel" be preferable to "chattels"? I'm not certain. chattels jars with me a little.
  • I thought so as well until I actually came to check this; I always thought "chattel" was one of those words like "fish" or "sheep" which formed its own collective noun, but I think that's because I subconsciously confused it with "cattle". Every dictionary from the OED down to Wiktionary concurs that the plural is "chattels"—the OED even specifically says that "chattel" as a a collective noun is obsolete. The OED also notes that when used in the sense of A movable possession; any possession or piece of property other than real estate or a freehold (as is the case here), it's generally only used in the pluralised form. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of a number of paintings given by Vernon to the nation" Some may struggle to understand what is meant, here.
  • Do you mean the "a number of" or "to the nation"? We do actually know the number (157), but I didn't want to overwhelm the lead with figures if possible given that this comes shortly after "45.1 by 55.9 cm (17.8 by 22.0 in)" and a bunch of dates. Basically, Vernon gave his art collection to the Crown to display wherever they saw fit, rather than to a particular gallery or institution. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England, England" Could one of these perhaps be replaced by something like "the nation"?
  • Removed the first altogether, as it's obvious from the context where is meant. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the nude" Would "in nudes" be better? "in the nude" would typically "naked".
  • "The nude" is an artwork including a nude figure, "nudes" are the specific individual figures within a composition. From the context, there's no realistic possibility that readers will assume that what's meant is that he painted with his clothes off. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he told him he agreed about her beauty" that he agreed?
  • "somewhat obscure subject" I think that is a compound adjective, meaning that it should be somewhat-obscure.
  • Removed the "somewhat" altogether, as a superfluous word. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Etty painted Nyssia directly from life" I defer to you, but surely he couldn't paint Nyssia directly from life, as he never saw the living Nyssia. the figure of Nyssia, perhaps?
  • Changed to "painted Nyssia directly from a life model" (although I'd hope the reader already figured this out) ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Literary Gazette condemned the work" This is not a universally-shared view, but I personally think of this as undue personification. How about "The work was condemned in The Literary Gazette"? Or else name the critic, if known, and attribute the view to her. (Also with La Belle Assemblée, and with The Art Journal in the lead and Vanity Fair in the legacy section.)
  • This was the early 19th century; the concept of bylines didn't exist. Reviews in this period are invariably attributed to the publication, not to the reviewer, and once a publication had established that it liked/disliked something the other writers from that publication would adhere to that line. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Female Bathers Surprised by a Swan notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • I could possibly write a very short stub on it, but it's unlikely that one could ever write anything that will be of any use to anyone; I don't really want to create a sea of redlinks (Etty was famously prolific, and well over 800 works survive), so I've only been linking specific works as and when I write the articles. ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "behave in front of picture's" {{sic}}? (Great quote, by the way!)
  • No,my sloppiness, fixed ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's about his Penitent Magdalen paintings, and doesn't relate to this piece. (I mention his relationship with the Catholic Church briefly in William Etty, but don't want to give it undue weight; out of over a thousand works painted, only five were Magdalens, and all those are more an illustration of Etty's habit of adding elements to his nude studies to allow him to sell them as history paintings, than of any great religious conviction; while in these cases he stuck a crucifix in their hands and called them Magdalens, he was just as likely to add some chains and call her Andromeda or overpaint some clothes and a bunch of grapes and call her a bacchante.) ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you not provide a full citation for Herodotus? The wording will differ depending on translation.
  • To my astonishment, Wikipedia actually has a standardised format for citing Herodotus, so I just followed that. (The citation to Herodotus is only in case someone thinks I'm misrepresenting the original Candaules legend, so it doesn't really matter which translation it uses as the story itself doesn't change.) ‑ Iridescent 16:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I've no doubt I'll be supporting in the future. Did you know, by the way, that Gyges has considerable fame in the world of philosophy due to Plato's story about him? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as long as nothing else arises; happy with the replies. I note that the confusion I mentioned was about "to the nation"; I certainly got the gist of it, but I suspect others might not. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support, with my usual caveat that I am anything but expert in the visual arts. So glad JM's prod above alerted me to this review. From my layman's point of view the article covers everything I should like to see, including analysis, views pro and con, influences on and of, and history from origin to present day. Thoroughly and widely referenced, and of course beautifully illustrated. More meo I have a few stylistic niggles, but nothing to affect my support.

  • False titles – we can agree to differ and I certainly don't press the point, but the current British style guides on my shelves etc still dismiss the f.t. as tabloidese. Mind you, the guides so dismissing the construction include those of The Guardian and the BBC, which, as in the case of the latter you rightly point out, are widely ignored by contributors and undetected by the subeditors – if such there be – of the online sites. As a sexagenarian Englishman I am probably in the last wave of resistance to this, or many another, Americanism. I just find it naff, but nobody could call it inaccurate or incomprehensible, and as you disagree with me I leave it at that.
  • "was bought by horse dealer Robert Vernon, who had made a fortune supplying horses to the military" – too many horses? This would work as well and more concisely if you omitted "horse dealer".
    Agreed, since if he's selling horses he's obviously a horse dealer. Removed. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a painting so controversial becoming government property was a source of some embarrassment" – to whom? (There is also a grammatical point about gerunds here, but life is too short and the point can lie undisturbed as far as I'm concerned.)
    Basically, the National Gallery didn't want to put it on public display as they thought putting something this tacky alongside Turner, Constable and co demeaned the English School, but didn't want to upset Vernon by insulting his taste and shoving it in a drawer. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the ... Tate Gallery, where it remains" – perhaps (WP:DATED) an "as at 2016" or similar might be prudent here?
    Done, although realistically it will stay there forever except for occasional loans—as a national collection, the Tate never disposes of works. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supposed lack of creativity, tastelessness and indecency" – I'd consider changing the order to make it unambiguous that of the last three nouns only one is supposedly lacking: "supposed tastelessness, indecency and lack of creativity"
    Done; I try to shuffle that bit about as some variant of it appears on most of these articles, but I agree this particular permutation is misleading. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1870's The Knight Errant" – I needed a couple of goes at this. If you'd consider "The Knight Errant (1870)" instead, I think it would be clearer that you refer to a year rather than a decade.
Reworded to "The Knight Errant, painted by John Everett Millais in 1870", as that way it avoids the brackets. I want to keep the date in, as it indicates that Millais was still influenced by Etty decades after Etty's death. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote B: the MoS bids us discreetly rationalise punctuation within quotations to match WP practice, and so I'd turn the unspaced en-dashes into spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
    Em-dash-ified. ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's my small gleaning. Nothing to prevent my adding support, which I'm glad to do. – Tim riley talk 11:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks ‑ Iridescent 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Sagaciousphil[edit]

  • Support but an extremely minor nit pick: the first four sentences in the "Subject" section all start with the same word, Canduales; maybe worth considering shuffling the wording just a little bit? The article is well-written, based on reliable sources and the formatting looks consistent (to me anyway). SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got rid of one "Candaules", to break the repetition. The first two instances are probably necessary, as they're the introduction of the painting and the king to the narrative, respectively. ‑ Iridescent 22:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, once it had caught my eye it kept jumping out at me. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

  • Support One of the more interesting of the series, and up to the usual standard. Some nit-picks:
  • I'd split para 2, or both the lead paras. Maybe that's my 300 px default setting, which gives me the lead pic at a splendid size.
    While the MOS is generally something I honour more in the breach than the observance, people invariably complain when you deviate from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Length without good reason. At 11,000 characters of readable prose, "one or two paragraphs" is the prescribed number. The alternative, of reducing the size of the lead image down to 300px, I'm a little reluctant to do as even at this size it's quite hard to make out Gyges's face. (Yes, I know the official answer is "readers should click on the image and use MediaViewer to see it at large size", but most of our readers have no idea they can do this.) ‑ Iridescent 23:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What they very often complain about is having over 4 paras, and sometimes about having fewer than 4 (especially if it's me). I've never seen anyone complain about going outside the extremely soft suggestions in that table. Are you going to tell me "There's no demand for those, Sir", in classic shop assistant style? Johnbod (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can not only give you examples of people complaining about articles not following that table, I can give you an example from this very series; see Crisco 1492's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sirens and Ulysses/archive1. (And Crisco is hardly a "MOS is inviolate and must be obeyed" hardliner, either.) If there's a demonstrable reason to disregard the MOS, I'll disregard it without blinking, as the 400px lead image to make the faces more visible to readers bears witness, but when there's no good reason not to follow the MOS I generally try to at least pay lip service to it. ‑ Iridescent 18:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen (1368*800), this looks fine. The paragraphs read and parse fine as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd one is 8 lines long on my screen (wide - no idea what size). In my book that's too long. What it would look like on an older screen I hate to think. Some of the other paras are in other sections also are too long for my taste. If I had noticed your intervention at the other nom I would certainly have protested at that. Long paras put readers off, & are likely to prevent them ever finding out if "the paragraphs read and parse fine". Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gyges reign was apparently, maybe, 716–678 BC, according to Wikipedia. Work that in somewhere.
    I intentionally omitted the historical Gyges and Candaules (although I did link them), as this is an illustration of Herodotus's version who is to all practical purposes a fictional character. Etty wasn't a Pre-Raphaelite; there's no indication that he was trying to create a realistic image of Ancient Greece, in which case it would be appropriate to give the historic context rather than just the myth. ‑ Iridescent 23:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much I agree with my fellow old fogeys re the false title!

Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 24 August 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) 00:57, 10 September 2016 [46].

Title TK[edit]

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title TK's first FAC attempt, in May, had several supports, but one editor felt the article needed rewriting. After some copy-editing and shuffling of content by both of us, this editor has now declared the article "much improved". I'm therefore submitting it again for FAC in the hopes that consensus for support will be achieved this time around. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I endorsed its promotion the last time preceded by comments in its PR. It has been since further improved with a more balanced prose. Nicely done. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for support, FrB.TG, and thanks again for your comments during the PR. Moisejp (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Support: I am the editor who felt the article needed some work before. The nominator has put a lot of work into this, and deserves praise for their patience as I've picked away at it. I think we are just about there. I've done quite a lot of copy-editing of this article now, so I'd like some other eyes on it before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again for all of your help on the article. I'm committed to working with you and other editors to make sure we end up with an article that we're all helpful with, and look forward to fruitful results. Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll take a deeper dive later, but at first blush this seems right at the FA-quality level I would expect for a rock album article. I have one source to recommend: Albini appeared on WTF With Marc Maron earlier this year and, when asked which albums he'd worked on seemed most important to him in retrospect, named Title TK (perhaps surprisingly) as one of two. The response was quite emotional and hinted at the dramatic back story of the album. The bulk of his words on Title TK (maybe all of them) can be found here. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for this source, Brandt Luke Zorn! I was unaware of it, and I'll try to find the best way to incorporate it in the coming days. I also look forward to your future comments about the article. Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 06:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the source to Note b. This is where it best seems to fit the current narrative. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • The release date should be specifically noted in the opening sentence. This is only an assumption, but can you check if the album was released in Europe a day earlier because 4AD is a British label, and a day later in the US because Allmusic is hosted by an American company? Also Elektra is based in America, so that would probably be the reason why there were two different dates.
  • I've always assumed that these were the European vs. North American release dates, but could never find a source explicitly saying so. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an article on 4AD, so you can link the label. You should also add the labels which released the album in the lead.
  • You can lose the references in the infobox since you've elaborated on studio and genre in the article's body.
  • Removed. At one point there was an editor who was going around and removing genres from articles (not this one) where there was no reference in the infobox, and since then I've always added refs for genres. But personally I don't have a very strong opinion about it. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll keep an eye if anyone randomly changes the genre.
  • "the composition of the group changed several times"... this reads more like a police record; why not write something less official like "the lineup changed several times"?
  • how about "four New York studios"? Locations seems not needed.
  • The term "computer manipulation" is not the luckiest solution here. The way it is written now, someone might conclude that computers are used to manipulate the album's listeners.
  • Addressed the three points above. For of the third one, I made it "computer manipulation of the tracks", which I hope you agree has no ambiguity. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote computer editing instead. It has the same meaning, only it's more encyclopedic-friendly.
  • Can you name the one reviewer who "has commented that keyboards buzz..."
  • My thinking was to keep the reviewers' names out of the non-Songs part of the Music and lyrics section; for this section, I hoped to focus on what was said and keep who said it in the background. This is partly because between the Songs and the Reception sections, the reader is already presented with lots of reviewer names. If I also put reviewer names in the top part of Music and lyrics, it might be too much. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll elaborate this below as I see it occurs at more than one occasion.
  • Allmusic shouldn't be italicized, as it is in 'Songs'
  • The NME doesn't use star-rating system. Also, why not place Metacritic in the table?
  • I believe there's a practice to avoid writing positive/mixed/negative review in the table because non-rated reviews can be interpreted differently from reader to reader.
  • Addressed the three points above per your suggestions. I also added another negative review to the infobox to balance it better (due to the removal of the (Mixed) review). Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered putting the singles' chart positions in the "Charts" section under different subsection?
  • Could you please direct me to an example of this (preferable in a FA) so I can see exactly what you mean? Just now I did a random search of some albums and didn't see the singles' chart positions listed for any of them. But I think I have seen what you're talking about somewhere before. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, I have no problem letting them stay in the prose.
  • I see literally every review in the critical reception is quoted. Can you paraphrase some of them and make them read more cohesively?
  • OK, I'm still working on this one... It might take me a couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've had a go at increasing the paraphrasing and trying to improve the flow. Let me know what you think, and I'm happy to tweak it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a review from Encyclopedia of Popular Music (hope I did the reference formatting properly) and placed Metacritic at the top of the able where it should be. The rest of the reviews look good.
  • You can add an external links section and incorporate a Discogs history of releases.
  • Could you please direct me to an example of this (preferable in a FA) so I can see exactly what you mean? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an FA standard, just a suggestion of mine to have a link to all the album's releases, such as in The Ecstatic, another FA candidate.
  • All right, I have now added an External Links sections with a Discogs link, just like it appears in The Ecstatic. Thank you for the suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were Tanya Donelly and Britt Walford roles in the group? You should say in the Background and initial recording attempts.
  • I see this is a common occurrence in other sentences. When you firstly introduce a person in the article's body, link the name and describe his position (bassist, drummer, guitarist, etc.)
  • by the time of the band's 1993 album Last Splash... by the time it was released or recorded?
  • Done the above three. All names with Wikipedia articles have the first mention of their names wiki-linked. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a chance meeting with the Fear members? Coincidental, arranged, or something else?
  • Coincidental, but I don't understand how this could mean "arranged" or something else. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Fear members were in town and she used the chance to arrange a meeting?
  • I certainly would never understand "chance meeting" to mean that. But that's fine. I think "coincidental meeting" reads awkwardly. Do you have a suggestion how you would like it worded? Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, leave it the way it is now. Thanks for clarifying.
  • On a second thought, assistance or intervention are better choices than manipulation.
  • The "quiet-LOUD-quiet" dynamic link shouldn't be leading to Pixies; it's like pointing death metal to death (metal band).
  • Do we have sources that tell what the album cover represents?
  • Why are the reviews written in present when they should be in past? They are definitely a finished action, thus they need to be in past simple.
  • Changed to past simple in the Reception section because it can be implicitly surmised that the reviews came out in the time period right after the album's release, even though there are no explicit time markers. For the Music and lyrics section (including Songs) I strongly feel that the present perfect (has + past participle) is appropriate, as—within the text itself—these comments are not as strongly tied to the release of the album, and thus the time frame becomes more open-ended. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You definitely need to sort out the one reviewer issue. That includes the "Off You" caption and the first two paragraphs of "Music and lyrics". That one reviewer could be some Facebook user who wrote his opinion on the album. And since it's an opinion and not a fact, it should be precisely attributed to the author.
  • I have added attribution to instances of "one reviewer" and the like. I did leave a handful of instances of phrases such as "multiple critics have said" (with multiple references), which I hope you'll agree is not the same issue as "one reviewer". Moisejp (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, more reviewers can be referred to as "multiple critics have said" or just "critics said".
  • Related to the point above, you don't need to source every member's position as you did here. It's simply for better navigation for users like me who never heard of those musicians before.
  • OK, I have removed the explicit sources for Donnelly and Walford because between Erlewine and Albini (the two refs that directly follow) they are identified as these, even if both are not identified in both refs. But the Amps' roles were not mentioned in the pre-existing ref, so I will keep the new ref I added for that, if that's OK. Moisejp (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Sorry for opposing, but after reading the article thoroughly, I don't think the prose has the same quality as other featured albums or candidates, such as The Ecstatic. I realize you have put much effort and time into this, but the text is wordy at places. I copyedited some sentences myself and made several suggestions above, but as for now, I don't think the article is ready for promotion.--Retrohead (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, Retrohead, don't leave me like that. Could I ask why didn't oppose before making all of those suggestions above? Was it less wordy before this edit [[47]]? This has been through two peer reviews with all parties satisfied at the end of both peer reviews, and it had eight supports in its last FAC. I have been working months and months on this to satisfy everybody. Don't leave me with an oppose after I have just done major edits to it to address your concerns. Please work with me. Moisejp (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've struck my vote. I don't want to be an obstacle and fail the nomination if eight editors support promotion. Neither I want to push changes from a position of power. It's up to the nominator if he wants to implement any suggestions. I only think that reviews from 2002 should be written in past simple and stand-alone critics' opinions should be attributed to the author. I agree if more or all reviewers have the same opinion, they shouldn't be all explicitly mentioned. But anyhow, good luck with the rest of the reviewers.--Retrohead (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much! I don't want to press my luck, but I really am much more comfortable with this version from three edits ago [[48]] or I could also live with the version one edit after that. If you are withdrawing your oppose, would you mind if I reverted to one of these? I did like the various other suggestions you made and your copy-edits up to this point. I can show you examples of where the present tense is used for critical commentary in other FAs if that helps. Moisejp (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you disagree with changing tenses and citing critics names, so I boldly restored the prose as it previously was. Like I said, if you think my edits or suggestions are not right, feel free to revert.--Retrohead (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Retrohead. That's very gracious of you. :-) Moisejp (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, I guess my input here is done. Glad you liked some of my edits and I think the article is in better shape then it was few days before. Hope to see you getting it promoted.--Retrohead (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Breeders Title TK.jpg: Non-free image, which seems correct given that it's an album cover. Has a boilerplate non-free use rationale but I'd say that all points on WP:NFCC are met.
  • File:Kim Deal Smoke.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Caption points out that it refers to a problem during the production process (the topic of the section). Basic EXIF, file can be found elsewhere on the web at lower or identical resolution, no indication of copying. No indication of Flickrwashing.
  • File:Albini-Shellac-7.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Image and caption refer to an event alluded to in the section. No EXIF this time. answers.com has a higher resolution image but I can't find it. No clear cut evidence of Flickrwashing.
  • File:Breeders Off You.ogg: Non-free song sample, which seems correct to me. Has a fairly detailed non-free use rationale and the caption discusses the content of the sample specifically, with sources. The sample is in the section for the song and lyrics, which seems pertinent to me. Overall I think all parts of NFCC (including #8) are met.
  • File:Breeders Kim Deal.jpg: Free image on Commons from Flickr. Caption is sourced and also commented on in the article. Other versions of the file exist on the web in lower resolution. See my comments on Kim Deal Smoke.jpg for the rest (same Flickr uploader).

I see that all files have adequate ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Just to confirm, this all means no further action is required on my part? I just wasn't sure about the part about different resolutions existing on the web. Moisejp (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, unless you want to re-check these that they don't predate the upload to Flickr - because that would indicate a copyright violation in most cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This has been nicely improving for a while now and is, in my opinion, FA worthy against the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, SchroCat, and also thank you again for your suggestions in the first PR. Moisejp (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working through a close copyedit in my spare time here and there. I know you've seen my edits Moisejp, but I wanted to make sure I indicated this for anyone else following the candidacy. As I noted above, I'm very impressed with the quality of research and comprehensiveness. Pending this copyedit I'm confident that I will support. Moisejp, if you see any changes I've made that you disagree with just let me know here. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brandt Luke Zorn. Thank you very much for your interest in this article, your kind words, and your copy-edits so far, which I've generally found to be excellent. I was especially happy with your edit "Engineers and musicians on the project came to believe Deal's behavior and demanding musical standards made her difficult to work with at this time." From the beginning, I'd been striving for the most neutral way to express this, and it's my opinion that you nailed it. A couple of concerns:
  • Currently in the second paragraph of "Music and lyrics", three sentences in a row begin with "Critics..."
  • I'd like to explain the logic I've used for verb tenses throughout the article. I could be somewhat flexible about this, but whatever system gets decided on needs to be coherent:
  • Simple past for events with an explicit time marker (that month, in 1997, etc.)—or where the completed time period can be implicitly induced from the context surrounding the sentence—i.e., where there is an answer to the question "When did it happen?" I've used the simple past for most events up to the end of "Subsequent recording and coalescence of the group".
  • Present perfect where the time frame is not clear from the context, and is thus open-ended. This includes instances where band members are commenting on events after the fact. I used the present perfect in the first two paragraphs of "Music and lyrics" and throughout "Songs" when the commentators were not specifically named. In your edits of "Music and lyrics" you changed a number of instances to the simple past, and I would like ideally to change them back to the present perfect.
  • Literary present for all commentary where the reviewers are named, basically in the "Songs" section and in the last two paragraphs of "Release and reception". Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for laying this out. Present perfect is probably appropriate for verbs that "critics," reviewers, commentators do as a group, because they didn't necessarily all write/publish simultaneously (even if the reviews are mostly contemporaneous, with the exception of that 2013 review), so I've changed those back. I would recommend simple past for individual commentators, even where literary present is otherwise mostly appropriate in describing the songs. Literary present is awkward, arguably inaccurate when describing how critics wrote about something. Consider this phrase from the current edit: "Pitchfork Media's Will Bryant is struck by the song's ominousness." Is he still? I'm going to change as many of these instances of literary perfect to simple past, while retaining simple past in sentences that just describe the qualities of a song.
I also agree that the three instances of sentences starting with "Critics" in a row is not great, and I've reworded those. That was inadvertent on my part, but I really wanted to pare down those sentences, which were kind of long and unwieldy (particularly the one that included the lines from the lyrics being described.) Each of those sentences expressed an idea that critics had noted two somewhat opposing qualities in the music. For each sentence, I read through the cited reviews to ensure that I retained their meaning. Because of the length of the originals, when I condensed them I switched to an active tense, simple structure (which I have hopefully refined in the reword—I was taking them on one by one). Some of these sentences were difficult to reword, either because I didn't think that the original draft best served the meaning of the review, or that the identified contrast in opinions was not as sharp as the sentence made it seem. For example: "While some critics have made reference to the dark tendencies of the lyrics, others have commented on the humor of the album." Darkness and humor are not (necessarily) mutually exclusive, so it makes more sense to say that both qualities are present, rather than that some critics saw darkness while others saw humor. I'm more confident about the opposition between "poetic" and "opaque" in the sense of those words as used in the reviews, although again it may not be immediately clear to a reader and could use some massaging. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, two very small notes: (1) I think the Notes section might look better split into two columns, but this is totally optional, and (2) it used to be that the track listing template was reserved only for "complex" track listings (typically hip hop albums with features on nearly every track and a need to cite producers on a track by track basis); however, it seems now that there's an irresistible pressure for it to become ubiquitous. I don't really think the track listing here "warrants" use of the template based on past comments I've received on its use, but I think it's very likely that someone would come along and change it back anyway. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandt, thank you sincerely again for all the time you have spent copy-editing this. I really appreciate how much thought you have put into your edits, including going to the sources to get the complete context. I'm willing to go along with the verb tense changes you've proposed. I've gone ahead and changed the verbs in the rest of Songs and Reception, but of course feel free to further copy-edit the wording as you see fit. I also split the Notes section into colwidth=45em based on your suggestion. I don't have a strong opinion about the track listing, but I agree with you that if we remove it, some keen soul will probably add it back. Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources formatted consistently
Earwig's copyvio tool ok
Abbott 2002 used 4 times - article material faithful to source.
Albini 2002 used 15 times - article material faithful to source.

I am happy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cas Liber! Moisejp (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- @Sarastro1 and Brandt Luke Zorn: As things stand I'd say we have consensus to promote but I'm happy to leave this open a bit longer if you have any further comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've completed my copyedit at this time. Thank you to Moisejp for your patience as I slogged through this copyedit (it's my first week returning to law school and I have had only a little free time), and great job on this article overall. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandt Luke Zorn, thank you again so much for your excellent edits, as well as for your support, and for taking time from your busy schedule to improve the article! Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've had a look at the changes since I last looked at this, and they seem fine. Some of them I'm not sure are an improvement, but that is a matter of taste! I've done a couple of last tweaks but overall I'm happy to switch to full support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sarastro1, thank you so much for your support, and for all of the work you've put into helping improve the article! Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 4 September 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) 15:25, 9 September 2016 [49].

Yugoslav monitor Drava[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC) and 23 editor[reply]

This article is about a heavily armoured river monitor that saw extensive service with the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla during World War I and then briefly saw action with the Yugoslav Danube Flotilla during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. It is the last of four articles about Yugoslav river monitors to come to FAC. During the invasion she was persistently attacked by Stuka divebombers who scored several ineffective hits on her until one bomb went down her funnel into her engine room, killing most of her crew and sinking her. It successfully underwent Milhist A-Class review in August last year, and since then has been expanded and improved with a German language source. While we believe it meets the FA criteria, we are keen to get constructive suggestions about possible improvements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:River_monitor_Inn.png: the given US tag requires that the work "was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice" - was that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coments

  • Perhaps a link to the "assault on Belgrade" in which she participated.
  • The SMS Szamos that is mentioned doesn't have an article.
  • 30th Infantry Division Osiječka also doesn't have an article.
  • It is well written, and understandable While it shows much promise I believe it should not receive FA status until the above listed issues are dealt with. Iazyges (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I've added a couple of see also links to the WWI section to address your first point. A few redlinks are fine in a FA, I've had plenty of articles pass FA with redlinks, it is part of a developing encyclopedia. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first sentence in the article body is a bit hard to understand. "The name ship of the Enns-class river monitors was built". Perhaps make it clearer by saying "SMS Enns was constructed as the name ship of the Enns-class river monitors" or some such. Perhaps move the name ship fact down to "Despite the requirement that Enns and SMS Inn be constructed as sister ships" and add "with SMS Enns as the name ship".
  • Any source for footnote b?
  • I assume the sister ship is shown in the infobox because none could be found for the actual ship? Seems a bit strange that another ship would be shown there, however much alike. It would be like showing the brother of an actor because no pictures of the subject could be found...
  • "Namesake: Enns River" Why is this significant info not mentioned in the article body?
  • "The month after Enns was commissioned into the Danube Flotilla" Is that October 1914?
  • There is some double linking.
  • "Enns continued in action against Serbia and her allies at Belgrade until late December, when her base was withdrawn to Petrovaradin for the winter." What does the last "her" refer to here? A bit hard when you refer to both the ship and the country as "her" in the same sentence.
  • Important terms like "Ottomans" and "Central Powers" are not linked.
  • "With the dissolution of Austria-Hungary" Add date for context?
  • "but two of the successful anti-aircraft gunners were among the survivors" Perhaps name them, if possible?
  • "During the occupation of Yugoslavia." When and by who? Link?
    • Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I have addressed your comments, here are my edits, which I believe cover all your points except the issue of a citation for Note b. I believe that this isn't likely to be challenged, as it is the international standard for measuring the length of the barrel of a gun. The sister ship is in the infobox because I have been unable to find a free photograph of Enns. It is fairly common to do this with essentially identical ships, which is the case with this one, despite the fact they were made at different shipyards. I've had FAs promoted with a similar arrangement before. See Yugoslav submarine Nebojša for an example. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all my concerns have been nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • All cites are to reliable sources and all are formatted properly. I could find no statement without a citation that needed one. All appears to be in order. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "endangering the monitor's anchorage, with only Enns having the range to match the French guns". I am not clear what "only" means here, presumably that there other monitors present which did not have the range, but I think you need to clarify.
  • "newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (KSCS, later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia)" You have mentioned the new kingdom in the previous sentence. I suggest moving "(KSCS, later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia)" above and just using the initials here.
  • Looks fine. Just a couple of quibbles. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one seems to be ready. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments[edit]

I won't hold up promotion but a couple of things you might look at, PM:

  • You use "thirteen" in the lead but "13" in the last para -- there may be other inconsistencies in rendering numbers I didn't notice.
  • I think "dive bomber" (as in the WP article name) is more common than "divebomber" -- if all your sources happen to use the last rendering then I guess fair enough but certainly if there's a mix I think the former would be preferable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 9 September 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) 15:12, 9 September 2016 [50].

Chicago Pile-1[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it fascinating that you can pile rocks in a heap, and strange and wonderful things happen. Based on the science of neutrons, whose existence was demonstrated just ten years before, and which cannot be seen, only inferred. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN29-30: Atomic Heritage would be better described as the publisher rather than the author
  • FN75: university is the publisher, shouldn't be italicized. Also, this citation includes "The" in the name but FN105 does not - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The idea of chemical chain reactions was first put forth in 1913". "put forth" does not sound right to me. How about "suggested"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a situation in which two molecules react to form not just the molecules of the final reaction products, but also some unstable molecules which can further react with the parent molecules to cause more molecules to react." I see this is referenced to a Nobel Prize speech, but it still seems to me obscure, with "molecule" repeated 5 times in one sentence, and it is not obvious what "parent molecule" refers to. The OED definition at [51] "a chemical or nuclear reaction forming intermediate products which react with the original substance and are repeatedly renewed" is far clearer.
    Re-worded to "a situation in which two molecules react to form not just the the final reaction products, but also some unstable molecules which can further react with the parent molecules to cause more to react" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "neutron moderator" It might be helpful to explain that the moderator is needed (if I have understood correctly) to slow the neutrons down so that they are more likely to be absorbed by the uranium instead of escaping.
    Correct. Added words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am showing my ignorance but I find the timing fascinating. So they drew up the letter to Roosevelt just before war broke out on 1 September, and he approved the proposal shortly afterwards. Is it known when they first saw the project as a reply to the treat of a German nuclear bomb?
    Not for certain, but some time between January and July 1939. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " lending his fame to the proposal" "prestige" might be a better word.
    "prestige" is a great word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its first meeting on 21 October 1939, was attended by Szilard, Teller and Wigner, who persuaded the Army and Navy" Does "who" mean Wigner or the meeting?
    Mostly Wigner, but changed to "The scientists persuaded the Army and Navy" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a nuclear reactor, criticality is achieved when the rate of neutron production is equal to the rate of neutron losses, including both neutron absorption and neutron leakage. Thus, in the simplest case of a bare, homogeneous, steady state nuclear reactor, the neutron leakage and neutron absorption must be equal to neutron production in order to reach criticality." I do not understand this. You apppear to say here that production must equal losses, in the next paragraph that production must exceed losses (which seems logical).
    You don't want a runaway chain reaction, which would be an atomic bomb. So production needs to equal loss. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very interesting article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A fine article. However, I think "parent molecules" is confusing and "original substance" clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed accordingly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • shake, "clothesline", etc.: I'm not taking a position on the italics or quote marks, here and elsewhere.
  • "There was a fear of a catastrophic nuclear meltdown blanketing one of the United States' major urban areas in radioactive fission products": I'm not sure, but this sentence seems to fit more with the following paragraph than the one it's in.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • "In order for a chain reaction to occur, additional neutrons had to be emitted from fissioning uranium atoms": I think the point here is that unless more neutrons are emitted than absorbed from each reaction, the chain reaction can't get started because at anything less than 100% efficiency the reactions quickly die away to nothing. I know this is an article about the pile, not the theory, but I think a note at least is necessary to clarify this for readers unfamiliar with the idea. This would also clarify the phrase "neutron multiplication" later in the paragraph.
    Rephrased to "In order for a chain reaction to occur, fissioning uranium atoms had to emit additional neutrons to keep the reaction going" Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As a back-up plan, he also considered where to find a few tons of heavy water; deuterium would not absorb neutrons like ordinary hydrogen, and was a better moderator than carbon, but heavy water was difficult and expensive to produce": suggest " As a back-up plan, he considered heavy water (deuterium), which would not absorb neutrons like ordinary hydrogen, and was a better moderator than carbon, but heavy water was difficult and expensive to produce, and several tons of it would be needed" to eliminate "where to find", which I think is implied.
    Changed to: "As a back-up plan, he considered heavy water. This contained deuterium, which would not absorb neutrons like ordinary hydrogen, and was a better neutron moderator than carbon; but heavy water was expensive to produce and difficult to produce, and several tons of it might be needed." Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fermi determined that a fissioning uranium nucleus produced 1.73 neutrons on average": I see below that the modern estimate for this is 2.4. It might be worth giving that in a note, or else changing the language to make it clear that this was Fermi's estimate with state-of-the-art data as of 1939, not Fermi establishing the currently accepted number.
    Changed to estimated, and added a parenthetical comment about the number of neutrons per uranium-235 fission. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with whatever the MoS requirements are for unit conversion, so perhaps you're just constrained by the MoS, but it's a bit ugly to give tonnes, long tons, and short tons, for a single quantity, especially when it occurs twice in a sentence. I see at least one case where there are no unit conversions (towards the end of "origins"). Can't we just give one unit with a link?
    It's just the default. Changed to use only one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the neutron leakage and neutron absorption must be equal, on average": I don't follow this -- surely the requirement is that at least one emitted neutron is absorbed is the criticality requirement? Since the average number of emitted neutrons is 2.4, if 1.1 are absorbed and 1.3 leak, you have criticality, but leakage doesn't equal absorption. And isn't this the same as the discussion of k below? I think I must be missing something here.
    If it is less, then the reaction will die down. If it is more, then it will melt down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "migration area" and "unreflected" need either links or definitions, inline or in a note.
    Changed to "where M is the surface area and k is the average neutron multiplication factor" and linked neutron reflector. (If I had written it, I would have said "untamped") Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reaction power will increase slowly, with a long time constant, slow enough": since you're not presenting the math behind this, "time constant" doesn't really give the reader much, so I think you could cut this to "the reaction power will increase slowly enough".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nearby North Stands had a pair of ice skating rinks on the ground floor, which although unrefrigerated, seldom melted in winter": it's too easy to parse this so that "which" refers to the ground floor, so I'd suggest rephrasing. I'm also not clear why it's mentioned -- just to show that the location where the pile was built was extremely cold in winter? If so, I'd say that.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leona Woods completed her doctoral thesis and then was detailed to build boron trifluoride neutron detectors": suggest "Leona Woods was detailed to build boron trifluoride neutron detectors as soon as she completed her doctoral thesis".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The shake is only mentioned once; I think it should probably be relegated to a note.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some repetition of the discussion of the delayed neutrons and their importance to criticality. Can this be reduced? The later discussion is written as if the earlier discussion did not exist.
    Somebody added the earlier explanation. Cut it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- First pass completed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more point.

  • You have "criticality is achieved when the rate of neutron production is equal to the rate of neutron losses, including both neutron absorption and neutron leakage" and "the neutron leakage and neutron absorption must be equal, on average, to neutron production in order to remain critical" -- I don't think the second instance really does more than repeat the information in the first.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; just realized you haven't addressed a minor point above; I won't strike the support, but could you look at that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed that too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 1 September 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) 14:45, 9 September 2016 [52].

The Left Hand of Darkness[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ursula K. Le Guin's 1969 novel The Left Hand of Darkness. It is a seminal work of science fiction, and has been influential in other literature as well. I have rewritten this article entirely, gotten it through GAN, and sought additional opinions at PR. I believe it meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many scholarly works about it as possible, and synthesizing major themes from those. I look forward to hearing feedback. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado[edit]

This is a well-written and interesting article. A few comments:

  • Lead
  • Setting
    • the background idea of a common origin for all the humanoid species: expand a bit? There are other authors who have used this theme (Larry Ǹiven if I remember correctly, for example). You could alternatively do this in the Hainish universe themes section, where human expansion (subtly different) is mentioned.
      • I've taken a stab at elaborating this; let me know if this addresses your concern. I'm not trying to suggest that that thought experiment is unique, because it isn't.
        • That is now fine, but it is not really addressing my point (which I probably did not make clearly): the corresponding content in Hainish universe themes refers to "human expansion" and confuses the point by referring to Asimov's universe which was almost exclusively populated by humans of Earth origin. The Hainish universe themes content needs to be consistent with the Setting content. It will also be necessary to avoid mere repetition. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest I'm still not entirely sure I understand: both the Hainish cycle and Asimov's works involve human expansion, except that in the Hainish cycle humans evolve on Hain, and expand from there. What would you suggest? Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can leave this for a while, it is a relatively minor point. I will think further. --Mirokado (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reading this again, I think it is OK as it stands. --19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Reception
    • hugely positive critical responses: "overwhelmingly positive" would be better idiom.
      • done
    • The novel sold more than a million copies in English alone.: First-edition printings? in the first year? "has sold"?
      • This is strangely tricky; I've spent a lot of time searching, and it seems like nobody keeps track of how many copies of a book have been sold. Even trickier because this one has been issues in a number of editions. The information I have there is what a recent magazine article said, and it neglected to provide detail. I've tweaked the sentence a little to say "by 2014" which was when that article was published, and I'm going to keep trying for more detail.
    • Budrys: I suggest moving the sentence at the end of the paragraph after the first sentence so that all Budrys' comments are together.
      • done
  • Shifgrethor and communication
    • Eventually, the two are able to converse directly with mindspeech, but after Ai is able to understand Estraven's motivations, and no longer requires direct communication.: "but after" is not clear. Do you mean "after which" or "but only after"?
      • done. Yes, "but only after" is what it should have been.
  • Style and structure
    • The structure of the novel was unorthodox enough that it was initially confusing to reviewers, before it was interpreted as an attempt to follow the trajectory of Ai's changing views.: Is it possible to give examples, perhaps quotes, to illustrate what seems to be an important evolution of commentary? Do we know who first published the changed interpretation?
      • This is also rather difficult, because this "initial difficulty" is not from my own interpretation, but directly taken from Donna White's book; and she doesn't mention specific reviews, but points to a general trend (ie its her own analysis, based on many reviews). Would it help if I stated that in so many words, or alternatively excised that sentence?
        • Please don't remove the information, it illustrates the ground-breaking nature of the novel. An inline attribution to White (similar to "Darko Suvin, one of the first academics to study science fiction, stated that ...") would be fine. --Mirokado (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tweaked it; take a look.
            • Thanks, this is clear now and you have avoided the rather clumsy "unorthodox enough". You could tighten the text a bit by avoiding some repetition: "Writing in 1999, literary scholar Donna White stated that this unorthodox structure meant that ...". Please also have a look through the article for occurrences of "stated", it is getting overused. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're quite right. I've tweaked that sentence, and replaced many instances of "stated." Let me know if it's still excessive.

I will add a few open comments and questions, I hope tomorrow. --Mirokado (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupted today: I will post some more later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirokado: just wondering if you had had the time to take another look at this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I had a "rather hectic" week, I hope to comment further this weekend. --Mirokado (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RL happens. No worries; looking forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the article again.

  • lead (arrr, Background):
    • a term which she got from her father: "got" is a bit colloquial, how about "a term coined by her father"?
      • Done (not in the lead, fyi)
  • 80 or 81?:
    • and the pair begin an 80-day trek ... During their 81-day journey ...: use either the approximation or the exact figure in both places?
      • Approximate is better: done.
  • Estraven:
    • Convention required that they separated after they had produced a child together; however, because of the first vow, the vow he makes with Ashe Foreth, which also is broken before the events in Left Hand, ...': several problems here:
      • since the second vow was before the events in Left Hand, we probably need past tense here as for "they separated" earlier,
        • done
      • Ashe Foreth is only mentioned here, either just mention "a second vow with another partner" or explain briefly who Ashe Foreth is,
        • I'm not certain how to handle this, because Ashe is not very important to the story (he has no role besides Estraven's partner) but is a named character in the adaptation described below, so removing him seems a little odd. I've changed it to "a second vow with Ashe Foreth, another partner"; do you have a better suggestion?
        • This is now OK, well done (I searched for "Foreth" and did not notice the later "Ashe").
      • I would write "which was also ..." rather than "which also was ..." (word order, after taking account of the tense change).
        • done
  • References:
    • The 30em columns for the short notes are a bit wide: 24em looks OK and would allow for any slightly longer note line later on.
      • done

The following remarks are not absolutely requesting any change, but I will welcome either a change or your comment justifying the current text.

  • Setting:
    • were the subjects of genetic experiments, including on Gethen. ... Winter is, as its name indicates, a planet that is always cold.: If I remember correctly (I read the book in the early seventies and it is now hiding somewhere in a box), the genetic modification on Gethen had something to do with an adaptation for survival in the cold climate. If the motivation for the genetic modification is indeed mentioned in the novel, we could include it here.
      • Actually I'm not sure that this is the case. I've skimmed the novel and the sources again, and nowhere can I see something that suggests the experiments were specifically for cold adaptation. Indeed the following passage, which is the one most directly relevant, suggests otherwise: "From field notes of Ong Tot Oppong, Investigator, of the first Ekumenical landing party on Gethen/ Winter, Cycle 93 E.Y. 1448.

day 81. It seems likely that they were an experiment. The thought is unpleasant. But now that there is evidence to indicate that the Terran Colony was an experiment, the planting of one Hainish Normal group on a world with its own proto-hominid autochthones, the possibility cannot be ignored. Human genetic manipulation was certainly practiced by the Colonizers; nothing else explains the hilfs of S or the degenerate winged hominids of Rokanan; will anything else explain Gethenian sexual physiology? Accident, possibly; natural selection, hardly. Their ambisexuality has little or no adaptive value. Why pick so harsh a world for an experiment? No answer. Tinibossol thinks the Colony was introduced during a major Interglacial. Conditions may have been fairly mild for their first 40 or 50,000 years here. By the time the ice was advancing again, the Hainish Withdrawal was complete and the Colonists were on their own, an experiment abandoned." (TLHoD, Chapter 7, first page. Pg. 117 in my edition).

Thank you for your thorough response. Clearly I was incorrect! Perhaps I imagined extra details while daydreaming about the story.
  • Plot summary
    • the pair begin an 80-day trek across the Gobrin ice sheet: this is the part of the novel which I still remember, with the dramatic battle against the cold and their isolation forcing Ai and Estraven to confront the sexuality issue. Those two aspects could be included here (the following "Over the journey Ai and Estraven learn to trust and accept one another's differences." doesn't do justice to the impact of that part of the story).
      • This is a good point, but once again, I hesitate. This is just because the plot summary is already rather extensive. Now I could trim another part of it, or just extend this: if you believe it necessary, I will do so. Vanamonde (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would quite like a change here, but that is in the realm of "minor improvement" rather than "correction" and can be dealt with at leisure as part of normal editing. --Mirokado (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to raise the handling of the feminist reactions, but you and Wehwalt have covered that below, and on second reading I think the paragraph is OK. I have also not been able to think of any better way of handling the "human expansion" issue I was worrying about above, so I've struck that bit now. --Mirokado (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt responses. It is a pleasure to support this article, which improves our coverage of influential works of science fiction. --Mirokado (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'm a bit pressed for time right now, so this will be catch as catch can. My standard quibbles (Part I):

  • The second lede paragraph seems to me to get bogged down in detail which the reader coming fresh on the subject may not appreciate (I've read the book, and most of Le Guin's stuff, but not for 35 years). Possibly begin with saying it's in the Haimish universe, say briefly what that is (the humans on the various seeded planets is one possibility) and go on with the plot. Obviously you need to mention the cycle and the placement in it is good detail, but I might put it later in the lede.
  • I've shuffled some sentences. Does this help?
  • Can you explain why part of the lede is sourced, and some not?
  • Those parts of the lede that are directly from the references (such as the quote from Bloom) I have sourced; those things that are my summary of sourced material from the body (such as the second halves of lede paras 2 and 3) I haven't, because they cannot be sourced to a small set of pages in a single reference like the rest can.
  • "a native of Earth (referred to as "Terra" in the novel)" I would simply put "a native of Terra" and link to Earth, omitting the parenthetical.
  • done
  • "the theme of religion, by contrasting the two major religions" I would change one or other to "faith" (s).
  • done
  • I would lead the final lede paragraph with the info "received a highly positive response from reviewers." to try to keep things chronological.
  • done
  • "In addition to the Hugo and Nebula awards," This is a bit of a repetition of paragraph 1, so I might recast it as "In addition to being voted the Hugo and Nebula awards by fans and writers, respectively," or some such. It flows easier into the poll, which is another fan action.
  • good point, done
  • " In 1987, Locus ranked it second " was this another poll?
  • Yes, it was. Do I need to adjust the wording to make it clearer?
  • I guess it's clear enough, from context.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "Le Guin's father Alfred Louis Kroeber was an anthropologist, and the exposure that this gave Le Guin influenced all of her works." maybe "experience" for "exposure"?
  • done
  • "the Vietnam war " caps?
  • done
  • "These sympathies can be seen in several of her works of fiction, including the Hainish universe works." I'm not sure what the last word is doing.
  • "Including works in the Hainish universe" is what it's trying to say, but it came out dreadfully clunky. I've tweaked the sentence. It's an interesting point that since the Hainish series contains novels, novellas, and short stories, none of those terms can be used to describe all of them collectively...hence "works".
  • The last paragraph of Background contains the term "science fiction" four times, and also contains sentences containing quotes that ought to be cited immediately after that sentence, our usual practice with quotations.
  • I've modified this sentence
  • "Some of these groups that "seeded" each planet" As you have not mentioned any such groups previously, "these" should be "the"
  • done
  • "Explorers from Hain as well as other planets use interstellar ships taking years to travel" I might make clearer that the ships do not travel faster than light.
  • Modified this too.
  • "At least two "thought experiments" are used in each novel." You seem to be going from the general, to the specific, back to the general again. Maybe part of the paragraph beginning above should be moved to be with other text speaking about the Hainish works generally.
  • Hmm, I'm a little hesitant about this, because I see that entire paragraph as pertaining the series as a whole; the mention of Left Hand is only incidental (so I could not mention it there?) I can't see an easy way to move that content around.
  • "Commentators have suggested the year 4870 AD, based on extrapolation of events in other works, and commentary on her writing by Le Guin" constant comment
  • done
More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Back again
  • Gethen's division into two nations might be worth mentioning early on in the plot summary
  • done
  • "an art practiced by the foretellers to prove the uselessness of knowing the right answer to the wrong question." I would cut "by the foretellers" as this really adds no info and the word is used a sentence or so later.
  • done
  • "and tells Ai that he was responsible for Ai's presence in Orgoreyn." well, maybe responsible for the invitation.
  • done
  • "He is called "Genry" by the Karhiders, who have trouble pronouncing the letter "L" in their language" I might cut "in their language" as, after all, Genly's name is not part of their language.
  • True. done
  • "shifgrethor and gender roles and Gethenian sexuality" why the multiple ands?
  • because I probably wrote the sentence twice :) fixed
  • Why is the last sentence of Genly's character description in the past tense?
  • done
  • "In contrast to Ai, Estraven is shown with both stereotypically male and female qualities, and used to demonstrate that they are both necessary for survival." I think you need an "is" before "used".
  • done
  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order.
  • done
  • "prime-ministers" It's stylistic, but I really don't see why the hyphen
  • done
  • "he regularly makes speeches on the radio against Orgoreyn" I might cut the last two words and insert "belligerent" before "speeches".
  • done
  • " knowing that Estraven and Ai's presence in Karhide mean his own downfall;" I think this has to be "means" rather than "mean".
  • done
  • "who wish to cease hostilities and reopen trade with Karhide." Given you've just called them the "open trade" faction, I think this could be shortened to "who wish to normalize relations with Karhide".
  • done
  • Your capitalization of "Open trade" vs. "open trade" seems inconsistent.
  • It's "Open Trade" in the original; I've fixed it throughout.
  • "Hugo award" why no cap when you do for Nebula?
  • done
  • "determined by science fiction fans" to avoid the sf repetition, I would say "voted by the fans"
  • this is the only time I use this sentence, thanks to the tweak above.
  • I was struck by your lower casing of all but the first word in Locus's title, and looked ahead to the bibliography. While I gather you are in theory lower casing all but the first word and proper nouns in the titles of short works and using title capitalization for books, you aren't consistent (compare R. Reid with the books listed in the Further Reading section, and in Watson, why is "Role" capped?). Also, while we are down here, all books should have the publisher and location in the citation. Also, "The Oregonian" needs to be italicized. (I'll do the source review) (by the way, I would shorten the in-text reference to simply "Locus". There's a link if the reader's unfamiliar with it
  • Sort of done. What I have tried to do with the citations is to reproduce the original title, so as to respect the capitalization choices made by those authors. I missed that in a couple of places, but I think I have everything now. I've added isbns and locations; the only issue is that locations are not easily available for some of the books. I've added the publishing headquarters as "location" for now, and am digging deeper. Italics and link fixed
  • "The Paris Review" (in reception section) italics?
  • done
  • The reception section seems a bit one-sided. Those who did not like it are consigned to one named person, a couple of categories (such as "feminists") and are immediately swept away by the authorial voice. If the sources will allow, possibly a bit more on the naysaying side, with names and quotes. After all, there was a "debate".
  • This might be tricky. I've tried to add all the substantive criticism I could find, but essentially all of it is of the "she didn't go far enough" variety. Overall, there is very little criticism of the novel. The "debate" occurred mostly among feminist reviewers, and I don't believe there is much of substance to add. However, I certainly might have used an authorial voice that's too strong; if you have suggestions about that, I'm happy to hear them.
  • The sources are what they are, then. I think it's OK as is.
  • "who displays steadily more androgynous behavior over the course of the novel, becoming more patient and caring, and less rationalist" I'm not sure this is phrased in the most understandable way.
  • tweaked this; take a look
  • Looks OK.
  • "The Gethenians are also not inclined to go to war," yet they've got a border conflict which is one of the big plot-movers.
  • true; but the border conflict is a) the exception that proves the rule, and b) not "war" in the conventional sense; the two sides never actually carry out more than "forays" (raids) into enemy territory.
  • "Bloom adds that this is the major difference between Estraven and Ai, and allows Estraven the freedom to carry out actions that Ai cannot" like?
  • done. A strange sentence from Bloom, so I've quoted him.
  • I also note that the retrieval dates are stated as day month year. Why?
  • I believe this is the default in many of our citation templates (such as the "cite" drop down menu in the edit window, which has the option to insert today's date under "access date.") It is also the standard outside the US. If you feel it important, I can change this all to month-day-year, but honestly I'd rather not).
I don't think the book is particularly associated with the US so I don't think it's worth the trouble to change it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will finish soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully finishing
  • "is shown as increasing loyalty to the two countries while decreasing loyalty to the planet as a whole" possibly "is shown as increasing nationalism, making it hard for those in each country to view themselves as citizens of the planet".
  • done
  • "explored through the persons of lone individuals on alien planets" suggest "experiences" for "persons"
  • done
  • I would move the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Loyalty" section elsewhere. You begin the second paragraph with "this conflict" but you've somewhat diverted from the theme to discuss a related one, so "this conflict" is no longer immediately at hand, rendering the "this" a bit dubious.
  • done
  • " Genly Ai tells Argaven after Estraven's death that the latter served mankind as a whole, just as Ai did" It is unclear from the sentence itself which of the three named persons is the "latter" ("last"?)
  • done
  • "During the border dispute with Orgoreyn, Estraven tries to end the dispute by moving Karhidish farmers out of the disputed territory. Estraven believed that by preventing war he was saving Karhidish lives and being loyal to his country, while King Argaven saw it as a betrayal." Why the shift in tense?
  • done
  • "in marked contrast to the (primarily male-authored) science fiction of the time, which was straightforward and linear" by 1969? That seems an overly flat statement to say about the era of, say, Vonnegut and Ellison (I mean the "straightforward and linear" bit. Ten or more years previously, I wouldn't be inclined to quibble. Similarly, the following sentence makes the reviewers appear awfully naive considering it's the same year as Slaughterhouse-Five.
  • I've rewritten this sentence to say "traditional science fiction" rather than "of the time;" Vonnegut may have been a contemporary, but he was equally unorthodox. Is that okay?
  • "In this sense, the novel can be thought of as a Bildungsroman, or coming of age story, as the reader experiences the central character's growth.[55] Since the novel is presented as Ai's journey of transformation, Ai's position as the narrator increases the credibility of the story." I wonder if the part "as the reader ... growth" could not be safely deleted. I really don't see anything in there that isn't implied in what's around it.
  • done
  • "in commemoration of her then-recent 85th birthday" this feels a bit awkward. Maybe "in honor of her 85th birthday" is enough.
  • done
  • Source review to follow. I'll wait until you're ready, I gather you're still looking at one or two things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt; actually, you're welcome to go on with the source review. Apart from the points you just added (which I will address shortly) I have fixed and/or responded to everything, I believe. A couple might need further attention from you, as I was either unable to find a solution or reluctant to change for reasons I've provided. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will review those.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • You are inconsistent between USA and U.S.A. in the references.
  • fixed
That's all I see. Otherwise all sources seem encyclopedic and are appropriately and consistently cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any great reason to change the date format just to make work. I'm a little more troubled by the caps issue in the refs. Those works had their own style guides, and we have ours.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I believe I have addressed all the points you have raised; if there are further issues, let me know. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What did you do about the titles? That's really the only thing left.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt: Um. Forgot, apologies. I think I've brought it in line with this. Is that okay? Is there another guideline I should be following? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's the one I was thinking of. All looks good on the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: thanks for the support. Since you asked, I actually managed to find a slightly more critical review (still a feminist criticism, though). I've added a couple of sentences; I hope this helps with the issue highlighted above. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work. Thank you for bearing with me, as long as it took.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have time to do a review at the moment, but I'm glad to see this come to FAC. I pulled the Magill Survey of SF Literature off my shelves and had a look at the entry for this; it's by Richard D. Erlich, and I can email you a scan if you like. He cites several source that you don't mention; were you able to consult these?

  • Bickman, Martin, "Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness, in SF Studies IV (1977)
  • Ketterer, David, "The Left Hand of Darkness, in Riverside Quarterly V (April 1973)
  • Slusser, George E., The Farthest Shores of Ursula K. Le Guin (Borgo, 1976).

He also lists five reviews: Library Journal (6/15/70), F&SF (11/69), Publisher's Weekly (1/27/69), Times Literary Supplement (1/8/70), and Top of the News (Jan 70). The ISFDB lists a great many more reviews, but these include some mainstream reviews that are likely to be of more general interest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: I would love to have a scan of that entry, even just to satisfy my own curiosity. I looked through the Slusser source, and I have come across the others as well. I have quoted Slusser's piece, though I didn't use it extensively: I have not used the others. It was not that I deliberately chose to exclude these sources; rather, there has been such a vast amount of work on this particular volume, that there was no way I could get everything. So, I did my best to a) consult the best known works, and b) try and get some representativeness in terms of when the sources were published. Erlich's survey was published in 1979, ten years after the novel: in the nearly 40 years since then, a lot more work has been published, and the commentary has evolved over time, as well. This is partly why I chose Donna White's 1999 volume, which looks at the history of critical commentary. If you feel that any of these studies was seminal enough that it must be included, I could try to do that. Regardless, I think I will add Erlich's entry to the further reading section. I hope this addresses your concerns. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think a professional reviewing the reviews is superior to what we can do with it, as it is a professional choosing what is significant.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; just wanted to see if any of the cited material was of interest. Vanamonde93, send me a Wikipedia email and I'll reply with the scanned pages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GwydionM[edit]

I'd rate it as a good article. Sorry I don't have time for detailed comments just now. --GwydionM (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GwydionM: no worries, but do you mean a good article in the Wikipedia sense or in the generic sense? Vanamonde (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Two files currently used in the article:

  • File:TheLeftHandOfDarkness1stEd.jpg: Non-free book cover, which is the correct licensing given the lack of evidence of freeness and the age of the book in question. It has one superfluous non-free use rationale for an article it isn't used in. Seems like each point of WP:NFCC is adequately explained in the rationale (a book cover is hardly substantial enough to violate WP:NFCC#2 in any case) and the criteria themselves met - it may be worth downsizing further but that is something for editorial discretion.
  • File:Ursula K Le Guin.JPG: Free image, seems like illustrating the author in the section of the background is pertinent enough. Odd camera model. Copies on the web are either more recent or of smaller resolution. No indication of anything improper, other than the odd camera model. Wonder where the caption is sourced from, and where the photo was taken.

Both files need WP:ALTTEXT for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've added alt text. Thanks for the review. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Might want to duplicate the caption in the alt of the second image, rather than merely "refer to caption". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jo-Jo Eumerus: I had done that based on WP:ALTTEXT, but I'm not particular, so I've changed it as you suggested. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the superfluous second fair-use rationale for the first image - it can be easily restored, if the usage ever changes again. GermanJoe (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments below as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two to complete the review.

  • What's the thinking behind having some but not all of the lead cited? Nothing that's cited seems particularly controversial; I think you could probably drop all the citations except for the direct quote from Bloom.
    • It's nothing too significant: where a single citation supports a specific statement, I've cited it, because I've had too many experiences with people who do not understand the relevant guideline removing stuff saying "uncited." Where the text is my own summary of content summarized from below, I haven't cited anything. If it's bothersome, I can take them out.
      No, that's fine; just wanted to understand the approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have quotes around "best novel" in the lead, which I think looks a little odd. The title of the award the book won is "Best Novel", and just giving it in caps would avoid the need for quotes.
  • I don't much like "creates a large barrier for Ai" -- "large" doesn't seem a natural adjective here, and I also think we need to tell the reader what it's a barrier to -- assimilation? Understanding? Success in Ai's mission?
    • Replaced with "barrier of understanding." Is that better? That's what the sources suggest. I could also leave out the barrier and say "and makes it difficult for Ai to understand the planet's inhabitants."
      Definitely better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many of the protagonists of Le Guin's novels, such as The Left Hand of Darkness and Rocannon's World, are also anthropologists or social investigators of some kind": suggest "The protagonists of many of Le Guin's novels, such as..."; as it stands this parses incorrectly, as "protagonists such as".
    • done
  • It's difficult when repeating critics' opinions to avoid using "stated", but it's one of the most over-used ways of doing this. Instead of "Douglas Barbour stated", I think more natural options would be "According to DB,", "DB has argued", or "DB sees the fiction of the Hainish Universe as containing..." There are other examples later in the article -- thirteen, in total. Anything you can do to reduce this would help.
    • True, it's still excessive. I've cut a few.
      I did a draft rewrite of the reception section, but it's really too much for this review page so I'll post it at the article talk page and we can discuss it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason to use "Lev" instead of the more usual (in English) "Leo" for Tolstoy?
    • done. I think it came from the source, but wikipedia uses the english variant, so I've changed it.
  • "...those in the Hainish universe. The novels of the Hainish universe...": rephrase to avoid the repetition.
    • done: replaced one with "cycle".
  • You mention the Hainish universe before you explain it. I don't think there's any way to avoid mentioning it before the "Setting" section, so I think a very short parenthetical definition would be good on first use, and then a slight rephrasing at the start of the "Settings" section to acknowledge that this is not a new term, as you give a more detailed explanation for the reader.
  • I see why you call Left Hand an alternative history, and link to that article, but is that a term the sources use? I don't recall ever seeing the book described that way. Usually the term is reserved for cases where it is made clear that something different happened in the past, causing the timelines to diverge. I think most readers would treat the Hainish origin of humanity as simply part of the science-fictional premise of the book, not as a marker that it belongs to the alternative history sub-genre. However, if the sources are consistent on this, we should echo them.
    • IIRC I took this from a source, but I can see what you're saying, too. I've unlinked it because it is not an important element of the novel's genre. If you feel it important, I can change to "fictional history".
      I went ahead and made the change you suggested and have struck the comment; I think "alternative history" has too much freight for some readers for it to be a good choice here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I haven't read the sources, please feel free to respond to my questions about terminology by saying that's what the sources use. Here's another: you use "thought experiments" to describe what I'm used to seeing called "premises". "Thought experiments" to me encompasses more than a premise; it includes the implications and working out of consequences, which I think is more than you intend here.
  • Suggest linking "stasis" to stasis (fiction).
    • done
  • Since the novel is the implied source for the plot, I don't think you require citations everywhere in the plot section, but can you explain why you have citations covering nearly all the text in the that section? Any reason not to make it 100%, or else to remove them? The same comment applies to the "Primary characters" section.
    • Once again, this is because some things are very obviously and directly supported by pages in the novel, others are a summary of longer sections. Essentially, I've cited where I can do so easily.
      Good enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...dictated by shifgrethor an intricate set of unspoken social rules and formal courtesy, which Ai does not understand, contributing to his distrust of Estraven": I don't think I completely get what this sentence is saying. What is it about shifgrethor that leads to Ai's distrust of Estraven, exactly?
    • Ai's lack of understanding of Shifgrethor. Is that unclear? I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase this, perhaps you could help me out.
      My copy's in a box or I'd go re-read it, but what I'm trying to ask is: How does his failure to understand shifgrethor contribute to his distrust of Estraven? Does Ai distrust Estraven because he is judging Estraven's behaviour by his earth social norms, including heterosexual, or at least bi-gendered, norms, and doesn't realize that some of Estraven's behaviour is governed by his adherence to the rules of shifgrethor (if "rules" is the word I want)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, here's one of the relevant quotes: "Nothing succeeds like success. I don't trust Estraven, whose motives are forever obscure; I don't like him; yet I feel and respond to his authority as surely as I do to the warmth of the sun." But there are others as well, where he complains about "effeminate intrigue" and so forth; so it is connected to gender, but not always explicitly. I've added a little bit of detail: it now reads "The behavior of people in Karhide is dictated by shifgrethor, an intricate set of unspoken social rules and formal courtesy. Ai does not understand this system, thus making it difficult for him to understand Estraven's motives, and contributing to his distrust of Estraven." Is that better?
        Yes, I think that's much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest putting "knowing the right answer to the wrong question" in quotes, and citing it, to avoid having it in Wikipedia's voice.
    • done
      Any reason why you cut "right"? It's in the source, isn't it? And I think it works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually it's not. I thought it was, too, until I checked earlier today. In any case I've tweaked it a little because I realized I could incorporate more of the quote. The full line goes "To exhibit the perfect uselessness of knowing the answer to the wrong question."
        Yes, that's better. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent to a far-northern work camp to meet his death by cold, labor, and sterilizing drugs": my copy is in a box, so I can't check, but this makes it sound as if the Sarf intended the sterilizing drugs to be one of the agents of Ai's death, which doesn't square with my recollections. Can you confirm this is right?
    • Well I guess the intentionality is a little suspect there, because they never state this explicitly. Here is a relevant passage, describing the state of the prisoners: "I took this lifelessness and leveling at first for the effect of the privation of food, warmth, and liberty, but I soon found out that it was more specific an effect than that: it was the result of the drugs given all prisoners to keep them out of kemmer." Is it necessary to change the wording a little?
      Yes, it was the intentionality I was wondering about. How about "sent to a far-northern work camp where he suffers harsh cold, is forced into hard labor, and is given debilitating drugs intended to prevent kemmer. His captors expect him to die in the camp, but to Ai's great surprise..." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Estraven believes that the very appearance of Ai in Karhide will force its acceptance of the Ekumen treaty": can you add a few words on why Estraven believes this?
    • I'm a little hesitant only because the explanation is a little complex. It's something like "Orgoreyn has claimed Ai to be dead, but when Ai turns up in Karhide it allows Argaven to demonstrate that Orgoreyn is fibbing, and therefore increases Argaven's prestige; but to do that he must accept Ai." I wonder if there is a concise way to phrase this.
      I'll think about it but I can see why you hesitate; it's complicated. Perhaps it doesn't need to be there. If I can come up with a good way to say this I'll come back to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few sentences later you refer to Estraven's prediction, but include Estraven's death in the clause; perhaps "Estraven's prediction is borne out when Ai's presence in Karhide, along with the fallout of Estraven's death..."
  • "attempting to assuage the Sinnoth Valley dispute with Orgoreyn": I don't think you can assuage a dispute. How about "resolve", or "settle"?
    • done
  • The reception section feels a little listy; in places it seems little more than a recitation of a series of critical opinions. These sections are hard to weave into a narrative, and in fact you do this well in several places, but I think a bit more needs to be done.
  • "turned her back on opportunity for experimentation": perhaps "on an opportunity" or "on opportunities" would be better?
    • done
  • "Le Guin's works set in the Hainish universe explore the idea of human expansion, similar to the future history novels of other science-fiction authors such as Isaac Asimov": suggest "Le Guin's works set in the Hainish universe explore the idea of human expansion, a theme found in the future history novels of other science-fiction authors such as Isaac Asimov", and then start the next sentence with "The Hainish novels".
    • done
  • Is the "Light is the left hand of darkness" poem laid out like a poem in the book? If so, I'd suggest giving it the same linebreaks as the book does in the blockquote.
    • yes, it is. Good point. done
  • You go back and forth between using present tense and past tense for critical comments: "Douglas Barbour said", but "Suzanne Reid states"; I think present tense is usually better for this but at least be consistent.
    • I prefer past, to be honest: but thanks for flagging those. I've tried to make it consistent.
    • done, I think
      Just one left that I can see: "Bloom adds..." You do have the sentences in the criticism sections that refer to Le Guin in the present tense -- e.g. "Le Guin seems to suggest..." -- but I think that's unavoidable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • done
  • "Le Guin suggests that this focus on positives": it's not clear whether this is her later commentary, or third-party critical analysis of the book itself.
    • It's third party analysis, but it's a third party saying "Le Guin portrays..." or something to that effect: so I've changed it to "the novel suggests."
  • "the various Gethenian nations": suggest just "two" rather than "various".
    • Actually, his mission is to all the nations, and there's quite a few. There's a few quotes mentioning this, but these are the most explicit: ""You,‘" Slose repeated, leaning forward intensely: "Does that mean Orgoreyn? or does it mean Gethen as a whole?" I hesitated a moment, for it was not the question I had expected. "Here and now, it means Orgoreyn. But the contract cannot be exclusive. If Sith, or the Island Nations, or Karhide decide to enter the Ekumen, they may. It's a matter of individual choice each time." and later "Heo Hew and three others had taken one and flown over to Sith and the Archipelago, nations of the Sea Hemisphere which I had entirely neglected."
    Right; I'd forgotten about them. I think I was thrown off by "Karhide is one of two major nations on Gethen, the other being Orgoreyn" in the plot section; I read it as "one of the two nations". I'll strike this comment, but you might consider a footnote from the earlier point saying something like "Le Guin mentions other minor nations on Gethen but they do not figure in the action of the novel". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • done
  • "This conflict is demonstrated by the varying loyalties of the main characters": might be better as "These conflicts", since otherwise it only refers to the Karhide/Orgoreyn conflict, which I don't think is the intended meaning.
    • true. done
  • "This demonstrates Le Guin's portrayal of loyalty and betrayal as complementary rather than contradictory": "demonstrates" is a bit clunky, and you used it just a couple of sentences earlier. How about "His decision is an example of Le Guin's portrayal of loyalty and betrayal as complementary rather than contradictory".
    • I like it. done
  • "A related theme that runs through Le Guin's work is that of being rooted or rootless in society, explored through the experiences of lone individuals on alien planets": this is not really connected to anything else in the section it's in. Can it be better integrated, and made part of the discussion?
    • When I wrote it I thought it connected somewhat to loyalty, but now it doesn't really seem that way. I'm not sure there's a good way to integrate it, a) because the source doesn't go into it in any depth, and b) it's a very general comment about her work, rather than about this novel. The content that comes closest to it thematically is up in the background which discusses the anthropologists. I could remove it, I suppose, unless you have any bright ideas. It is not critical.
  • "describes shifgrethor as "this status is not rank, but its opposite": suggest cutting "this status" from the quoted text.
    • done
  • Did Phobos Entertainment ever do anything with their rights?
    • not that I am aware of, and I checked when I wrote it, but I'll check again.
    • Checked: there's nothing on the web since that announcement, except for an unreliable source saying "it seems to have stalled since then."
  • hy is "novels" in quotes in note b?
    • It was because it was "novels" as the poll chose to define them, but that's unnecessary nitpicking on my part, so I've removed the quotes.

-- I've completed a first pass; the points above are generally pretty minor and I think the article is close to FAC quality. I'll read through again once these points are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is FA quality. I can attest to the reliability of the sources, but have not checked formatting or done any spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Support.
  • Do the cited sources specifically use the term "sequentially hermaphroditic" or is this something Wikipedia discovered?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • IIRC it is not explicitly in any of the sources. I did not add this, it was in the article previously, and I didn't change it because it seemed to me at the time to be an accurate descriptor. Having better understood what sequential hermaphrodity means in RL, I think the thoroughly sourced "ambisexual" should be good enough.
  • In my years on Wikipedia, I have always thought that the near-ban on wikilinking terms within direct quotes was quite senseless. But since I have to follow the rules: Do we have a problem with 'Instead, she called it a "thought experiment,"'? Or maybe we should remove the quotes around every instance?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I wasn't even aware of this rule. It doesn't make too much sense to me, but here's a compromise. Several reviewers have also used the term, which is why uses that are not meant to be Le Guin's words are not in quotes. So I've gone ahead and linked the second use, which is not perfect, but perhaps better than removing the link, which is an important one.
  • I'm happy that the lede mentions the theme of loyalty and betrayal, but I think it is a bit underemphasized there, since it assumes nearly equal importance with gender, and is in fact intertwined with it in organic ways, e.g., "The theme of loyalty and trust is related to the novel's other major theme of gender".  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted this slightly: is this better?
    • @Lingzhi: I've addressed all your concerns, I believe. Could you take a look, soon as you're able? Vanamonde (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vanamonde93: Please review my changes. Congrats on an excellent article.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Lingzhi: I'm okay with most of your changes, but there are a couple of things that I'm going to rephrase: first, I think calling the other themes "secondary" is a bit of problem, because nobody else does so. Second, her description of what a thought experiment does is generic, not specific to this case, so I might reorder that. Otherwise, thanks for the copy-edit, it's an improvement. Vanamonde (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I wondered at the time whether the quote was about all sf or just hers, but I read it incorrectly. As for "secondary", I got it from the article itself further below: "Le Guin wrote that the theme of gender was only secondary to the novel's primary theme of loyalty and betrayal." But changing it is probably the best thing, I agree... and finally I wonder whether we should put   between "Le" and "Guin", or {{nowrap}} around them, but that is a trivial detail. Congrats again!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth[edit]

Briefly, I've been looking at some of the sources that discuss the critical reception of this work, and I noticed that Spivack (1984) has a fair amount to say on this, which isn't really covered in the Wikipedia article as it currently stands. Does the meta-review of the criticism by White (1999) say much about Spivack's views? I found the following in Spivack's work:

Critical reception of The Left Hand of Darkness displayed a tension of opposites appropriate to the novel. Winner of both the Hugo and the Nebula awards and reviewed in major journals, it was clearly acknowledged as a major work. At the same time, however, a debate raged as to its overall success.

I don't get this impression from what is currently in the Wikipedia article. Was that view held just by Spivack, and have views changed since then? I also noticed some sources commenting on Stanislaw Lem's (critical) views on the work (such as his essay 'Lost Opportunities') - should those be included? See something like this for more: Essay: The critical reception of Ursula K. Le Guin's "Left Hand of Darkness". It is a blog, but it provides its sources. I get that there is a lot that could be said, and it is not possible to cover everything, but how was it decided what to include and what not to include? It feels like what is currently in the article is a summary of a much wider body of criticism, with some things left out. How does the reader know that this is an accurate and authoritative summary of the history and state of criticism of this work? Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: let me take a stab at answering your question, and we'll see where that takes us. Before that, full disclosure: while I relied heavily upon White while writing the article and through the many review processes, I no longer have immediate access to the book. If it turns out that it is absolutely critical, then I can make an effort to get it. That said: when I first began rewriting this this article, I tried to get hold of and read as many sources about it as I could. These included a number of analyses of the books itself, as well as a couple of meta-analyses, of which Donna White's was by far the most recent and most thorough. However, when actually writing, I have left out many of those analyses because in my view they are far too esoteric for a 5000-word article on the subject (works like "Aliens, androgynes, and anthropology: Le Guin's critique of representation in The Left Hand of Darkness"). These included many of the essays in Bloom's anthology. I tried to use the best written sources of the remainder to build the article, and as I said to Mike Christie above, I have tried to use sources well spread out in time. Finally, I have tried to include every significant theme among reviewers. Now there are somewhere between 500 and 2000 scholarly works mentioning the subject, and heaven alone knows how many reviews in the popular press: so I cannot be certain that I have ever fairly represented them all. I will say, though, that I would be quite surprised if you can find a major theme or criticism that I have not included. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically with respect to Spivack's comment, there is a straightforward explanation: Spivack wrote in 1984, and criticism has evolved in the 30 years since. White points to this tendency (specifically with respect to the novel's structure) in a statement that is in the article, and you can also see a more general trend in the rest of the literature. Also, it is true that a fair number of people have criticized the novel: yet all of the criticism I could find is the feminist critique mentioned in the article. See the above discussion with Wehwalt. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. I thought it might be something like that. Do you think there are sufficient sources and meta-sources out there that a spin-off article specifically on the reception of this work might be useful, with a summary in this article? I am asking because the process of selecting what to include and what to exclude is largely invisible to the reader. Is there a way to get across that what is in the article is only a summary of a large body of criticism and academic analysis, and is there a way to state the extent (in size and over time) of that body of criticism and analysis? And then maybe point the reader to further reading on the topic (in the absence of a spin-off article)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: that's an interesting question, and not one I've really considered before. There is certainly plenty of material for such an article; there are, after all, entire books written about it. I'm less certain of whether such an article would be accepted on Wikipedia: after all, the issue of tons of scholarly coverage is certainly not limited to this book, yet I'm unaware of analogous articles for these. One example which came to mind is To Kill a Mockingbird (Also an FA) which has a much larger reception section than this one: but large parts of that section are focused on it's impact on popular culture (or real life, more broadly), an impact which this book, influential as it is, has not had. I will think on this further. Vanamonde (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've given some further thought to this, and while I might get around to writing a more detailed article about the criticism at some point, I do think it is fairly balanced in the article right now. In the blog you link, for instance, four major criticisms of the article are included: three of those are in the article right now, two of those identified by name (I did expand Panshin's comment a little bit). So I'm wondering if your concerns have been addressed, so that this nomination can move forward. Vanamonde (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy that some thought has been given to this. I appreciate that it is difficult to fully do justice to something like this. What I would hope is that the interested reader is pointed to further reading if they wanted to read more on the topic. I wouldn't expect a short article like this to do more than provide a summary, and the current summary has had careful thought given to it, which is good enough for me. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Apologies to all for not checking earlier but has anyone done a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing? This is a hoop we ask all first-time nominators at FAC to jump through, and I think that's the case for you, isn't it, Vanamonde? I did look at a couple of the online sources myself and found no issues but much is sourced to books that don't seem available for preview on Google or Amazon, so it would be helpful if someone can check one or two of those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes, this is my first nomination, though the article has been through spot checks at both GAN and DYK. I think a few sources are available at least partially online, and I can provide quotations for any of the journal pieces or for the Cummins source. I'm afraid I don't have the White source any longer. @Wehwalt and Mike Christie: as the reviewers who engaged most with the source material, I was wondering if you could help out? regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm traveling and don't have access right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Ian, I don't have any of the offline sources, except for Stableford 1995, which I actually found for Vanamonde93 during the FAC. I've read a fair amount of Le Guin criticism, so I can tell you that the article text is at least a reasonably accurate representation of the sources out there, but I can't speak to specifics or paraphrasing I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. {{ping}Lingzhi|Mirokado}} perhaps one of you can help? It would be rather unfortunate if, having come this far, the article fails for lack of spot-checking. Vanamonde (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we don't tend to archive a nom simply because we're waiting for requisite checks. A spotcheck is just what it sounds like and doesn't require examples from all sources used. Worst-case scenario, if someone could check a few of the online sources, plus emailed scans of Cummins and one or two of the journals, then that would certainly suffice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly spot check what's online; Vanamonde93, can you email me some relevant pages from Cummins and the relevant pages of a couple of the journal sources?

  • "The protagonist of the novel, the envoy Genly Ai, is on a planet called Winter ("Gethen" in the language of its own people) to convince the citizens to join the Ekumen. Winter is, as its name indicates, a planet that is always cold": this doesn't appear to be sourced to Watson 1975; since that source was used for the previous sentence I suspect you just picked the wrong source for this.

I checked some of the others and found no issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 sent me Pennington, which was fine, and is going to send me Cummins. Once I've checked that I'll post here again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 sent me a copy of Cummins and I've checked about a dozen citations. The only problem I found is "Genly Ai tells Argaven after Estraven's death that Estraven served mankind as a whole, just as Ai did"; this is cited to 85-87, but I don't see it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: that should have been page 84, I must have flipped back and not noticed. The quote is "After telling King Argaven that Estraven and he served the same "master""Mankind"" I've fixed it.
Tks guys, I think we can wrap this is up then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 9 September 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) 14:16, 9 September 2016 [53].

38th (Welsh) Infantry Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division was a British Army division that fought in several of the main battles of the First World War. Most notably, on 7 July 1916 it launched its initial attack on Mametz Wood that ended in failure. Over the following days, the division cleared the woods at a high cost. This paved the way for future British attacks on the Somme. In addition, it inspired Christopher Williams to paint a somewhat famous depiction of the events. It is my hope that the article can pass FA standards and be on the front page for the 100th anniversary of these events.

Following the Somme, the division became somewhat of an assault division and led the charge in numerous engagements throughout 1917 and 1918. The division was disbanded in 1919, and reformed in 1939. During the Second World War, the division engaged in home defense duties and eventually became a training division. The article has been copy edited, passed its GA review, and was on course to pass its A-Class review although a lack of reviewers has stalled that process.

I believe the article meets the FA standards, and all comments are welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "which also saw influence securing officer commissions": I don't know what that means.
    Per A Nation In Arms p.117, the full quote for you: "The use of influence to secure commissions was rife in the Welsh Army Corps". It is then followed by a few examples. Basically, those with the political influence were able to ensure that their sons etc. were able to become officers regardless if the were qualified or trained for the role. Recommendation for improving the wording? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See MOS:COLLAPSE.
    I have read over the section, and the various templates that should not be used and I do not see them in the article. If you are referring to the OOBs, I was able to get the 70th Div article passed without incident. Is that what we are talking about?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) doesn't have an OOB collapsebox until the end-sections; it's not a problem there. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    To confirm then, a dedicated OOB section for the three collapse-boxes?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can tell you for sure is that it's a MOS problem in the main text. I don't keep up with what Milhist likes to see in endsections, but I suspect it's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Amended to keep in line with the MOS.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most adequately bombard[ment]": ?
    Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done for a few hours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the comments, and have left some feedback; look forward to your replies and any other comments you have.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "machine gun fire", "machine-gun fire" (lots of both): consistency.
    I have amended this, with the sole exception that is within a quote.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten rid of some of the single quote marks; it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the rest of them.
    I have removed all except, if I am not mistaken, those that are quotes within quotes. The few remaining, I have re-confirmed with the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Dank for your edits, comments, and support. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:51st_Division,_Battle_of_Pilckem_Ridge,_31_Juily_1917.jpg: if this is free in the US, we don't need a non-free tag for it. English Wikipedia only considers US copyright
    Amended per your comments, I hope this suffices?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Still seeing a fair-use rationale that isn't needed - suggest replacing with the more generic image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I missed that!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Hore-Belisha_1935.jpg: why is this PD in the UK - which of the given rationales applies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I had assumed that as the work is of a then sitting politician, #1 would apply. Further reading of the NPG website indicates they allow usage of their works under BY-NC-ND (which i note is not allowed on the commons). Advise in regards to UK-PD would appreciated, otherwise I will move to remove the image (and replace it with a somewhat inferior one from the IWM that is covered under UK-PD). Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    1. 1 applies where the work is by the UK govt - is that the case here? It could be a work for hire, but that would depend on who did the hiring. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been able to find little else on the photo, and believe the best course of action for the moment is to remove it from the article, which I have done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - super apologetic for not being able to get to this earlier; I was traveling across the US and had less Internet than I thought I would. Maybe a new target could be the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Pilckem Ridge? Thoughts:
    Likewise, sorry for the delay in getting back to you and thank you for the review, comments, and edits. The anniversary of Pilckem now seems like an achievable target, especially considering it began the rehabilitation of the division's reputation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The division raised in 1914 was the 43rd Division of Herbert Kitchener's New Army. 43rd? That comes out of nowhere. This needs more context or could be left for the main body?
      I made a few tweaks, do they work? Or still a little out of context and, per your recommendation, drop it from the lede?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • On 5 August, Herbert Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War assuming a vital and largely independent role, within the war cabinet. Language here could be cleaned up.
      Tweaked, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the training section - why disband the 80th just to recreate it? Sounds like a paper-only change? (I assume not—can you explain this more?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      I no longer have access (other than snippet view) to Hesketh, so I have added in what I can.
      These are my edits, regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Have been through the References, and they all look to meet FA requirements in terms of reliability and formatting, except the Hart source, published by Stackpole Books (a "popular history" publisher best avoided). But given the material sourced to Hart isn't exceptional, I think it is ok in this case. I question the need to link the publishers in the References section, but it also isn't a war-stopper. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To alleviate any concern, as I have seen similar comments made about Stockpole, the book is the paperback reprint of the original hardcover that was released in 2000 by Praeger (part of Greenwood Publishing Group), and the author is/was a lecturer at Sandhurst. The book itself is extremely well sourced and provides ample footnotes throughout. It is an academic text, rather than a popular history. I do appreciate the scrutiny though, in order to get this to FA standard.
In regards to the links, it is a habit I have picked up; they can be easily removed if requested.
Thank you for the review, kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • (the largest on the Somme) - does this refer to the wood or the number of prisoners? It wasn't clear to me, but perhaps I'm being obtuse. Wouldn't hurt to insert "wood" after "largest" though.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • once Horne has been introduced, he should just be referred to as Horne thereafter.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of Welsh as an abbreviation for the Welsh Regiment seems entirely usual, but when you use the term "Welshmen" it tends to create a bit of confusion as to whether you are referring to those from the Welsh Regiment or Welshmen in a more general sense. I suggest using a term such as troops or soldiers or British or the 38th Division rather than "Welshmen" or "Welsh" to avoid confusion. It is apparent that not all of the troops of the division were in fact, Welsh.
    I think I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest consistently using prefixed ordinals for German formations (like 111th Division instead of Infantry Regiment 116).
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • footnotes should be in numerical order, [68] is ahead of [67] at one point (as in [68][67]), there may be other examples.
    I think I got them allEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • link 47th (1/2nd London) Division
    I have moved the link to the first mention of the divisionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • could you just check the reference to 143 machine guns? It seems excessive for 634 prisoners.
    Verified, and I have amended the text and made this a quoteEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "Belgium border" should be "Belgian border"
    SortedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have liked to see mentions of the VCs awarded (with some details) in the narrative, rather than just a list at the end
    I will address this shortlyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now added in details on why the five men were awarded VCs.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the initial capital on Militiamen
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • otherwise, looking very good. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your comments, I will address the VC situation shortly (probably this weekend).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Looking good, but a few thoughts from me, mainly around the flow of the text. I've gone up to 1919.
  • "The division arrived in France with a poor reputation, seen as a political formation that was poorly trained and led. " - "poor" and "poorly"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the reputation of the division was sullied by miscommunication " - "sullied" felt odd here; you'd usually only sully something which had a good reputation, which the unit here doesn't have.
    Good point, I have made a change that I hope should resolve this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " ceasing to exist during 1919." - the main text says "the division ceased to exist by March 1919", making the "during" feel a bit odd.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 2007, Simkins wrote " - I'd always recommend explaining to the reader who someone is when first introduced, e.g. "In 2007, the historian Peter Simkins wrote..." Ditto Hughes, Farr, Thacker etc. Gary Sheffield gets his first name in the article, but others don't; should be consistent.
    To many cooks... I got the ones you mentioned, and on reading through I did not see any others. So I hope I got them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Lloyd George stated publicly that he "should like to see a Welsh Army in the field"." - I'd normally expect to see the cite immediately after the relevant quote.
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the training, it was not until November that the division had been fully equipped with rifles.[16] To be declared fit for overseas service, the division's soldiers had to fire 24 rounds on a rifle range." - is the implication that they couldn't deploy overseas because they lacked rifles to do the test? If so, worth spelling it out.
    I have yet to change this one. The full quote and context: "On the South Downs, the training areas were better but equipment in no better supply. In late November the division was ordered to move to France. All troops had to fire a short course of twenty-four rounds on the rifle ranges before being pronounced fit to deploy; a regular solider would have fired ten times that amount. ... "
    So, the division had yet to deploy and equipment was an issue, but I believe the author is getting at the troops were just not as trained as the pre-war regulars in musketry. It seems it may even be a reference (after a little googling) to Serial 22 Table B, Appendix II in the Musketry Regulations Pt.1 aka the "Mad minute".
    I can do some digging to try and find more context?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the note to cover this with a but of detail.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and by 5 December it arrived in France via Le Havre." - "via" felt odd here, Le Havre being part of France. "arrived in France at Le Havre"?
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These troops had to "cut their way back out" and returned with just eight men." - the quote needs in-line attribution
    SortedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Final Battles" - each paragraph is beginning the same way, "On 5 August, the division...", "On 21/22 August, elements of the 114th Brigade...", "On 25 August, the division advanced..." which reads a bit oddly
    I will address this shortly.
  • Image File:38th Division, Battle of Pilckem Ridge 31 July 1917.png is first published in the UK, but lacks a UK copyright tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise.
    Per above discussion: as English Wikipedia only considers US copyright, I have replaced the file with a locally uploaded one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to thank you for your comments. I have addressed most, left a reply in regards to one, and will address the rest in the following days.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hchc2009:: I apologize in the tardiness in responding to some of your comments. I believe I have now addressed all issues you raised. Further comments are very much welcomed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • "Elements of the 10th SWB had came under heavy German machine gun fire and were suffered numerous casualties. Williams directed a Lewis gunner to suppress the German position, while he assaulted it single-highhandedly. Rushing the position, the took the surrender of 15 Germans." -- "were suffered"? "the took the"?
  • "34,500 militiamen, all of the age of 20..." -- does this mean all 34,500 were aged 20? Or do we mean "under the age of 20" or some such?

Finding these at this stage of the review suggests we need someone to walk though the article top to bottom just to ensure there are no other grammatical errors -- I'd recuse from coord duties and do it myself but prefer to see someone outside MilHist look it over because that should help ensure accessibility for the wider audience. Hang loose for the moment, I might see who's around... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the first at least: one shouldn't edit when tired. But I will hang on from making further edits for the moment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

This is an excellent and extremely detailed article and Enigma deserves credit for bringing it together. I have no problems with the level of information, but in reading it, I do have some problems that relate to the prose. It's not a problem with the content, only the way it is presented. I've pulled some examples out of the first few paragraphs. I could comment further, but I believe that, as Ian suggests, a review from someone outside Milhist might be of more benefit. Perhaps a look from the Guild of Copyeditors?

  • "On 19 September 1914..." The order of events is a little confusing here. "By the end of 1914, only 10,000 men had joined the Welsh Corps. During December, after the ambitious plan for a corps had been scaled back..." When was the plan scaled back and how had 10,000 men joined the corps if it had been scaled back in December? Did the lack of recruits contribute to the scaling back?
    @Ranger Steve:: Just to note, I have not forgot about your comments. I awaited the completion of the copy edit by John, and I am now addressing your specific concerns. For the moment, I have only touched this one. I have revisited the sources, and attempted to clarify the situation. Just as a starter, does this clear things up on this issue?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crikey, where did the weekend go? Sorry for the delayed response. Yes, that is a significant improvement, nice one. Ranger Steve Talk 12:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division, comprising the 113th, 114th and 115th Brigades made up of battalions from the...". This seems quite late to be introducing the constituent units of the division, especially having dealt with the recruitment, training, disbursement and an inspection by Lloyd George already. At his point in the article it's out of place with the rest of the paragraph and almost looks like an afterthought.
    Amended this per the previous edit.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Horne found out that the 14th RWF had not moved and that their attack had been pushed back to 8 July, he summoned the commanding officer, Major-General Ivor Philipps, to Corps headquarters and sacked him." It would be easy to assume that Philips was the c/o of the 14th RWF in this sentence. More concerning, this seems an odd place to introduce the GOC, much like my previous point. It's quite late and given the nature of his appointment, it would surely be better to introduce him in the earlier paragraph, where there is the point made that "Questions were also raised about the divisional leadership and about securing officer commissions through influence." This paragraph lacks examples of this nature, when Philips provides a great case in point.
    Introduced Philipps earlier in the article per the previous edit. I have just expanded the info on Philips to provide an example of political influence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many authors are introduced quite suddenly with no real explanation as to why their views are being expressed. A word of introduction would help in each case. I see Hchc2009 has picked up on this, but I don't really think it's been fully addressed. Just putting the first name in front of Farr doesn't tell me any more who he is. Travers is another.
    Started to work on this point, and will look for other areas to improve based off your previous suggestions.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all really. These sorts of things are really quite minor, but stand out as I read through. Cheers Ranger Steve Talk 22:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Steve. To follow up, I asked an experienced non-MilHist editor (John) to look over the prose; he's done quite a bit of work on it and may still be going. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up, so what is the best course of action at the moment? I acknowledge a few of the more recent issues were editing without review (as I noted earlier, editing and being tired is not always the best course of action), although things like Steve has pointed I could begin working on and re-reviewing the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for taking the time to copyedit, John -- have you completed what you wanted to do? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@EnigmaMcmxc: I would action Steve's comments and then we'll see where we are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, will do. It may take a few days, not on top of the world atm.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: and @Ranger Steve:: I believe I have addressed the concerns Steve raised, any additional comments are welcome as are any concerns. Sorry in the delay in getting this action'ed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just boarded a ferry to the Netherlands with extremely patchy internet, and just remembered this. Afraid I'm without internet for the next two weeks, but I'm happy with changes made as a result of my comments. Assuming that the copyedit of the entire article has been complete to co-ords approval, I'm happy. Ranger Steve 148.122.187.2 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments on the lead

  • "meant ... meant"—two different meanings. Perhaps the first might be "intended"? And "form ... formations ... formation ... formation" in four lines? (The lead contains seven occurrences of "form" in various forms. Perhaps the first might be "be", and explore synonyms for one or two others (but maybe that's inappropriate ...)?
  • "where it had to capture"—not very clear: so it was under orders to do so? And thus far the reader may assume they failed to capture, or you'd announce first up that they'd captured.
  • "The division secured the wood, needed as a jumping-off point for the Battle of Bazentin Ridge, but its reputation was adversely affected by ..."—it's ok, but you might consider "which was needed", and a semicolon after "Ridge". Unsure.
  • Can't see a way of avoiding "attack ... attack".
  • "This redeemed the division in the eyes of the upper hierarchy of the British military and it came to be considered one of the elite."—the hierarchy came to be viewed as? And one of the elite what?
  • I wonder whether the third para should start with "The division was not chosen to be part of the Occupation of the Rhineland after the war, and was demobilised over several months. It ceased to exist by March 1919.". As it is, the downfall marks a sudden turn, brushed off at the end of a paragraph of achievements. Seems to flow better forward than backward?
  • "Transferred around the United Kingdom and assigned home defence duties, it was never deployed overseas as a division." Maybe "it was never deployed overseas as a division, having been restricted to home defence duties around the United Kingdom."? Again, only a suggestion.
  • "a jumping-off point"—I'm trying to think of a more elegant wording, but can't. Tony (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tony1:: I have reworded sections of the lede based off your comments; do the changes work? As for moving the demobolization of the div to the final para, so not to burden an otherwise positive list, I do not - for the moment - think it is entirely appropriate due to the 20-year gap between the two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:41, 6 September 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) 04:21, 3 September 2016 [54].

Bluebuck[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Sainsf (talk), & 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known, but interesting antelope; the first large African mammal to be exterminated by humans in historical times. The article is a GA, has been copy-edited, and was recently featured on the main page as a DYK, so it has already had a few eyes look over it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, and merged the further reading and external links sections, not much of use in the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general the article is looking good. A few points I noticed:

  • "British zoologists Philip Sclater and Oldfield Thomas pointed out that the blackbuck (A. cervicapra) was the type species of the genus Antilope, and instead moved the bluebuck and its closest relatives to the genus Hippotragus in their Book of Antelopes from 1899." - This seems like a non-sequitur.
It explains why the bluebuck was moved from the genus Antilope to the genus Hippotragus. Not sure why that would be irrelevant, such info is rather standard in taxonomy sections? FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Its not irrelevant, but there is a gap in the reasoning. Why does having the blackbuck as type species prevent the bluebuck being included in the genus? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, I was wondering about that too, but the source doesn't actually explain it. The source says "and placed it as the first species of his genus Antilope. We have already, however (Book of Ant. III. p. 3), given the reasons why another species — the Black-buck of India — should be deemed to be the type of Pallas's generic term Antilope, and in accordance with ordinary usage we employ Sundevall's name Hippotragus for the present species and its allie".[55] It refers to a page in the former volume, which just says why the name Antilope refers to the blackbuck:[56] I guess it is because the blackbuck is quite different from all other antilopes[57], and should therefore have a genus for itself, but the source doesn't state this explicitly... You think I could add something like "pointed out that the blackbuck (A. cervicapra), which is distinct from all other antelopes, was the type species of the genus Antilope"? I just did, hope it isn't too "synthetic"... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it seems Sundevall was the first to move them to the genus Hippotragus, I'll see if I can hunt the source down... FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, seems the case is much more complicated than indicated by the main literature about the animal, with IUCN taking action[58][59], I'll see if I can sort it out... So thanks and no thanks for pointing this out, hehe! FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Solved that mystery then, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has also been pointed out that the name was already published on a list of South African mammals in 1681." - What name?
Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " at each of the Hunterian Museum and the Zoological Museum of Amsterdam" - I think that "at each of" sounds awkward and would prefer the use of "both".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A pair of horns is present at each of the Natural History ... " - ditto.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roan antelope ((H. equinus)" - There's a stray "(" here.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coat was a uniform bluish-grey, with a pale whitish belly and similar flanks." - What colour are the flanks, then?
Not sure where "similar flanks" comes from, perhaps Sainsf knows, the source simply says "Belly dull whitish, not contrasted on the sides", which I'm assuming is the basis for the statement, so I rewrote it as: "with a pale whitish belly, which was not contrasted on the flanks". FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its limbs had a faint dark line own their front side." - Sentence needs attention!
Rewrote as "Its limbs had a faint dark line along their front surface". FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the description section needs to be consistent as to whether it refers to the characteristics as "its" or whether it just uses the definite article "the" - "its lip" or "the lip".
Fixed (took "the"). FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same paragraph, the last two sentences need to be consistent as to which tense is used.
Think I fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its horns were significantly shorter " - Since the previous paragraph had Pennant as the subject, the present one needs to establish what it is about and not start with "It".
Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "receives rainfall throughout the year while rainfall" - Perhaps you could replace one of these "rainfall"s with "precipitation".
Replaced the last one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such locations could be the western margin of the CFR during winter and the western margin of the CFR during summer." - Is this really what you mean?
What is wrong? The source says "It is anticipated that blue antelope preferentially calved when rainfall promoted maximum grassland productivity; that is, in the western margin of the CFR during the winter or in the eastern margin of the CFR during the summer." But Sainsf is more familiar with that source... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sentence again! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, double western! Good catch, fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2013 study" - Since you refer to this study in several places, my inclination would be to give it a name (Faith, 2013) or somesuch. I might be wrong here.
Did it, I think it looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The aforementioned 2009 study" - Ditto.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bluebuck population had already declined significantly and its range had contracted when Europeans settling in the Cape Colony in the 17th and 18th centuries first came across this antelope." - This is just repeating information earlier in the section.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around the time of its extinction, the bluebuck occurred in what would be known as the Overberg region (Western Cape), probably concentrated in Swellendam." - This information could be relocated to earlier in the section.
Moved up to the end of the first paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They show six antelopes faced by a man," - Perhaps "facing towards"?
I think the point is that the man is also facing towards them, a meaning that would be lost if we only said they face towards him. How about "facing a man"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments we'll respond soon. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should now be addressed, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, Cwmhiraeth, I've now added a bunch of new text, probably needs a check! FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am happy with the changes made to the article and now support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I love when reviews lead to more content being added to articles... FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "too incompetently known": ?
Changed to "since too little is known about the bluebuck". FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Faith et al. 2013" (multiple instances), "Kerley": Generally, if you mention a name rather than saying "a 2013 study", we're asking for a full name (at first occurrence in the text) and some kind of quick description, rather than just dumping a last name into the text. After the first occurrence, "Faith et al." will be good enough, because the "et al." distinguishes it from Faith (2012). "Faith et al. 2013" is academic jargon, and best avoided at FAC.
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, more links would be appreciated. For instance, how many will know what "afromontane" means?
Linked some words, more? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those were the two that jumped out at me, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will fix these issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Not much to say here; the article is in very good shape.

  • "Its mane was not as developed as in the roan and sable antelopes, and its ears were shorter and blunter, not tipped with black, and it had a darker tail tuft and smaller teeth": three statements joined by "and". How about: "Its mane was not as developed as in the roan and sable antelopes; its ears were shorter and blunter, not tipped with black; and it had a darker tail tuft and smaller teeth"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four mounted skins of the bluebuck are in existence": suggest "four mounted skins of the bluebuck remain".
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, a mounted skin": I think you can cut "In addition".
Cut. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add citations to the captions that do more than simply name the picture?
Added to the drawing under description. Do you also mean the images that identify the subject as specific skins? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now added to all drawings that identify the specimen in captions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map including some of the locations mentioned would be helpful in the "Distribution and habitat" section.
Yes, another map would be nice, but it will take some time to get it done, I don't have the right software for detailed maps with legends (would preferably be some kind of SVG map). But I can ask about it somewhere soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I won't hold up support for that, but I think it's worth getting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the blue antelope showed similar habitat preferences as the Cape buffalo": suggest "the blue antelope's habitat preferences were similar to those of the Cape buffalo". Any reason why you use "blue antelope" here and nowhere else in the article?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about the rewording? I think it flows a little better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, seems I forgot the first part after fixing the second, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- These are all minor points, and I expect to support once these are dealt with. One non-FAC question; any idea why the lighting in the infobox picture is so odd? Looks like they were having a disco in the museum. This makes it seems likely that the colour of the skin isn't well represented by that picture. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will fix these soon! And yeah, as you point out, the lighting seems to give everything a blue tone, even the quagga in the background, which should just be brown... Unfortunately, those are the only actual photos we have of a specimen... Would it be ok to note that this is not the actual colour in the caption? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine; not sure you even need to do that, really, as a reader can figure it out (as I did). Since that specimen I linked to seems to be not weirdly lit, and quite photographable, you might consider posting a request on the Swedish Wikipedia for someone to take a picture of it. But not necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Sandstein who took the photo, perhaps there is some info to be gained there... FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as one can see, the specimen was in a glass box that was lit with blue light from the top. I don't know why they did that, perhaps to protect the skin?  Sandstein  14:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that helps in formulating a caption, I can say that it is the lighting itself that is blue, and not some kind of artefact of photography... FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note to the infobox caption saying "The strong blue colouration is caused by the lighting". As for pictures of other specimens, I'm sure some will come along over time (as has happened with other articles), specific requests rarely lead to anything in my experience... FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good; I do think a map would help but it's not a requirement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, as is explained in the text, the prehistoric range of the species was also much larger, which could be useful to include in such a map, so I'll see what I can do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can do simple SVG editing, so if you find an unannotated map of the right area that's copyright free I might be able to add labels for you. I use Inkscape, which is free; it does have a little bit of a learning curve, but it's not too bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I'll write on your talk page when I have collected the right sources and maps... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • All images are licenced under Creative Commons, or Public Domain due to age - OK.
  • Sufficient source and author information, active source links - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source comment (not a full check)

  • Groves, Grubb (2011) with "page 278" in "Sources" isn't used (however, an offline reference for this book with "page 198" is used as ref #19). Needs some cleanup - if page 278 is no longer used (?), the redundant entry should be deleted. GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not sure what happened there, but should now be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:25, 30 August 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) 04:26, 3 September 2016 [60].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Austro-Hungarian 250t-class torpedo boat that saw service in both world wars and in five different navies between 1914 and 1959. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 18 July 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) 00:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What was the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only place I've seen it is on the website it was taken from. It is not in Greger (the most comprehensive reference on the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine), despite there being three photos of vessels of the class in that book (including one that is in Greger). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria - but the Austrian licence says "Austrian works are currently in the public domain in the United States if their copyright had expired in Austria on the U.S. date of restoration (January 1, 1996)"; which it had. Is that bit wrong? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will usually be right, but this case is an unusual one. My understanding is that under these circumstances it is wrong. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • " Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine) base at Cattaro". Why does Cattaro link to the Bay of Kotor instead of the port of Kotor (which Cattaro redirects to? Below (post WWI) you say "based at the Bay of Kotor". Why the change in how the name is shown and should it not be in the bay if it was based at several ports in the bay?
  • The Bay of Kotor had quite a few naval installations in it, not all of which were at Kotor itself. Sources tend to play fast and loose with references to Cattaro/Bocche di Cattaro and Kotor/Bay of Kotor, and it changes over time. The Italian names are commonly used for WWI, the Serbo-Croat ones are generally used for the interwar period and WWII.
  • I cannot see where the boat was built. Have I missed this?
  • Trieste, it is in the Background section.
  • "this contributed to ongoing problems with the boats" and "Due to inadequate funding, 76 T and the rest of the 250t-class were essentially coastal vessels" What were the problems and how did the inadequate funding restrict the boats' operations?
  • The sources don't really expand on this. My assumption is that restricted budgets meant that the build was less than optimum for sea-going craft, but exactly how that played out in the construction isn't clear.
  • I think you need to make clear that Cattaro is a bay and the same place as Kotor. Maybe change "at Cattaro" to "in the Bay of Cattaro" and below "in the Bay of Kotor (the Serbo-Croat name for Cattaro)". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments A really nice little article. I see no glaring issues, but have noted a few details.

  • Title: Is there a particular reason that this article is titled T1? I'm guessing that there are more references in publications to this ship as T1 rather than 76 T, or because it was T1 for the longest continuous period in its career? My only beef with it is that it’s not immediately clear which nation it is part of when its career is summarised in the opening paragraph, and that the main body has more information on her Austro Hungarian career than any other.
    • Mainly because she saw the majority of her service as T1, including WWII. Sources are fairly evenly divided. WP:SHIPNAME provides some guidance, but length of service under this name is probably the best bet in this case.
  • Lead: I think the first sentence is a little detail heavy. Given it's the very first line, I think there's a touch too much information. The name is an issue, as are the details of the class. Following on from the title issue, the opening sentence gives the appearance that “250t-class, T-group sea-going torpedo boat” is a Yugoslav class, when in fact it’s not. The inclusion of the original name and nation in the same sentence only serves to make it more complicated. I’d suggest something more like “The Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 was a sea going torpedo boat of the Yugoslav navy between 1921 and 1941. Originally built as 76 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913, she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines. She saw active service with the Austro Hungarian Navy during World War 1…” I feel the extra detail of the T-class, Skoda and L/30 guns is again a bit much for the lead and might be better confined to the main body.
    • I agree, I've made those suggested changes.
  • Background: I appreciate the comments above about Bay of Kotor, but coming to the article fresh, before having read the comments above, I found this confusing. At first I thought that Bocche di Cattaro was in the Bay of Kotor and couldn’t fathom why the Bocche is linked to the Bay article. It’s only from more carefully looking at the Bay article, and reading the comments above, that this layout makes sense. I personally would be inclined to display it as “… base at the Bay of Kotor (Bocche di Cattaro)… “ if indeed, Bocche di Cattaro is even needed? Surely the Bay of Kotor must cover the entire area of installations and therefore be accurate enough in itself?
    • The issue here is that the sources for that period mainly refer to the Austro-Hungarian base using its Italian name (which is weird), but I am happy either way. I've implemented your suggestion of reversing the names.
  • Background: I’m a little concerned that none of the strategic reasons for her build appear to be referenced. Does Conway’s ref in the second to last sentence cover all the detail in the preceding paragraph?
    • Yes.
  • Description: Why does Greger appear as a source before the end of the first sentence? If it only includes detail on the change in armament, is there a source for the reason for the change (ie. that it was “in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group”)?
    • Because Greger only covers the change, and the next citation covers why the change occurred.
  • World War I: I always learned at school that the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the content of that paragraph. Here, the first sentence alludes to issues with the class design but does not expand on it, and this makes the paragraph look rather odd. How were the ongoing problems with the boats related to her deployment in the war? I rather think this sentence fits better in the preceding section as a closer, rather than the opener of her WWI service. Doing this would, I believe, make the rest of this paragraph flow more naturally.
    • I agree. I've moved it up to the Description section.
  • Post-War: Is there any information of her fate after being stricken?
    • Not that I'm aware of.

That’s about all, otherwise a nice little piece. Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 09:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good Peacemaker67. My only outstanding query is the armament reference again. The reason I had not imagined that the next citation in the paragraph after Greger appears mid-sentence, is because the next citation used in that paragraph is the same source again (Greger, p58), and seems to relate more to the construction and launching of the vessel. If Greger is the source for all of the armament information, I'd be inclined to put that reference at the end of the bit about mines, which seems a bit more conventional. It would also clarify that the mines and reason for the armament change (“in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group”) is referenced - my original query was because it really doesn't appear to be.
Also, Looking more closely at the paragraph again, given that the second half is not really anything to do with the first, I'd be inclined to split it into two. So I'd envisage it looking like this:
The boats were originally to be armed with three Škoda 66 mm (2.6 in)L/30[a] guns, and three 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes,[1] but this was changed to two guns and four torpedo tubes before the first boat was completed in order to standardise the armament with the following F-group. They could also carry 10–12 naval mines.[2]
76 T was the third of its class to be completed, and was laid down on 24 June 1913, launched on 15 December 1913, and completed on 20 July 1914. Eight T-group boats were completed between February and December 1914, designated 74 T – 81 T.[2] In 1914, one 8 mm (0.31 in) machine gun was added.[1]
Hope that makes sense! Ranger Steve Talk 07:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect sense. Done. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I've made a tiny prose change and can definitely support this article. Ranger Steve Talk 11:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: This one looks ok. Can I have dispensation to nominate a fresh one? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unless I've missed it, I think we'd need a source review before wrapping this one up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review - doing now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwigs copyvio clear.
  • References formatted consistently.
  • Niehorster used once - faithful to source.

Other books checked I can't see the pages needed. Happy to AGF unless someone has a better idea... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Cas, I think PM has had spotchecks before without any serious issues being discovered so I feel confident we can leave it at that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 3 September 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/September_2016&oldid=741989276"