Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  • Disambig links
  • Edit count
  • External links
  • Alt text
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.



Casey Stengel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... Casey Stengel, one of the great managers in baseball history, and one of its great characters. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Amy Adams

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

For those of you unfamiliar with the lovely Amy Adams, I hope that reading this article makes you exclaim, "Now that's a proper introduction!" The biography of a perfect lady must be perfect, and I look forward to all the help I can get in giving Miss Adams her next shiny star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • ’’’Comment’’’ fantastic work, although one is allowed only one nomination at a time, and another as a co-nominator. Considering the Chastain FAC is nearing closure, it might not be a big deal. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, have the rules been tweaked? I remember when we could nominate a second article when the first has adequate support for promotion. Anyway, thanks for the positive feedback. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, it was always like this. ”An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them.” That rule that you referred to applies to WP:FLC. I’ll be along shortly for the review of the article. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Looking forward to your comments.
I would also highly appreciate it if you could look at the ref formatting for the Chastain FAC, since that's the only thing remaining before its closure. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Jean Bolikango

Nominator: Indy beetle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Jean Bolikango, a prominent Congolese educator, writer, social figure, and politician. He began his career in the Belgian Congo as a teacher, where he educated two future prime ministers. He also wrote an award winning novel and contributed to a Catholic newspaper. In 1946 he founded an important cultural association. By the late 1950s he was the only Congolese to hold an executive position in the Belgian colonial administration. In the lead up to the independence of the Congo he took on the role as leader of the Bangala people. Most of his attempts to secure important government positions failed (though he did twice serve briefly as deputy prime minister of the Congo), but he had significant influence as an opposition leader in Parliament until 1965. His career was quiet afterwards but he held esteem among the Bangala people until his death. He is remembered as one of the fathers of Congolese independence and as an elder statesman of the Congo. I think that, in spite of its relatively small size, this article includes all the information available on Bolikango and is ready for FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Black-necked grebe

Nominator(s): RileyBugz会話投稿記録 & Kostas20142 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a grebe that can be found throughout the Northern Hemisphere (and in some places in Africa). Me and Kostas think that the article meets all of the featured article criteria, and I personally think it to be an interesting read. Hope you enjoy it! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, but as usual, I have some image suggestions, since the article looks rather empty. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! Hopefully the taxonomy section is interesting enough. The original scientific name is the same as it is today, so I didn't have to do too much there. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We have photos of the juvenile, and though not a particularly good picture, we should always show it if images are available:[1] Also shown in this video, which could be an interesting adittion.[2] As well as this photo of a feeding individual.[3] There seems to be other interesting stuff on Commons as well.
Added the first two, but not the third. Although it is interesting, it just shows it eating, not doing things like diving. I did, although, add a picture of the black-necked grebe diving. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This free photo on Commons seems to show some kind of interesting behaviour (courtship display, according to the caption there):[4]
Transferred to Commons and added. It is in fact courtship behaviour. There is actually a name for this; the penguin dance. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems off that you use the scientific name in one caption under description, yet the common name in another. Seems the second image shows the other subspecies, so you could state this in the caption.
Fixed and done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You should end each subspecies sentence under taxonomy with a citation for clarity.
  • "The other subspecies', P. n. gurneyi, is slightly smaller than the other subspecies" Repetitive.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The adult of this subspecies also has, on its lesser wing-coverts, a rufous-brown tinge." Sentence seems overly convoluted, why not just "The adult of this subspecies also has a rufous-brown tinge on its lesser wing-coverts."
  • "in addition with the tufts" In addition to.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems a bis strange that you show each subspecies in the taxobox, but one with breeding and one with non-breeding plumage, but then show both under description with non-breeding plumage. Better to show both with breeding plumage in the taxobox, or take the non-breeding image out (you already show it better under description).
  • "As of 2016, the black-necked grebe is classified as of least concern by the IUCN" Not needed, and repetitive.
  • "classification of the species as of least" Again.
  • "In the past, this species was threatened in North America by egg collecting and the millinery industry." When and how?
  • "hunted in the Gilan Province and northern Iran" There should be a way of making it clear that the Gilan Province is in Iran without being repetitive.
  • "(although this can vary, with nests ranging from about 20 centimetres (8 in) to over 30 centimetres (12 in)) on average while nests in colonies have an average diameter of about 25.5 centimetres (10 in)." Not sure this very long sentence needs to parenthesis, also looks confusing with the multiple× parentheses within a parenthesis.
  • "it will often nest in mixed-species colonies." With which other species? I see you mention one species further down, but why not just mention it briefly the first time you mention mixed colonies?
  • "It is suggested that sometimes, some pairs" Why is this only "suggested", when almost everything else is stated as fact?
  • "individuals used the whole area of the lake" Use the whole area of a lake? Why definite tense?
  • "with the last note only able to be heard" "Less audible" would sound better, and is less wordy.
  • "This grebe lays one, but sometimes two,[9] clutch" The tenses are messy here, could be rewritten.
Rewrote this. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You use the word "although" an incredible amount of times, could be good with some variation.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Egg in a museum collection" Name the museum, WP:easter egg links are advised against.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "This is compared to other species of grebes, which cover up their eggs when leaving the nest." This seems odd. You could say "by comparison, other species" etc.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Predation does not usually take eggs" This is oddly worded. You could say predators, or "eggs are usually not lost to predation" or such.
Reworded. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't explain why it needs to migrate for moulting
I'm guessing you meant to say that I don't need to explain what a moult migration is. I cut that part. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hehe, other way around, I was wondering why it has to migrate to moult? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this in US English? You write "moult" (instead of "molt"), which is UK English. You also say colour instead of color.
No, it is written in British English. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Are all those external links really useful?
Seems not. I'll keep the Wikispecies and Commons links, but I will get rid of the rest with the exception of the link to Cornell. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "this bird greyish-black upperparts," Has?
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) & MWAK (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is the first about a ceratopsian (or "horned dinosaur") nominated for FAC in ten years, since 2007's Styracosaurus. This ceratopsian dinosaur is unusual in having bosses where most others of its kind had horns, and it has been theorised to have been a transitional form between horned and non-horned members of its group. We have summarised most of what has ever been written about this animal in the article. This is also MWAK's first stint at FAC, who wrote the main part of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image check All images seem appropriately licensed and properly used. I note the following:

Added a PD-old tag. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Most images lack alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Are these a requirement? It is extremely inconsistent whether reviewers ask for these or not, so it has become a bit confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

I don't know if I will really do a full review, but I will provide some comments. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • For the pronunciation note, it would probably be good to use {{cite web}} for the link to the email.
  • There seems to be two instances where the citations are out of order (ie where a citation with a lower number goes after a citation with a higher number when the two are right next to each other).
    • I fixed one instance; the other instance addresses a series of research, where it might be preferable to put them into chronological order. Of course the numbering as such is inherently unstable.
  • There is one point where there are four citations at the end of one sentence; is this really needed?
    • This is the same series of research mentioned above. If we omit a paper, the series is no longer complete.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Adult Achelousaurus had rough bosses above the eyes and on the snout where other centrosaurines often had horns in the same positions," what are bosses?
Note that there is no appropriate article at present for the definition of "boss" as it applies here. An in-text definition would probably be necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that the genus is monospecific (just having read the lead). If this is the case, then the species should be bolded. If not, then this probably needs to be mentioned.
Yep, I'll bold the full name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now.

Thanks, even if you don't feel like an "expert" on the subjects, all comments are welcome. It is good to know whether the text is understandable to most readers. I can take care of some of these, but can you look at point two and three, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
A copy-edit is in process, so I'll fix the remaining issues when that's done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleopatra Selene I

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Cleopatra, but not the most famous one. Actually, her story is as interesting. Cleopatra Selene I married her two brothers, then married her cousins (two of them,.... who were also brothers). She then married her step-son and gave birth to two children, one of them became king. This is a summary of the story of Cleopatra Selene, queen consort of Egypt and Syria then regent and queen regnant of Syria. She started as a winning card in the hands of her mother and became an important political player herself. The article was reviewed by our great editor Constantine and took two months to write because most of the sources (which are scarce to say the least) were not available online which meant that I had to tour the country to find the sources at different libraries. Hope this will be an enjoyable read into the mysterious life of the queen.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Seems like this one has been hard work! I'll review it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort
  • You explain the name Selene, but maybe the name Cleopatra should be explained too? What was its significance since so many different queens had this name?
  • Maybe give some context for sister-brother marriages, that it was normal back then?
Done. It was (still) further explained in the notes. Now note number 7
  • To me, since this is a pretty short article, I think some of the more significant footnotes should be incorporated into the main text. I think it would give a better flow, and a fuller/more comprehensive reading experience. Since I wanted to know more details about what happened, I had to go back and forth between the article and the notes to get the full picture, which was kind of disruptive.
I have eliminated four notes. The rest are divided into: 1- opinions by different scholars which will confuse most readers and are not historic events, just theories. 2- notes about other events not really related to the queen, such as the marriage of Cleopatra IV or the long arguments about Ptolemy XII's legitimacy which is already the focus of a paragraph. Putting them into the main text would deviate the article from its main subject.
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that Herakleon will never be accepted as king" Should be past tense.
  • "ugate coins which depict her alongside her ruling son" This should mean we there are depictions of her, that we could possibly use here?
Yes, and I have links to the three coins but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
Hmmm, so it seems most of these photos have been recently published? And we don't know of old sources that have published images of the coins? If they weren't 3D objects, we would be able to upload the images freely... We would be allowed to trace-draw the images, but I think the results would be dubious... FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
the oldest was published in the late 1940s.... sadly
In what country? The US had pretty lax copyright laws until the 1970s, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a chance. The oldest was published in 1952 in the USA. Now, the publisher have the coin on their website and I read this note "All images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." This is the link, can you make sure ?
Wikipedia sadly doesn't allow non-commercial, but if the oldest one was published in the 1950s in the US, there is a chance the copyright of the book was not renewed. Search the title of the book here[5], and if it doesn't show up, it wasn't renewed. Then you can upload the image with a licence like this image has:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
It didnt show up. It is from 1952. This is the link. How will I upload the picture ? I dont have the picture that was published in 1952. I only have the newer version taken lately and published on the website of the ANS.
What is the title of the 1952 publication? Perhaps we can find it online, or request it at the resource request[7]... I definitely think it would be worth it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The author is Bellinger, Alfred R... The year: (1952)... The article: "Notes on Some Coins from Antioch in Syria"... The journal is: Museum Notes... The volume is: 5... The publisher is: The American Numismatic Society... ISSN is: 0145-1413.--------I tried to find it online but its not provided. Only Jstor allows me to see it but only the first page and I couldnt access it through my university
That definitely looks like a winner. I suggest you request it at the resource request, and enable your email (under preferences) so it can be sent to you. I have limited JSTOR access so I can read the article online, but I can already see there are some nice images we could get in higher resolution with the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Asked for it
Nice, I'll assist if you need help uploading, and then I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The image was added
Nice, might be a good idea to add the JSTOR link to Commons as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alfred Raymond Bellinger (it)" Never seen such a link to a foreign language Wikipedia, not sure if it's allowed.
  • "if they actually existed and sent to Kos" Were sent to.
  • I think "morganic marriage" could be explained briefly in parenthesis or such.
  • "son of Ptolemy X, was among the princess", "had two Egyptian princess in his hands" Princes.
  • "by his niece Cleopatra III" Only mentioned in intro.
  • "Considered by her mother more easy to control than her sister" Only stated in intro.
  • "but the marriage lasted less than a year" Only explicitly stated in intro.
  • "To protect herself and her position" Also seems only to be stated in the intro.
  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars" Fed up seems a bit too informal here.
changed wording
  • One last thing, you state in the blurb here that she married her cousins, but no cousins are explicitly mentioned in the article?
Yes, Antiochus VIII and his brother are the sons of Cleopatra Thea, the aunt of Selene
Oh, I mean, from reading the article, you wouldn't know they were cousins, could it be stated explicitly? FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything has been dealt with nicely, and it was great we found a free image after all! FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

At a first look, I have some problems with the prose in this article. Some examples follow.

Grammatical problems:

  • "Considered more easy to control by her mother": more easy to control than what?
More easily controlled than Cleopatra IV. I reworded the sentence.
  • "As a queen of Syria, she is the second to rule with the name Cleopatra": tense. Should be "was".


  • "leaving Cleopatra Selene free for her mother to possibly marry her to the new king, Ptolemy X.": "possibly" is entirely unnecessary here.
Well, it does seem unnecessary at first glance. However, the article explains that this marriage is not attested but a very strong theory. So, Selene possibly married Ptolemy X but we can not say it as a fact and that is way it is important to note this in the lede.
Hmm. I might suggest rewording this for clarity, then, because I did not get that at all. Tension between the king and his mother grew and ended with Ptolemy IX's expulsion from Egypt, leaving Cleopatra Selene behind; she probably then married the new king, Ptolemy X., perhaps? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "the marriage lasted less than a year before she lost her new husband who was killed in 95 BC": "she lost her new husband" and "who was killed" tell us substantially the same thing. Simply "before her new husband was killed" would be fine.

I don't have time to do a full review right now; I shall come back to this later. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars": "fed up with" seems like an extremely casual register for encyclopediac writing.
  • "between 135–130 BC": "between 135 and 130 BC". See MOS:DATERANGE.
  • "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, mention the queen with the name Selene": this is a little unclear, but I think means: "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, call the queen Selene"?
  • The second paragraph of Cleopatra Selene I#Queen of Egypt is confusing to me. First we read that Cleopatra III decided that Cleopatra Selene should marry Antiochus VIII; then that Cleopatra Selene divorced Ptolemy X; then that Ptolemy ran away before the divorce. The chronology seems all mixed up.
  • "Justin wrote that Cleopatra III "made two daughters husbandless by marrying them to their brothers in turn"": again, not really sure what this means. Cleopatra III seems to have done a very good job of keeping Cleopatra Selene in husbands, so far!
This quote is a circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Selene married Ptolemy X. Selene is one of the two sisters who was married to her brothers (not brother) in turn (this means Ptolemy IX and X)
I think this needs more clarification, then, because this wasn't at all obvious to me from reading the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I cant explain it cause I have no source for the explenation. Chriss Bennett who wrote the academic article "Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies. Ancient Society. Peeters Publishers. 28" missed to include that quote in the article. He had a website where he said that he should have used that quote (see not 13, section III). I cant use the website as a source as it wont fulfill the criteria for reliable sources. However, deleting the sentence would be damaging as it is an important evidence and some readers will be able to analize it
At least per my reading of WP:SPS, if we are accepting Bennett's scholarly articles as reliable sources, his website might be acceptable as a reliable source for claims within the same field, even if it hasn't been published with editorial oversight. On the other hand, if you don't think that Bennett's website counts as a reliable source, and you expect readers to draw this conclusion from the quote, then you are in danger of violating WP:SYNTH. (In fact, I don't think that readers are likely to draw this conclusion, and you are not violating any policies but you are failing criterion 1a of WP:WIAFA: non sequiturs are not a feature of prose which is "engaging" and "of a professional standard". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Bennett's work is accepted by modern scholarship as a whole so he is a pretty respected expert in this field, His website is defunct and the current website is only hosting the content of the original one and thats why I cant consider reliable, not because of doubts regarding Bennett. However, what you said about WP:SYNTH and criterion 1a violations is totally baseless. The sentence is referenced, and it's talking about Cleopatra VII and her daughters and Selene was one of them. There are no non sequiturs in this article. All sentences has something to do with delivering the best possible knowledge about this vague queen. So, no SYNTH is here and we cant delete this very important passage. I will put it as a note and this would be a suitanle solution rather that delete it !
  • "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was part of Antiochus VIII's realm at the time of his assassination; Cleopatra Selene most probably resided there." This seems a bit of a non sequitur. If the fact that Cleopatra Selene lived in Antioch is worth pointing out, probably it should go before the assassination, with "details of Cleopatra Selene's life with Antiochus VIII are not clear".
I believe this is the most suitable place cause we cant say that Selene resided in Antioch for the duration of Antiochus VIII's reign since he was evicted from that city several times by his brother Antiochus XI. Hence, we can be sure only at the time of his death that Selene might have resided in the capital
Okay, I see the point that this is making now. In that case, this might be better placed with the next paragraph, where the fact that Cleopatra Selene was in Antioch is relevant to Antiochus IX's seizure of power and marriage to her? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, the current place is also suitable since her residing at the capital at the time of the assasination is directly related to the time of her marriage to Antiochus VIII. The following paragraph starts with telling that the queen held out in Antioch before the coming of Antiochus IX. Moving that sentence below will turn the paragraph on Antiochus VIII into a very short one. Plus, the sentence clarify that Antioch was part of Antiochus's VIII realm and its more suitable for it to be in Antiochus VIII's paragraph than in the paragraph about Antiochus IX.
I am still unconvinced by this, but if you insist I would at the least rewrite this sentence to put the focus on Cleopatra Selene. Perhaps "At the time of Antiochus' assassination, Cleopatra Selene was probably staying in Antioch, the capital of Syria."? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I dont see why is this becoming an issue. The paragraph is about Antiochus VIII. The guy lost the city multiple times so its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it. I can not delete this fact like you suggest! Disagreeing on the place of a sentence is not part of the criterea for FA.
  • "the queen needed an ally who will help her control the capital": another tense problem. "who would help".
  • "It is unlikely that this marriage appeased Antiochus VIII's sons." I know what you mean, but I don't think that "appeased" is quite the right word here.
  • "Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and lost his life." No need for the passive voice here. "killed" is more concise and straightforward.
  • "The rationale of the marriage might be more pragmatic": once again, be careful with tenses. "might have been". I would also say "rationale for" rather than "rationale of".
  • "jugate coins": might be worth linking jugate

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Would be nice to have an image of her if one might be available
I have links to the three coins of her but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
  • The first two coins need US PD tags, the second two should include explicit tags for the coins rather than just the photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll add those tags

Guilden Morden boar

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A comprehensive yet concise article about an Anglo-Saxon boar that was once the crest for a helmet. The boar-crested helmet is a staple of contemporary imagery—think Beowulf or the Benty Grange Helmet—yet could be seen today as an artistic invention if not for the three remaining examples. The Guilden Morden boar is small but significant, displayed in the same gallery of the British Museum as the Sutton Hoo treasures and exhibited internationally. This exhaustive article covers the boar from its discovery alongside "a doubled-up skeleton" in 1864 or 1865, to its reanalysis in 1977, to its typographic and artistic parallels. It includes all the relevant literature, which, when offline or otherwise inaccessible, I'm happy to help provide to anyone interested. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

An interesting little article. A little on the short side, which is fine if it covers all the bases, but I wonder if anything more could be said about:

  • The manufacture of the crest. The article says it is cast bronze, but how was it cast? The lost wax process?
  • Iconography. Why a boar? Presumably boars are in some way iconographically significant, if they are known from multiple helmets.

The references I have spot-checked all check out. Prose is mostly fine, but I did notice "the boar is part of a number of boar-crested helmets" – in fact, it was part of only one! Perhaps something like: "the boar was probably once the crest of a helmet; a number of other Saxon boar-crested helmets are known from archaeological excavations and artistic depictions"? I also feel like "gains a further parallel in the Wollaston helmet" is fairly clunky, but I don't have any suggestion to improve it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Caeciliusinhorto. Taking your comments in order:
  1. Length: You're right that it's short, but it's a small object, and only has two articles devoted to it (Fordham 1904; Foster 1977a). Other articles discuss it in context (boar iconography and Beowulf, for example) along with other items. Especially with the addition of the "Iconography" section (see #3, below), I believe that the article covers all the bases.
  2. Manufacture: That's a good question, but there is nothing in the literature. Fordham does not mention manufacture; Foster just says "cast" with some details punched in afterwards; and the BM website, along with the 2013 exhibition catalog, says the same as Foster (probably copying her) without elaboration. I also looked at the articles on the other boar-crested helmets (Benty Grange and Wollaston), which are not helpful. A detailed article (Bruce-Mitford 1974) on the Benty Grange helmet simply says the pieces were cast (again no elaboration), and the simpler Wollaston boar was manufactured differently, by forging a rod of iron.
  3. Iconography: Good point. I've added an "Iconography" section which I believe addresses your question, and turned the Beowulf section into a subsection thereof.
  4. Prose: Re-worded the section that contained those two phrases. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I made a minor copy-edit to the "Iconography" section. The article is looking good to me, though as FunkMonk notes below, a photograph would be nice if we could get a good one. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Guilden_Morden_grave_goods_drawing.png: we're certain that the journal itself had no copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria I'm at the library with an original copy of the journal now. The inside of the front cover states at the bottom that "All contributions to Medieval Archaeology are COPYRIGHT. Applications to reproduce them, in whole or in part, should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Secretary, Society for Medieval Archaeology, University College, Gower Street, London, WCIE 6BT." The journal also has a copyright page before the contents, which states "© World copyright—The Society for Medieval Archaeology". (I'm happy to email you this if you would like, having just scanned all the front and back matter of the journal.)
I'm not sure what significance, if any, the above language has. Per the article, the drawing was "made between April 1882 and September 1883." Foster does not state who drew it, but realistically it could only have been Herbert Fordham (d. 1891); his son Herbert George Fordham (d. 1929) wrote about the boar in 1904, but professed to be unaware of various details that were mentioned in the drawing. He explicitly stated that "No further information as to ... the particular objects found is now, unfortunately available", yet had he drawn the drawing, he would have known about the bronze ring and amber bead found alongside the boar. But regardless, the father died in 1891 and the son in 1929, so any copyright based on life + 70 years has expired. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the issue is rather the US tagging - the tag currently in use requires "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Is there a different tag that would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I've changed it to {{PD-US-URAA}}, which appears to be more explicit about the criteria needed for a foreign publication to achieve copyright protections in the United States. Medieval Archaeology was not registered in the United States (Copyright Entries), and so failed to comply with the necessary formalities (page 3 of the Hirtle chart). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Please see this discussion at the copyright help desk. Bottom line is that the 1977 UK publication did not comply with the formal requirements to establish US copyright, and so not only is the drawing PD is the UK, it is PD in the US. The previous tag appears to have been accurate, but I have updated it with a more succinct one: {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}}. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with many of the points raised in that discussion, but am unsure of the results; the new tag retains the "without copyright notice" verbiage which is not strictly speaking correct (it clearly had a copyright notice, even if that notice may not be compatible with US ones). Perhaps a tweak to the tag wording is in order? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, first thing that comes to mind is; why don't we have a photo of this object? Seems to be on public display? FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks FunkMonk, I look forward to your comments. At your prompting I've asked at the BM project page if a photograph might be possible. Including searches on Flikr, Google, and Bing, the only photographs I have seen of the boar are those taken by the BM (shown as an external link in the article) and a B&W photograph in a 1999 book. If the BM project page doesn't work I might email the author of the book and see if he has it in color and would be willing to release it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope it will bear fruit! Seems odd no one hasn't just gone to that room and snapped a photo for Commons already. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking throughout the article, it seems you extensively use direct quotes for pretty simple statements. This disrupts the flow, I think, any reason why this can't just be paraphrased in your own words throughout?
  • FunkMonk Just went through and paraphrased about half of them. If still feels too disruptive I can probably find a few more to get rid of. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Birthday-number effect

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out people unknowingly prefer numbers from their birthday. I consider this the forgotten sibling of the name-letter effect which got FA status earlier this year. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Images. There are none. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Support only a few issues. I enjoyed the name letter, glad to read the sequel.

  • "in other countries.[9][10][8][A]" Are we ordering footnotes, or most significant first?
  • "overall amount of numbers" I don't think "amount" is proper. I might say "quantity" instead.
  • "Japanese tendency to attend to negative features so as to eliminate them.[46]" I'm not quite sure what this means.
  • "can't" We shouldn't use contractions.
  • " However, young children do not apply this strategy yet and 7 does not come out on top in children of age eight and nine.[12]" I would cut "yet"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, for your time and support. I believe I have dealt with your points, but let me know if the one about the Japanese tendency is still insufficient. BTW, I must admit I suspect you smiled when you used a contraction to tell me not to use one. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

This is a very interesting article, and a lot of a great work has been done here. Though I do have to admit that this effect does not apply to me (my birthday is on the 23rd and my favorite number is 47 lol). My review is completely focused on prose, and does not address anything with source use and reliability (which I will leave up to the source review). Once my relatively minor notes/comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. My comments are as follows:

  • For the phrase (the Japanese psychologists Shinobu Kitayama and Mayumi Karasawa), I do not believe "the" is necessary.
  • For the sentence (By 2017 Kitayama and Karasawa's original study had been cited in over 300 scientific papers.), add a comma after "2017".
  • For the sentence (Throughout history societies have had numbers they consider special.), add a comma after "history".
  • For this phrase (the researcher Dietz), is Dietz this person's full name?
  • I would recommend using Bellos' full name when you mention him for the first time (i.e. Alex Bellos). Other instances where I think full names would be appropriate are the following - "Marketing researchers King and Janiszewski" and "Belgian psychologist Nuttin" - if the full names are known.
  • In this phrase (In 1985 Belgian psychologist Nuttin), add a comma after "1985". Make sure there are commas after the "In this date" construction as I have noticed a few more places that require commas, but I do not want to list every instance here.
  • "Name-letter effect" is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • Instead of "hiraganas", I would use "hiragana". Japanese does not use a plural form so using the -s construction here just looks weird. I am also a little hesitant about the descriptive phrase in front of it (each of the 45 Japanese alphabet letters) as it can be interpreted as saying that hiragana is the only part of the Japanese alphabet when there is also kanji and katakana. I would see if there would be a way to rephrase that part to avoid any confusion.
  • For this phrase (For the letter experiment they asked 219 Japanese undergraduate), add a comma after "experiment".
  • I am not certain about the way the paragraphs are split in the "Results" subsection. Is there any reason why the first sentence is made into a separate paragraph?
  • Please use the full names for these people: Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Same goes for Bosson, Swann and Pennebaker and Koole, Dijksterhuis, and van Knippenberg. Just make sure that when you introduce someone for the first time in the article, that you include their full name. There a few other instances not mentioned, but I do not want to make my comments too repetitive at this point.
  • I am not sure about the policy related to this, but in the phrase (Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell used US undergraduate students), I would use "United States" in full for the first instance the country is cited in the article and then use US for the rest of the instances just to make it clear what you are referencing.

Hope this helps out at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your detailed review. I believe I have dealt with all your points except for two remaining issues to discuss:
  • first names: if I knew the first names of all researchers then full names in first use would be good. As it happens, for 6 I can't find their first names: Dietz, Wiegersma, Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Which is a lot less than I thought. So I could do it. My policy was to only give full names of the original two, and then just last name for everybody else. But I'm open to change it, although it does make for quite a mouthful at times: "Similarly, Jerry Burger, Nicole Messian, Shenabi Patel, Alicia del Prado, and Carmen Anderson investigated the .." What do you think?
  • US undergraduate students: I read the policy on MOS:US as you have to spell out the full country if other countries are listed, but should use abbreviated form elsewhere. I do indeed find "US undergraduate students" stylistically better.
Let me know your thoughts and thx again! Edwininlondon (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my points; this was a very interesting read. I have never heard of this before so it is cool to learn something new. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide commentary on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nights: Journey of Dreams

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  17:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rosie and Jim are back. The reason why this article failed its previous FAC was due to concerns over the heavy-going prose, in particular its development section. But now that I'm back, and the fact that this article has received some generous copyediting from a couple of people in the past few months, I'm confident this should go more smoothly. I also took this through a GA review, so that's helped smooth things over as well. Nothing has changed with the sources, in fact the source and image reviews passed with flying colours last time but I'll request them again anyway, FAC procedures and what not. JAGUAR  17:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I was a little confused by the following part (but will be perused by "Awakers" which will awaken the player-character should three of them come into contact), and I was wondering if you could provide further clarification. Do you mean when three enemies attack the player-character at once or when the player-character is hit three times by an enemy (meaning one enemy can take out the player-character)? I have never played this game so I found this part to be a little unclear.
  • It's when three awakers come into contact with the player at the same time. I've never played this game either but have hopefully clarified this. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think you should make it clearer about which character is control on the ground? It is never made absolutely clear if Will/Helen or Nights is the "player-character" referenced here.
  • Rephrased to "players initially control Will or Helen but are required to merge themselves into Nights". The player initially controls the children on foot, but must take control of Nights in order to fly, if that makes sense? JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Big Ben image has the following tag attached to it: (This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license.).
  • I don't know what I done wrong but that tag keeps popping up every time after removing it. I think it's something to do with me adding two separate rationales to one image since it's two images representing one. To solve this I've merged both rationales into one. I think I know someone who does image reviews on requests, so I'll ask him. In the meantime I'll keep my eye on it. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how it works either. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You do not have Wii linked on its first use. It is currently linked in the "Design" subsection, but its first use is in the "Gameplay" section (i.e. in this sentence: "My Dreams" connects with the Wii's Forecast Channel, which will change the weather conditions in the player's "My Dream" world according to real-world forecasts.).
  • Linked in the gameplay section and unlinked in the design section. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wii remote, Classic controller, Nunchunk, and GameCube controller are linked multiple times.
  • Well spotted. Removed duplicates. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In this part (better known for his musical compositions in the Sonic the Hedgehog series), add a link to the article on the Sonic franchise.
  • Added. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Sonic Team in the body of the article.
  • Linked. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Boss is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • Removed duplicate links. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, in this part (while Will celebrates with his father after winning a football game), do you think it is necessary to clarify that it is football and not American football? Just wondering since I am an American and was wondering if it is a point that might benefit from clarification. Maybe a link would help.
  • Linked association football. I had already linked football but I typed in "soccer" to see what it led to and hopefully this should make it clearer. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Game engine is linked twice in the body of the article.
  • De-linked. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Add the release years for Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess.
  • Added. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. My review focused on the prose, and I will leave anything related to source reliability and use to the source review. I honestly did not find much that needed improvement. Once my questions/comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you so much for the review! I should have hopefully addressed all of the above, please let me know if I can do anything else? I'm not too sure how to include multiple rationales in an image (or if I even have to), but I'll request an image review shortly. Hopefully this article is much more refined and smoother than it was last time! JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and this article is very strong. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

  • I'm not exactly sure if the sentence In 2010, Iizuka commented that he would be interested in making a third Nights game, should the management of Sega decide to commission one. belongs in the "design" section of development. I think this is definitely a good piece of information to be included in the article, but is there perhaps a different place, where it's a bit more relevant?
  • I see your point but I'm not sure where else to put it since there is no "release" subsection. Naturally I would put this sentence at the end of the development section but it's not related to audio and "design" seems like the only suitable place to keep it. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand. I don't think this is necessarily a big issue though, just something that we could try to fix in the future.
  • Nights: Journey of Dreams received mixed reviews. This is a generalized statement lacking a proper reference.
  • This is a summary sentence which sums up the general outcome of reviews. I don't think there would be much point in attributing every citation after this sentence, and also I think the aggregate score supports it too. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. Not sure why I didn't do this before. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Good work on this article. Very close to supporting. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: thanks for the comments! I should have clarified everything above. Unfortunately I can't move the sentence out of the design section since there is no other place to put it, and I guess it sort of sounds relevant to design anyway. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. JAGUAR  18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this nomination. I found it an engaging and interesting read. I've never played a Nights game but will try to look for one in the future. Great job on this! Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Already done! JAGUAR  21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

The article looks in good shape but there are some flaws that might make the article better.

  • Has there been talks about this game's sales? It might be good for the reception.
  • I'm afraid I can't find any sales figures, both reliable and unreliable. All I could find was initial sales figures for the first game... JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of gameplay has six references for a single sentence. It feels like an overlink.
  • Oops. So it does! I've cut down three citations. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In audio, there is the quote "flying in the air". I've been often told to use references after quotation even though the reference might be in the end of the paragraph.
  • I'm always wary of citation overkill since the paragraph is attributed to one ref but I've added one after the quote. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, I think the other users pointed the article's biggest flaws. Ping me when you edit the article or you have a different opinion about the issues I pointed. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: thanks for taking a look at this! Unfortunately I can't find any sales figures (an impossible feat for most games) but I've addressed your other concerns. Luckily this article is a lot smoother after going through two reviews. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Giving you my support. Good luck with the article. I'm pretty sure it can pass its source review too.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pru (album)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Following the promotion of "Shine" (Gwen Stefani song), I have decided to nominate another music-related article for FAC. This article is about the eponymous, debut studio album by American singer Pru. It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records. Music critics described the album as crossing multiple genres, with several commentators connecting the singer with a movement of neo soul performers. Apart from the sound, Pru was also noted for using poetry as an inspiration for writing music. After its release, critics wrote generally positive reviews of the album, praising its composition and Pru's voice. The album peaked at number 176 on the Billboard 200 chart. Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)".

Just for clarification, I do not believe that a separate article is necessary for Pru, as this album appears to be the only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) aspects of her career. Following the release of the album, she has appeared to drop from public attention. I believe that this fulfills all aspects of the featured article criteria. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire more people to put up more obscure music-related articles through the FAC process. I look forward to everyone’s feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

  • "It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records" - is there any need for a comma after 2000? I'm not sure if it's necessary after mdy format but it feels like it's blocking the sentence
  • There is no real reason for the comma's inclusion so I have removed it. I am not sure how it slipped in there tbh so thank you for catching that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was executive produced by Capital Records executive Roy Lott" - is the repetition meant to be here? Not sure if it makes sense to me
  • True. I have reworded it to avoid the repetition. I switched "executive produced" for "managed" as they mean similar things in this given context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)". "Candles" peaked at number 68" - you could replace the second "Candles" with "The former", but I'll leave this up to you.
  • Revised. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The record was completed at Studio 57 and Weight Room" - can the location of where it was recorded (city etc) be mentioned here?
  • Added city. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "sent to rhythmic radio stations in the United States during the week of September 4, 2000" - how about the first week of September? Feel free to ignore if you disagree. I thought that saying the week of a day sounds a little confusing, if you know what I mean.
  • Changed as it does sound better. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite this change, the song was still released under its original title for vinyl and CD releases" - there was no mention of this album being released on vinyl earlier.
  • The album was not released in vinyl; it was only the single in this instance. Hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "with a Billboard reviewer writing that the singer was "[p]icking up the lyrical gauntlet" from contemporary neo soul performers" - unlink neo soul here as it's already been linked before
  • Removed link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Those were all of the things I could pick up during my first read through of this article. Overall it's in excellent shape; compact, well written and enjoyable to read. I'll comb through the article again to see if there's anything I missed but I'm confident I'll be supporting once they're all addressed. JAGUAR  18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jaguar: Thank you for the review/comments. I enjoyed working on something that is very obscure (I have never heard of anyone talking about this album or singer before I created and expanded this article). I have addressed your comments, and I am looking forward to your feedback. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them! I have never heard of Pru before, but it was a very enjoyable read and I'm sure she's a talented singer. I've read through the article again but honestly there's nothing else I can nitpick here, so I'll go ahead and lend my support now. It is compact, well written, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  19:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Paparazzzi

  • "AllMusic's Ed Hogan noted that the songs combined hip hop music, Latin music, contemporary R&B, rock music, and trip hop..." I don't know if you can reduce the use of "music" here.
  • Makes sense. Reduced. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref. 2's archived link shows a 404 message. Ironically, the original link is not dead, so I would suggest to archive it again.
  • Archived again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have already reviewed this article before; these are my only comments. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. Congratulations on this article! Great work as always! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Media review

  • The infobox album image has an appropriate fair use rationale and includes alt text.
  • The other image is appropriately licensed and includes alt text.
  • The fair use rationale for the music sample is mostly very good. From a little research I can see the 19.3-second length is well below 10% of the song length of 4:42. But it would probably be a good idea to specify that explicitly within the FUR. Moisejp (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Minor quibble: The sound clip ends quite abruptly. Whenever I create sound clips for Wikipedia I try to use the fadeout feature (I use Audacity, not sure whether the fadeout feature is available on other tools). If it's easy for you to fix, it could be worthwhile. Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: Thank you for I have added the fade out to the sample. Let me know if it works out correctly. Thank you for your review! Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. It still seems quite abrupt to me, however. Maybe try a longer fadeout? Moisejp (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your reply. I think that this simply boils down to personal preference (unless there is a Wikipedia policy on this matter). I do not necessarily see the point or benefit in adding a longer fadeout to the sample. Not only do I not really want to go back into Audacity to learn how to make a longer fadeout, the sample will always sound abrupt as it only contains a portion of the song. If I added a longer fade-out, I would also feel like it would not represent the song 100% accurately anymore as a listener may misunderstand the fade-out as part of the song rather than something I added to upload it to Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough. I agree it's just a minor preferential thing. I'm happy to say the media review passes. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments; I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cartoon network freak

Everything seems to be fine now. You have my support! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Everything looks good. All urls are archived and references are from reliable sources. Still, I'm not sure about using direct Google Books scans. Isn't this copyright violations? You could simply leave the source to the magazine.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for the source review. I have changed the citations to have them to cite the magazine itself, and took out the URLs. Hope that helps as it is important to be considerate and aware of potential copyright violations. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Good job. I'll make it pass.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I was wrong about the google books links after all. Feel free to add them if you want them.
  • Thank you for the clarification and for checking the information. It is important to make sure that all of this stuff follows policy and code so I appreciate that you took the time and energy to check everything out. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Edwininlondon

I'm no music expert, so just commenting on prose. Which I found of high quality. First a meta-comment. I'm inclined to think Pru the singer does deserve her own article. Are there any precedents where it was found the artist was not notable? Anyway, for this article, a few comments:

  • Thank you for your comments below. Someone in the future can definitely try to make an article on Pru, but I am just uncertain on whether or not there would be enough information on her outside the scope of this album. Here are the notability requirements for articles on musicians. I have also created a redirect in the past Pru (entertainer) in case anyone wants to try to do an article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • eponymous -> I'm not sure we need this word in first sentence. I'd prefer plainspeak.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • the fact that she is American is not mentioned in the body
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • After its release, -> unnecessary phrase
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "[m]usic for the [s]oul" -> I'm not a fan of the [], it distracts. Would "Music for the Soul" here really be that bad?
  • Sorry about that, I thought I had already removed the brackets. I think it is okay to present it as "music for the soul" as it does not change the meaning dramatically. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pru offering a "sexy challenge" -> who is quoted here?
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • includes "popping percussion and fluttery flute runs" -> who is quoted here?
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • a "brassy two-step" -> who is quoted here?
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pru was frequently compared to neo soul artists, such as Erykah Badu. -> who is actually depicted?
  • Added clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Edwininlondon: Thank you for the review! I believe I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can improve, and I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

We Are X

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a rockumentary film about X Japan, arguably the biggest rock/metal band in Japan. The film deals with the turbulent history of the band in general and its front-man Yoshiki in particular. The article covers all aspects of the movie, including plot, production, reception and the soundtrack. The article is already a GA, has been on DYK? and has been peer reviewed. It is hard to think how the article can be expanded to cover any other aspects that may be worth mentioning. I think it is suitable to be promoted to GA and await any further comments. ISD (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Italicisation of source publishers: italicisation should be used for printed sources – magazines, newspapers, books – but not otherwise, i.e. not for organisations such as Anime News Network or CNN, or for websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and many others.
  • Website titles such as or should not be given as publishers, when the publisher's name is available
  • Some sources may not meet FA standards of quality and reliability; can you comment on the following?
  • Blood Red Dragon (note you have mis-typed this title)
  • Loudwire
  • J. Rock News
  • Brave Words
  • Jame world

Apart from the above points, the sources and citations look well organised and, in general, solid. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: I've tried to make some changes. I think I've corrected the italicisation but I'm not sure about all of it (e.g. MyM Buzz, as MyM is the magazine by MyM Buzz is the website. Most of the italicisation comes from the use of "work=" rather than "publisher=" in the citation templates. Concerning the sources:
  • Blood Red Dragon - Comic book that is mentioned in the film. As is directly mentioned by the film itself I assume that makes it reliable, but if I'm wrong do correct me.
  • Loudwire and Brave Words are both print heavy metal magazines and thus I assume makes them reliable.
  • J. Rock News - Replaced reference with one directly from the film's official website, which I assume is a reliable source.
  • Jame World - Replaced reference with one from Anime News Network.
ISD (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the second studio album by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. This is already the fifth (!!) nomination of this article, and I fully believe it should be promoted. There has been a lot work that was put into this, and I thik it is now ready for a better status than GA. I would greatly appreciate comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • As much as I would like to see this article pass, I find it strange that you nominate this article without any activity for months. Can you explain what steps you have done to improve this article from its last failed nomination? Can you also explain why you have decided not to edit the article in about two months and then renominate it for FAC? I look forward to your answers as it may be brought up by others who may find it puzzling since your only explanation is that it should be promoted. Thanks – jona 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, @AJona1992: There was actually a lot going on with this article. First, I have requested a copy-edit. Then, I have worked in detail to the article with Mike Christie, which also led to a check on each source. As the previous nomination (and most of the other) left me with nearly no comments and were closed due to inactivity, I decided to give this another try. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Thank you for addressing my comments, and I am looking forward to your reviews. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paparazzzi

My comments have been addressed, so I'm going to support this nomination. If you don't mind, could you take a look at my FAC? If you are not able to do it, don't worry, I understand. Congratulations for your great work! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The Fountainhead

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This novel was the first bestseller for Ayn Rand, a writer who still generates controversy (and sales) over 35 years after her death. Some readers find it inspirational and life-changing, while others think it is poorly written and immoral. It's about an architect, but it also has kinky sex, satires of other writers, critiques of the New Deal, and an explosion. If you aren't a novel reader, there's a movie, a comic, and a stage version. The article has been GA since July and just got a GOCE copy edit, so now I'm looking for your reviews to build it up to FA. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Harold_Laski_1936.JPG: what's the status of this work in the US?
  • File:Fountainhead_cafe.jpg: as a representation of a 2D work, typically the photographer wouldn't have a copyright claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the prompt IR. Regarding the Fountainhead cafe image, I kind of figured that could be a problem, so I was prepared to remove the image if needed. I did not notice the problem with the Laski image previously. After rooting about for an hour, it isn't clear to me that the images from the 3rd edition of this source (the one this photo would be in) actually would be PD in the US. I've put in an inquiry on Commons about it. In the meantime I've removed both images. If I get information that justifies restoring the Laski image, I'll ping you about it. --RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Apologies for the whiplash, but after some helpful clarifications around older Swedish copyright law, I've updated the tagging for the Laski image on Commons and restored it to the article. The cafe image is still out. Let me know if there are any other concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

  • "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand and was her first major literary success." – inconsistent tense (is/was). Also, who is Ayn Rand? Give brief description on first mention
  • Split the sentence and mimicked the description used for Rand in another FA. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who refuses to compromise his artistic and personal vision for worldly recognition and success" – purple prose (and probably non-neutral)
  • "The story follows his battle to practice modern architecture while opposed by an establishment centered on tradition." – how do you practice modern architecture?
  • I revised to combine the sentences from this point and the one above to address your comments. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Roark is opposed by what Rand described as "second-handers", who value conformity more than independence and integrity" → "over independence and integrity". Also, isn't "second-handers" also Roark's evaluation?
  • Yes, it is his evaluation (albeit not until almost 600 pages into the text), so copy edited accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced as endorsing rape." – how can a sexual encounter endorse rape?
  • Its presence in the novel suggests to some that Rand was OK with rape, so re-worded accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does the Gary Cooper image appear under ¶ Impact on Rand's career and not ¶ Film?
  • Primarily to spread the images out a bit so there aren't large stretches of text. The film adaptation is mentioned in the section, so it isn't entirely misplaced. But if it's a big deal, it's not hard to move one image. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

--Gertanis (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Thanks for your comments. I have made changes and inserted replies above. Possibly some of the wording could be further improved, so let me know if you have additional feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

I've read it several times over the years. A few comments:

  • "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand. It was her first major literary success." I've read the comments above. May I suggest, "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success." Because I do think it's a bit choppy at present.
  • "with an architectural establishment centered on tradition. " For "centered on tradition", I might say "unwilling to accept innovation". Tradition is a pretty broad term and I'm not sure the reader is going to get what you're saying.
  • "describes as" I would say "calls" is simpler.
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that feminist critics have denounced as indicating that Rand endorses rape." I hesitatingly suggest "that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape".
  • " Cameron was once a renowned architect, but he now gets few commissions." I would strike "he"
  • "He later gets a job in a granite quarry owned by Francon." The "later" de-emphasizes the fact that he is forced to work in the quarry because he cannot earn a living as an architect. The two are closely related, you make it distant.
  • "that he pays off Keating to divorce her," I would strike the word "off". It still means the same thing.
  • "and thus hires him." I would say "so", not "thus"
  • "Roark's past relationship with Dominique." I would change this. "Relationship" could be taken to mean the sexual encounter, which you mention is controversial. Possibly "that they met at the quarry" or "that they knew each other from the quarry" or similar.
By this point in the novel, there have been other sexual encounters between Roark and Dominique, which she initiates, so "relationship" is more accurate. This was a significant omission from the plot summary, which I've corrected instead of changing this word. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "for his influence " maybe "to use his influence"
  • "Roark returns to discover that the Cortlandt design has been changed." maybe "Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction"
  • " Wynand dismisses Toohey for criticizing Roark." consider "Wynand dismisses Toohey for disobeying him and criticizing Roark". It might help to mention that Wynand uses his papers to defend Roark.
  • "Roark also wins over Dominique, who leaves Wynand for Roark." I might put it more directly: "After Wynand gives in, Dominique leaves him for Roark."
  • I might make it clearer that Wynand conceives that by allowing the denunciation of Roark to be printed, he has sullied himself from the ideal.
  • "Rand's denials have not stopped other commentators from claiming stronger connections between Wright and Roark." I might strike "other" . It's questionable whether an author is a commentator.
  • "Wright equivocated about whether he thought Roark was based on him, sometimes implying that he was, at other times denying it." The second "was" should probably be "did" as the question is Wright's belief, not whether Roark was in fact based by
  • "than follow his personal interests." I would say "desires" for "interests".
Being familiar with Rand's other writings about self-interest and how that differs from desire, I think my word choice better reflects her intent. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his choices, but it is too late for him to change.[18][19]" I might say "path" for "choices". He is certainly unhappy about not painting instead of building, but to me anyway, his unhappiness otherwise seems more about the outcome.
  • "also contributed inspiration" maybe "also helped inspire"?
  • "In 1927, Rand was working as a junior screenwriter for movie producer Cecil B. DeMille when he asked to write a script for what would become the film Skyscraper." possibly a word missing, possibly "her" after "asked"?
  • "That earlier novel was based partially on people and events from Rand's experiences" a bit hard to read, perhaps "That earlier novel was based in part on people and events familiar to Rand"
  • "She did not place the quotes in the published novel," sort of repeating, maybe "In addition to redacting the quotes in the published novel," You might be able to do without "in the published novel", too. I would omit the "she" from the second half of the sentence, as not needed.
  • "Twelve other publishers (including Macmillan and Knopf) had rejected the book.[61][67][68]" This sentence might do better at the end of the previous paragraph and in the present tense. It seems out of place where it is,
  • "Second Hand Lives" You are not consistent as to whether the first two words of this title have a hyphen between them.
Interesting article. I'm glad to learn more of the background.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Thanks for reviewing. I've implemented most of your suggestions, with comments inserted above only for exceptions. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
SupportLooks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aoba47

  • The following part reads awkwardly to me (especially among political libertarians and in the field of architecture) as I feel there is something missing in front of the phrase “in the field of architecture”. It just reads a little weird to switch between saying something’s popular with a noun (i.e. political libertarians) and not using the same structure for the rest of the sentence. I think consistency is the point that makes it a little off for me.
  • I have a question about this part (several directors and writers have considered remaking the film). Do they really want to do a remake of the film, or do they really want to do a new film adaptation of the book? It seems to me that they want to do a new film adaptation of the book and not necessarily a remake of the past film itself.
  • In the following phrase (Rand viewed as wrong ideas:), should the colon be a period? I am not sure of the purpose of the colon in this context.
  • I would add the year in which Skyscraper was released (i.e. 1928).
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For this first phrase (following the completion in 1934 of her first novel, We the Living), I would change it to the following (following the completion of her first novel, We the Living, in 1934) as it reads smoother to me.
  • Add the year in which Journals of Ayn Rand was released. Same goes for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and For the New Intellectual and Atlas Shrugged.
  • I am not sure the thesaurus link is entirely necessary.

Great work with this article. My focus was on the prose; I will leave everything dealing with the source reliability and use to the source reviewer. My comments are very minor as I think there is not much that requires improvement. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my own FAC. Either way, I will be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing. Another editor apparently jumped in to address one of your comments. I have made edits to address the rest. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted and have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@RL0919: I hope you don't mind my jumping in to assist, just saw an opportunity to help out in a minor way without making too many major changes (as I am unfamiliar with topic). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It was unexpected, but nothing to object to. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources in general look good. Only one query: in ref 87 the Cox essay is stated as being in "Thomas 2005", this being The Literary Art of Ayn Rand. But the source says the essay is reproduced from The Fountainhead: A Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration, published by the Atlas Society. Strictly speaking, the citation should be direct to the website since this is your source.

No other queries. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I know this is terribly old-fashioned, but I have physical copy of the 2005 book The Literary Art of Ayn Rand, edited by William Thomas, which I used as a source for refs 41 and 87. The web page in ref 87 is a convenience link. I did overlook the page number for ref 87, which I've now added. In double-checking for any similar mistakes, I found two sources that I did get online that lacked access date info, so I added those also. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that referring to the sexual encounter as a "rape scene" ("Responses to the rape scene", "One of the most controversial elements of the book is the rape scene") begs the question under discussion. Wikipedia has decided that it is a rape scene? Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
That is how it is most frequently referred to in sources. In some sources quote marks are used -- the "rape scene" or the "rape" scene -- and the article has had those in some versions as well. Occasionally the word alleged has been used in the article, although I don't think that phrasing has much source support. It hasn't changed with enough frequency to trigger discussion of it on the Talk page. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording. --RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

S-50 (Manhattan Project)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the S-50 Project. It was an effort to produce enriched uranium using by liquid thermal diffusion. Pilot plants were built at the Anacostia Naval Air Station and the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and a production facility at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This was the only production-scale liquid thermal diffusion plant ever built. It could not enrich uranium sufficiently for use in an atomic bomb, but it could provide slightly enriched feed for the Y-12 calutrons and the K-25 gaseous diffusion plants. It was estimated that the S-50 plant had sped up production of enriched uranium used in the Little Boy bomb employed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by a week.

Now for the elephant in the room. This article was deleted back in 2006. You can read the weighty deliberations here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the sectional view slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    Set to upright=1.3 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

A tiny formatting point: in refs 11 and 17 the p. should be pp. Otherwise sources look impeccable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

  • "Fears that a German atomic bomb project would develop nuclear weapons first, especially among scientists who were refugees from Nazi Germany and other fascist countries, were expressed in the Einstein-Szilard letter." this reads awkwardly to me; additionally, as I understand it, the Einstein-Szilard letter was concerned with the possibility that Nazi Germany would develop nuclear weapons at all. I think removing the word "first" would improve the flow.
    Sure. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "because their status as enemy aliens precluded their working on secret projects like radar." this is a wonderful little detail!
  • "when a mixed gas passes through a temperature gradient, the heavier one tends to concentrate at the cold end and the lighter one at the warm end": grammatically, "one" in this sentence really refers to "a mixed gas". Either change that to "a mixture of gases" and keep the "heavier one... lighter one" construction, or change "heavier one" to "heavier constituent".
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "he was able to achieve some separation factor": is this correct? it seems to me like it should be "a separation factor", but I'm not a chemist...
    Yes. Chaged to "a". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Because of the dangers of handling uranium hexafluoride, all handling of it": can this be reworded so the article doesn't use "handling" twice in such close proximity?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The lower hot wall temperature due to the reduced steam pressure was compensated for by the ease of operation." hang on, which lower temperature? Presumably this means that the boilers supplied by the navy could produce less heat than those originally planned, but this should be explicitly noted in the article because as it is it took me three readings of this to work out what was meant...
    Yet somehow you overlooked that the pilot plant ran on 1,000 pounds per square inch (6,900 kPa). Made this explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hoffman ran through the toxic cloud to rescue them": was Hoffman harmed by this?
    He suffered burns. Added this. He went on to become a professor of materials science at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University, and director of its national measurements laboratory at the National Bureau of Standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than these few comments, the article looks good, at least on my first pass through. For an unavoidably technical subject, it's made commendably clear to the non-scientific reader. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Common loon

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) and Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This article yet another FAC on a bird species! We think it up in close range of getting a shiny star, and it has also undergone copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors. We hope you enjoy reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

  • link mantle both in lead and in body
Linked! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • mention in the lead that the sexes are alike
Mentioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


  • "Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..." - I prefer the inclusion of the article: "The Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..."
I think it looks better without it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why Brunnich and not Brünnich with the umlaut as in the Wikipedia article?
Replaced. Good catch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "as Gavia immer in his Ornithologia Borealis." This is incorrect - Brünnich used Colymbus immer. I've added a cite to his book in the article. The cite to "Assembly, New York (State) Legislature (1910)" is a weird choice. I suggest:
    • Mayr, Ernst; Cottrell, G. William, eds. (1979). Check-list of Birds of the World. Volume 1 (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. pp. 138–139. 
Fixed. Also, for consistency, removed the reference's location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

  • Perhaps worth mentioning the winter site fidelity and citing:
Paruk, J.D.; et al. (2015). "Winter site fidelity and winter movements in Common Loons (Gavia immer) across North America". Condor. 117 (4): 485–493. doi:10.1650/CONDOR-15-6.1Freely accessible. 


  • "or early June within one week" and later in third paragraph there is "After a week of construction in late spring," repetition of a week and the time of year.
  • "nesting success" - How is "success" defined? All eggs hatch and nestlings fledge or at least one nestling fledging, or ...?
  • "and both the male and female parents take turns..." -> "and both parents take turns..."
  • "Incubation takes 26 to 31 days,[32]" Your often cited Carboneras et al reference has c. 24-25. Why did you choose the Michigan numbers?
  • "The eggs are laid in late May or June." - oddly placed - and previous paragraph on nest building has "in May or early June". perhaps delete here. I assume that the eggs are laid soon after completion of the nest.
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old." I would write "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks of age." or "typically fly when 10 to 11 weeks old."
  • Tweaked (Removed it due to repetition). Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42] Fledging takes 70 to 77 days." fledging lasts until they fly so this appears to be repeating the same information.
  • perhaps give the maximum recorded age as 29 years 10 months and cite
"Longevity Records Of North American Birds". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 12 September 2017. 
  • When does the common loon moult - and which feathers are replaced?

- Aa77zz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Does the pair bond last from one breeding season to the next?
  • "They are capable of diving underwater in the next few days and can typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42]" where ref 42 is: Laycock, George (1970). The Wilderness Bird. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. p. 69. This is not a suitable reference for this information.

- Aa77zz (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments

  • mention that no subspecies are recognised
  • the article should mention sexual dimorphism - the male is significantly heavier than female. See Gray et al 2014, Evers 2004 pp.4-5, Tischler 2011 p.2, Piper et al 2008.
Gray, C.E.; et al. (2014). "Body mass in Common Loons (Gavia immer) strongly associated with migration distance". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 64–75. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp109. 
Evers, David C. (2004). Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in North America (PDF) (Report). Hadley, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Tischler, Keren B. (September 2011). Species Conservation Assessment for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in the Upper Great Lakes (PDF) (Report). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 
Piper, W.H.; Walcott, C.; Mager, J.N.; Spilker, F.J. (2008). "Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex-biased site familiarity". Journal of Animal Ecology. 77: 205–210. JSTOR 20143178. 
  • "and the pair bond lasts for about five years." this is text added in response to my comment above. It appears that territory is all important and it is probably inaccurate to state that the pair-bond continues from one year to the next. Evers 2004 has "Pair bonds do not persist beyond the breeding season" but has "High site fidelity by both sexes assures regular pairing of same individuals as the previous year." For a discussion see Piper et al 2000
Piper, W.H.; Tischler, K.B.; Klich, M. (2000). "Territory acquisition in loons: the importance of take-over". Animal Behaviour. 59: 385–394. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1295. 
  • should mention that pairs do not migrate together and do not winter together
  • perhaps add more detail on predation and separate chicks and eggs. In particular racoons can be important predators of eggs. Mentioned in Piper et al 2008
  • "Loons' nests are usually placed on islands" - not supported by source and doubtful.
Radomski, P.J.; Carlson, K.; Woizeschke, K. (2014). "Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting habitat models for North-Central Minnesota Lakes". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 102–107. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp113. 
  • perhaps add a second picture to the taxbox showing the non-breeding plumage
  • There an extensive literature on the common loon, much quite recent, and I don't think that the most reliable sources have been cited in the article. Some seem poor or unsuitable. By far the best review article is the Birds of North America article by Evers et al 2010. It is long, very detailed, well illustrated and cites the primary literature (up to 2010):
Evers, D.C.; Paruk, J.D.; McIntyre, J.W.; Barr, J.F. (2010). Rodewald, P.G., ed. "Common Loon (Gavia immer)". The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (Subscription required (help)). 
I haven't gone through the list of reference cited in the wiki article systematically but noticed:
22 Garfield, Eagle - What is this? Why is there no link? I've looked here without success:
41 Audubon - short web page with no author
50 animal diversity web - more scholarly source needed
59 Staff, Bowker - what is this?
64 Alward, Brian Floyd (2007) - Masters degree thesis not suitable
66 Watch, Wisconsin Project Loon (1984) - is this needed
I'm surprised by the number of field guides cited: 16 Ryan; 18 Dunne; 19 Icenoggle; 21 Kaufman; 26 Rappole; 27 Peterson; 65 Stallcup; 32 Eastman. Usually field guides are general tertiary sources that lack cites to the primary literature. If you have difficulty accessing any article, please email me. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Add a couple more comments:

  • HBW is archived - this is silly as the archive is only the entry page for those without a subscription.
  • "and very rarely in Scotland, to the east, and in Alaska to the west.[15]" This is ambiguous as it could be understood that they very rarely breed in Alaska when in fact Alaska has the largest breeding pop of any US state. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Another comment

  • Status and conservation : "In addition, it also has a large population size." How large is the population and how is it distributed both when breeding during the summer and then during the winter? - Aa77zz (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

More sources comments

Some of the above comments appear to relate to sources, although this is not specified. I've done a basic sources review, testing that all links are working, and checking formats, etc. Just a couple of points:

  • Ref 5: The "imprimatur" (i.e. publisher) is shown as "J.C. Kall". This should be added, together with publisher location
  • Ref 46: The title of the source article appears to be "Loon vocalizations: what you are hearing and what does it mean?", rather than the title that's showing.

Otherwise, from my perspective all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, first some image comments. When an image is very long vertically, like the drawing of the egg here, it is a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, it will make the image smaller, so it doesn't take so much space and clash with the other images. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking closer at that picture, only the bottom egg is of this species, so it should be extracted as a new file and replace the image in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this photo of an adult with chicks[9] is of better quality than the one currently in the article.
  • Maybe it would be nice to show the immature bird.[10]
  • "It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" So what happened to this species name? Who coined it and when?
  • I've re-written this section, Colymbus was the original name, clearer now?. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The " It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" seems out of place since you follow this by " first described the common loon in 1764". Better for flow if the information is chronological, so you start with original description, then go on to synonyms.
  • The photo under Distribution and habitat is quite frankly boring, and is basically the same as the one in the taxobox. Why not a photo like this[11], or video like this[12]?
  • "The underparts are pure white, but has some black" Plural, so "have".
  • "and the webs are flesh coloured" I would add "the webs between the toes" or some such.
  • "duration of about one minute" Could be converted.
  • "and has a stable population trend that does warrant a vulnerable rating" Does not?
  • "Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway)" Why do we need the part in parenthesis? Svalbard belongs to Norway.
  • "The common loon has faced a decline in breeding range primarily due to hunting, predation, human destruction of habitat, contaminant exposure, and water-level fluctuations, or flooding. Some environmentalists attempt to increase nesting success by mitigating the effects of some of these threats, namely terrestrial predation and water-level fluctuations, through the deployment of rafts and artificial nesting islands in the loon's breeding territories.[44]" This seems it belongs under conservation rather than breeding, and you also have similar text there.
  • " Onomatopoeic names representing the bird's call" No examples? Also seems grammatically wrong in context of the full sentence.
  • A random sentence break seems to have crept in, fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "eaten in the Scottish island" Islands?
  • "The common loon appears on Canadian currency, including the one-dollar "loonie" coin and the previous series of $20 bills.[73] It is the provincial bird of Ontario.[74] It was designated the state bird of Minnesota in 1961" Non-Americans might think Minnesota is also in Canada, sicne you start by mentioning Canada and Canadian places, but then jump straight to a US state without mentioning the country.
  • Any reason why the article listed under Further reading isn't used as a source?
  • Removed, I think this non-specialist publication adds little, a hangover from earlier versions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "(another former name, great northern loon, was a compromise proposed by the International Ornithological Committee)" This long elaboration should be given in the article body, not the intro. All common names should also be listed in the article body.
  • The bill is described as black, but it looks grey in most photos, even in summer plumage?
  • The description in the intro seems a bit too short.
  • Seems you go into way much detail about conservation systems in the intro, most of it isn't really needed. Yet you don't mention cultural issues at all, though the intro should summarise the entire article.
  • Reduced status and added cultural part in lead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

SMS Brandenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Another German battleship article - I created it all the way back in 2007. It has obviously been significantly expanded in the intervening decade, with most of the work being done this past April. It went through a MILHIST A-class review after that, and has been waiting for me to have the time to put it up here. As for the ship itself, Brandenburg was the first modern ocean-going battleship of the German Navy, and she saw extensive use through the 1890s and early 1900s. During that time, she was sent with the other Brandenburg-class ships to China during the Boxer Rebellion, but by the time they got there, the rebellion had petered out. She was mobilized at the outbreak of World War I, but due to her age, she saw no action, and she was broken up after the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Shandong map
    • Good idea.
  • Brassey's should be italicized
    • Done.
  • File:SMS_Brandenburg_NH_88644.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Unknown, but per the NHHC, the photos in their collection are PD in the US unless otherwise stated. These kinds of photos were routinely collected by ONI for intelligence on foreign navies, which suggests the photo was in circulation at the time. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for another classy ship, comments as I read:


  • link I Division?


  • Can we place the image right, to avoid sandwiching of text?
    • If we do that, it'll be pushed down below the infobox and into the sections below, so it either stays where it is or we'd have to remove it. It would probably fit somewhere in the narrative, but it would be out of place, I'd think.
      • You could move it bolow the infobox, and move the next one further down, it's very general, could go almost anywhere. ---GA
  • Not familiar with the topic, may be a silly question: Do we start two sentences in a row with Brandenburg?
    • I'm not seeing where that is, can you point it out?
      • Don't see it anymore. ---GA

... to 1896

  • Do we know more about the illustration?
    • Added the illustrator and the approximate date
  • "Wilhelm II." has a dot, in German. I suggest you use that consistently or call him in English. "Wilhelm II" looks wrong.
    • I've always used Wilhelm II (and that's how it's done at Wilhelm II, German Emperor
      • Always learning. I'd understand "William II" and "Wilhelm II.". ---GA
  • The red link to the beach helps nobody, - how about Strande which at least has a map. Makes me wonder if a few maps marking where she went would be good?
    • Yeah, but I'd think articles on the bays will eventually be created. How about turning the red link into a redirect to Strande for now?
  • "Prinz Heinrich" or "Prince Henry", please.
    • Done
  • don't think Wiker Bucht should have a red link, - not even Wike in sight
    • As above, my assumption is that eventually, all place names will have articles, so red links now don't do any harm.
      • For people who are not coloublind it adds unwanted emphasis. I'd unlink for now and link when the article is there. ---GA
  • The link to Baltic Sea comes late, which might provide readers with little understanding for German waters with a basic direction.
    • Yeah, though I don't see a good place to move it earlier.
      • add in the Baltic Sea to the first-mentioned bay? ---GA
  • "before the ships had to put into their home"? be put?
    • It's a common nautical expression
      • Can you the expresseion to my, I mean: who puts, the ship herself? I'd understand "before the ships had to be put into their home". ---GA
  • link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal?
    • It's linked in that section

Will continue later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


  • link marks?
    • Done


  • "rendezvoused" - is that a word?
    • Sure is.
  • "Norddeutsche Tiefbauges" is no word, should be Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft.
    • I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks Dan.

Again, thank you! Excellent readable layout of references! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Supoort - do with the minor issues as you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Nicely done. I have only two small quibbles, as follows:
  • Some of the images have alt text, but some don't. It would be good to add the missing ones.
  • I've added alt text, to the best of my ability
Boxer Rebellion
  • Fixed, good catch.
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources of appropriate quality and reliability. All references consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Craig Kieswetter

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter was one of those England cricketers who bounced in and out of the team. He had a good run in one-day cricket early in his career, and was man of the match in the final when England won the World Twenty20, the first one-day trophy won by the team. He later lost his England place to one of his Somerset team-mates. At domestic level, he was one of Somerset's star players until he was struck in the eye by the ball, ending his career prematurely.

This article underwent a GA review by Sturmvogel 66, who helped to reduce the amount of jargon used, or at least reminded me to explain it or wikilink it. Relentlessly very kindly copy-edited the article, both improving the quality of the prose, and identifying a number of areas where the referencing fell short. Crisco 1492 took a quick look at the images. The last FAC stalled a bit, but I think I have addressed all the points raised at that nomination by Dweller, and have returned for another shot. Since the last review, Kieswetter has started a career as a professional golfer, and I have added some information about that, though there is little to say so far. Harrias talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Recusing as coordinator on this one. A few thoughts on the lead (which I copyedited; please revert anything you don't like) to begin with, more later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • "after qualifying for the England cricket team": Do we need to say something more about this? The general reader might struggle to understand this, but I'm not sure the lead is the place to spell it out.
  • Per the final point here as well, I've cut this from the opening paragraph. The second paragraph spells it out a bit more, and it isn't needed here too. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a lack of progression": Similar issue here. I think the general reader will be lost by this. Maybe lack of opportunity?
  • Yup, changed. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, we repeat the information in the first paragraph later on in the lead. I think we could trim that first paragraph right back to a description of his role and stats. The rest is duplicated later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You're right, I've got into a bad habit of using the opening paragraph of the lead as a "mini-lead", in which I summarise the rest of the lead. I've cut a couple of bits out, how does it seem now? Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get back to it this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "he scored a relatively modest 606 first-class runs at an average of 31.89": If we are going to talk about relative success, we should be citing something which compares him, such as the Somerset averages. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "He played all ten matches for the Warriors, scoring 199 runs at an average of 22.11, including two half-centuries.": Apparently uncited at the end of a paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the playing style section, there look to be one or two terms that would benefit from linking, such as off side and square.
  • I also wonder do we need a touch more on his wicketkeeping. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I recall him being a pretty terrible keeper. Were there any technical discussion of his keeping about why he was not the best?
  • Is there anything in particular about his batting technique, especially if he had problems against the moving ball?
  • On the ODI keeper tangle between him, Buttler, Bairstow and Prior, is there anything else? The article looks a little light as it took quite a while to settle.
  • Other than the quotes we already have, are there any comments from colleagues/coaches about him or his effectiveness? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looking OK. I'll be happy to support once these issues have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Very little at issue here. The sources apppear to be of appropriate authority and reliablility for a cricketer biography. The only nit I can find to pick is that refs 15 and 59 seem to be lacking publisher details.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton. Not sure how I managed to omit those details; added in now. Harrias talk 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, though neither was actually dead. Harrias talk 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both where dead when I checked them, odd. Oh well... (tJosve05a (c) 14:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog is a 2006 video game published by Sega for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles. It's best known for its negative reception, often being cited as one of the worst games in the Sonic series and in gaming in general.

However, its story is one that is not widely known. You see, the game that became what is now known as Sonic '06 wasn't even supposed to be a Sonic game. It was conceived as a separate, completely different property. But, when it came time to create a new game in the Sonic franchise, series creator Yuji Naka wanted something big. He wanted to give Sonic a facelift, like how DC Comics had revived Batman for his 2005 outing Batman Begins. Thus, development on Sonic the Hedgehog began. The designers, with the advanced technical capabilities of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, began to create a vast, more realistic world for Sonic and his friends to explore. With these innovations, they created a new character (Silver) and experimented with new ideas not ever seen before. But it all went downhill from there. Naka suddenly resigned, and there was no one left who had worked on the first games in the series anymore. Then Sega got developer kits for a system then known as the Revolution, and it split the game's development team into two: one to work on Sonic '06, and another to work on a completely different game that would eventually become Sonic and the Secret Rings for the Wii. There was now a small, inexperienced development team working on the former and... they rushed it. When it finally came out, critics blasted Sonic the Hedgehog as an insult to Sonic's fifteen years of making gaming history. What was supposed to be the Batman Begins for Sonic turned into the Fantastic Four (2015 version) for Sonic, and it left a stain that it still felt today.

Since the last FAC, this article has undergone a copyedit courtesy of TarkusAB. We worked really hard -- re-writing the lead, plot, and reception, archiving URLs, etc. ... and I believe it's finally ready. It's reliably sourced, well-written, and it covers all topics. Everything's here. Indeed, I believe this article meets the FA standards. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Is there any particular reason to place the game's Japanese title in a note? A majority of the FAs on Japanese video games that I have seen from browsing from the video game WikiProject appears to use the Japanese title in some variation directly in the first sentence. This may be a stylistic choice, but I just wanted to draw attention to it.
  • Removed Japanese name.
  • The Japanese name could be important for inclusion, but since I have never worked on an article like this, I will leave this matter up to more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think the sentence in the lead about how it is referenced colloquially as Sonic '06 should be placed directly after the first sentence to group the introductory sentences together to have the rest of the paragraph run more seamlessly together? If not, then I would recommend clarifying that these more colloquial titles were given to the games following its release. I would also specify who is referencing the game in this way (I think it is primarily critics and fans and not the Sega and the Sonic Team itself), but some clarification here could be helpful.
  • Moved this to the second paragraph, I think it might fit better there since I changed the wording in the lead a bit.
  • In this phrasing (It was developed by Sonic Team—the team directed by Sonic co-creator Yuji Naka), I would see if there was a way to possibly revise this to avoid the repetition of the word "team" in such close context.
  • The best synonym I could find was "group", which really doesn't sound right. I'll tried to re-word it a bit and give it better flow.
  • For the lead, I would add the year in which Secret Rings was released.
  • Done.
  • Should you specify that the second team was only working on the Wii version of the game?
  • Specified.
  • Could you provide more context for the bonus "Last Story" stage? I could not find information about it in the source cited (I am probably overlooking it for some reason). For instance, who is playable in this version, and how is different from the previous three versions mentioned in the previous sentence?
  • I've added that it concludes the story and that all three hedgehogs are the main characters.
  • For this phrase (Sonic's story focuses on the speed-based platforming seen in previous Sonic games), there should be a link to the Sonic franchise page as this is the first time in the body of the article that you reference the franchise itself.
  • Something about the following sentence reads a little weirdly to me (Another character, Princess Elise, escorts him in some stages by using a special barrier to guard him). I would say "and uses a special barrier", as the "by" seems a little strange in this specific context. She is more so "helping" Sonic "by" doing such actions, but I do not believe she is "escorting" him through these actions. I hope this makes sense. It just boils down to word choice.
  • Sonic actually escorts Elise, I've reworded it a bit for flow.
  • In the final sentence of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, reference 2 should go before references 5, 6, and 7.
  • Done.
  • In the second paragraph of that same section, you use the verb "progress" twice in close proximity. Maybe, add some variation there.
  • Changed the first "progress" to "advance".
  • I would revise this (Although every character traverses the same levels, each character's unique abilities allow the player to access different areas of each stage and deny them from accessing certain items.) to avoid the repetition of the word "character".
  • Revised by removing the second use of "character".
  • I am not sure if you really need to do this for this FAC, but it would be more helpful to change the redirect for "Golden Rings" so it jumps right to the appropriate section in the main Sonic article rather than just leading to the top.
  • Fixed; this was because the page had been moved.
  • I think that the following part could be revised to read better (which are lost when they are hit by an enemy or obstacle with no rings in their possession or encounter any other fatal obstacle.). Avoid the repetition of the word "obstacle" and specify the difference between an "obstacle" and a "fatal obstacle" if you can.
  • Changed second "obstacle" to "hazard".
  • In the phrase (friends travel between past, present, and future), I would change it to (friends travel between the past, present, and future).
  • Done.
  • Please add the release years for Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2.
  • Done and fixed order.
  • I would revise the following (before attaining his final hedgehog look over fifty concept designs later) to (before attaining his final hedgehog look following fifty concept designs) for conciseness.
  • Done.
  • I heard somewhere that Veronica Taylor was the original choice for Elise's voice actress before it was changed to Lacey Chabert. I am not sure if it is really true or if there is a source out there going either way, but I just wanted to point this out to you.
  • It says that she voiced her on Metacritic, but that's the only RS I could find; it doesn't say if she was the original choice.
  • Makes sense to me. I just wanted to raise this point as it is something that I heard, but I doubted it was covered in anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Following this sentence (Sega began pressuring the development team to release the game by Christmas 2006, so with their deadline quickly approaching, Sonic Team rushed the final stages of development, ignoring existing bugs and control problems), reference 11 should be placed before references 14 and 26.
  • Done.
  • For this part (a time of day mechanic), do you mean (a time of day and night mechanic)?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • Include the year in which Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was released.
  • Year added.
  • Include the release dates for Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1 and Sonic Colors.
  • Done.
  • Again, specify who is referencing the game by its year of release if possible as it is a little vague.
  • Done.
  • Add the year in which Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Adventure were released.
  • Removed Sonic Boom, but added the Sonic Adventure year.
  • Lacey Chabert is linked twice in the article.
  • Unlinked in reception.
  • Sonic Colors is linked twice in the article.
  • Unlinked in legacy.
  • This is more of a question than a suggestion, but have there been any comparisons between the reception of this game and Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric? They were both panned by critics as low points in the franchise and were rush-released before being fully complete and ready for the public. There may not be anything out there, but I was just curious if there was any commentary about this.
  • There was from, but they are an unreliable source. I've removed the Sonic Boom comparison.
  • Makes sense; I was just curious about whether or not there was more on this front. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is another question, but I have read that the Sonic Team twitter has poked fun at this game multiple times or completely ignored it altogether. Would this be something to add here? This is a source talking about what I mean right here.
  • Added this; it was actually already sourced in the article.
  • In this sentence (The game's plot was a major point of criticism, journalists considered it confusing and inappropriately dark.), reference 2 should come before references 67 and 68.
  • Done.
  • Shadow the Hedgehog is linked twice.
  • Removed link in reception.
  • For this part (The A.V. Club, Kotaku, Game Informer, and USgamer have called the title the worst game in the Sonic series), the references are out of order.
  • In order now. (I got a bit messy with the refs).
  • Same for this sentence (most have made few appearances since).
  • In order now.
  • For conciseness, I would just combine the following two sentences (The game's plot was a major point of criticism, journalists considered it confusing and inappropriately dark.) into the following phrase (Journalists criticized the game's plot as confusing and inappropriately dark.).
  • Done.

Wonderful work with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. This is certainly an interesting part of gaming history, more so featuring how not to run a franchise or a reboot process. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've responded to your comments and resolved the errors. Thanks for the time to review! (I'll comment on your current FAC, too). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments and for taking time to comment on my FAC. I support this for promotion; I hope that this receives more attention and passes this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The1337gamer


Quickly glossed over on section of the article: Music. It has major sourcing and verifiability issues. It's entirely sourced from store pages which are not good sources.

  • References 32, 33, 34 and 36 are all Amazon store pages, which are definitely unreliable sources. Anyone can create store pages for products on Amazon because they allow third-party sellers to create pages. These need replacing.
  • Removed.
  • The musical score for Sonic the Hedgehog was composed by Hideaki Kobayashi, Tomoya Ohtani, Mariko Nanba, Taihei Sato, and Takahito Eguchi, and was written in various styles of music genres, such as classical, electronic, rock, and world. - Not supported by citation. No mention of these people or genres. iTunes store pages are a weak source as well.
  • Added the game's credits as the source since they're all documented there. I only used it for this (I don't want to abuse it, as it's a primary source).
  • The main theme for the game, "His World", was written by Ohtani and performed by Ali Tabatabaee and Matty Lewis of the band Zebrahead. R&B artist Akon performed a remix of the Dreams Come True song "Sweet Sweet Sweet", a song originally from their album The Swinging Star. The song was previously used as the ending theme to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (1992). - Not supported by citation. In fact, the citation for this part leads to page with no information on at all.
  • It does, actually. It leads to the official website, where both songs are mentioned (you need Adobe Flash to view the website, didn't know if you knew that). Added a Famitsu source to support the Sonic 2 and Akon info.
  • Silver's theme, "Dreams of An Absolution", was performed by singer Lee Brotheron - No mention of Lee Brotheron at source. Unreliable source anyway.
  • Removed.
  • Two official soundtrack albums were released on January 10, 2007. - No citation for this. In fact, the citation that succeeds this part says the release date is January 22, 2007 which contradicts the date in the article. It is an unreliable source anyway.
  • Both are in the official website, used that instead of iTunes.
  • The complete soundtrack, titled Sonic the Hedgehog Original Soundtrack, features over 90 tracks across three disks. - No mention of three disks in sources.
  • Removed this as well.

--The1337gamer (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: I've responded to your comments above and addressed them. Thanks for taking the time to review. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp

  • "following the release of Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg" - I'd probably mention this game was also published by Sega, otherwise its unclear why you're mentioning it. Alternatively the middle paragraph of the lead is looking disproportionately large in comparison to the other two. It might be better to just drop this. Up to you.
  • I'ne dropped it.
  • "franchise for the seventh generation" - I'd remove the piping and just link to the full article Seventh generation of video game consoles. People unfamiliar with video games will have no idea what seventh generation means on its own.
  • Done.
  • "An unofficial fan-made remake of the game for Microsoft Windows is being made" - I'd be more specific with time frames in this paragraph. At the very least, mention which month in 2017 the segment was released. I'd open with when the game started being developed as well if that is possible.
  • Changed to "currently under development", and added the month of release (January).

That's all I found. Very close to supporting. Freikorp (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Responded and resolved. Thanks for taking the time to review! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this now, though you shouldn't use terms like "currently" as per WP:REALTIME, so if you can't give a date for when development started I'd change that sentence back to how it was. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Improved and expanded upon the Purpose of use, and removed some redundant info.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I just realized something. If this passes, it'll be the first mainline Sonic game to achieve FA-status! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

  • "Similarly, current series producer Takashi Iizuka would state that "we didn't have any time to polish and we were just churning out content as quick as we could."" - this would probably sound better in past tense rather than future tense: Similarly, current series producer Takashi Iizuka stated that "we didn't have any time to polish and we were just churning out content as quick as we could."
  • Done.
  • "the game holds a score of 46/100 and 43/100 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3" - add a (PS3) after PlayStation 3 to signify what "PS3" means later on in the reception section. I know it sounds too simple but some people would ask that you do this for people totally unfamiliar to video games
  • Done.
  • "Gerstmann claimed the level design was worsened by the game's "frustrating" camera system" - no need to quote frustrating
  • Removed quotations.

It's clear that this article is very polished after going through more a number of reviews. I've arrived late to the party but since all I brought up was very minor nitpicking I'd be happy to lend my support now. I think prose-wise it meets the FA criteria. JAGUAR  19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Responded and resolved. Thanks for taking the time to review! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: At the last FAC, David Fuchs opposed this on the grounds of prose and sourcing. I'd be interested in his opinion of the article now. And on a similar note, this still requires a source review which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC), Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)

This article is about a musician and activist who who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad. It has been through an extensive rewrite and expansion over the course of this year, and went through a detailed GA review a few months ago. It has been looked over by Midnightblueowl, who is co-nom, and also by Graham87. I feel it is comprehensive, and has used most of the heavyweight sources in this area. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'm far too close to the article to !vote on this nom, but as an early major contributor to this page, and a big fan of her work, I can certainly attest that it covers her fascinating life story very comprehensively now, using the best available references. Graham87 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Image review by Nikkimaria, hatting for length. Vanamonde (talk)
  • File:Miriam_Makeba_welcome.png: possible to translate the description and source information?
  • File:Miriam_Makeba_(1969).jpg: tag provided at source doesn't match tag provided here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. I have asked for help with translation, let's see what comes of that. For the other image; I notice the author name did not match, and I've fixed that; was there another mismatch that I missed? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes: on our image description page we have a CC BY-SA tag, but I don't see that on the source page - they seem to use a PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Got it. Does that mean I can simply replace the CC BY-SA tag with the PD tag and state that the source states it is public domain? Or do I need to try to figure out why the source claims it is public domain? Because the latter option seems beyond me. Also, what do you wish me to do with this translation? Copy it into the image description? Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes to the last question. On the first: ideally either we would know why they think it's PD, or we have a PD tag specific to that source (see Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Well, this page seems to suggest that they consider everything in their collection to be PD. This is supported by a document linked on the side, which says that as a matter of principle, everything on the National Archive website is PD, and "made available with a CC0 waiver". Now I am relying on google to translate said document, but it seems quite clear cut to me. I'm not certain what tag this translates to, I'm afraid. I have added the translation to the image documentation. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If that is the correct reading a CC0 tag would apply, but I'm not sure whether the "percent open" row indicates that not all of the collection is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if that were the case, our image also carries a PD tag; would that not take care of it? I cannot find any more specific image documentation, so if you are still dissatisfied, I guess I will remove the image. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The image currently has a CC BY-SA tag, which isn't the same as CC0/PD. What about asking the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'll ask them, though they haven't edit for three weeks and do not seem very chatty in any case. That wasn't what I was referring, to though; at the source link, there is a PD tag for the image: and I guess I'm asking (since I genuinely don't know) why that, combined with the statement on the archive homepage, isn't good enough for us. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The option there would be to set up a custom PD tag, as we've done for some other libraries and archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I realize I am not making much progress here, but creating such a tag would be well beyond my abilities. Is this something you could help me out with? If it is something that will take a while to do, would you prefer me to remove the image, or to switched the tag for a CC0 tag, as an interim measure? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Image tag updated. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no comment on the general question. The translation on the "Welcome" image is as follows:
    "Airport reception for the singer (sic)[1] Miriam Makeba (Jacob Ori at left), 1963."
    Source of the image is Leora Slutsky (Ori),[2] presumably a relative of Jacob Ori.
    The other page upon which this image appears is the Hebrew Wikipedia article for "Jacob Ori (Licht)", who was an impresario, and presumably was responsible for bringing Ms. Makeba to Israel for performances. Note that "Ori" is a Hebraization of the Yiddish-German "Licht", meaning "light"; such Hebraization of Yiddish names was pretty common in Israel's pre-State and early State eras. Ori is almost certainly the family name he went by in Israel.
    I hope this was helpful. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ I believe "singer" is correct. If so, the Hebrew in the description has a couple of letters reversed here. But the meaning of the Hebrew word that is actually there would make no sense in the setting, and the Hebrew Wikipedia article on Ms. Makeba uses that same word (with the letters correct) to describe her.
  2. ^ The name could be Slotsky or Slusky; these transliterations can sometimes go a couple of different ways.

Support from John

  • Interested in under the apartheid regime, black people were legally prohibited from consuming alcohol. I don't think it was as simple as that; see [13] for example. John (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You may be right. We have multiple sources for that statement, but I do not see any reason for those sources to be mentioning an amendment to the law that occurred later. I have modified the sentence to read "under South African law at the time, black people were legally prohibited from consuming alcohol." Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a bit better as obviously apartheid was only brought in post WW2. But the source I found has the "Durban system" bringing in municipal monopolies on alcohol from 1908 and says "In the 1930s even the Witwatersrand abandoned its prohibition policies in favor of the beer hall system." I think this is another interesting data point. --John (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's an interesting system, isn't it. My gut feeling is that in addition to racial discrimination there was an interest here in controlling the supply of alcohol, and preventing home-brewing by black people: but I suspect that's a bit too much detail here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. My feeling is that the article wouldn't be harmed by omitting this detail or perhaps putting it in a footnote. After all, most of us still live in jurisdictions where selling home-brewed beer is illegal. --John (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough: footnote added. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Makeba sang with the Skylarks when the Manhattan Brothers were travelling abroad; later she travelled with them as well. This is ambiguous; does the "them" refer to the Skylarks or the Manhattan Brothers? --John (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It was the Manhattans. Clarified.
  • Thanks for your comments, John, I've addressed the two points you raised. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I now support the promotion of this candidate, at least on prose. --John (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

All together a very content-rich article. Glad to see an African biography FAC.

  • "She married Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Black Panther Party, in 1968: as a result". The colon here seems unnatural. I think it would be better if it was just a period between two sentences.
  • Done
  • "Miriam spent the first six months of her life in jail. As a child, she sang in the choir". Since you end the former clause talking about Makeba's mother, it would be best if you then put Makeba's name in place of the pronoun in the next sentence to avoid confusion.
  • Done
  • "Her talent for singing was remarked upon during her schooldays." "[R]emarked upon" is an ambiguous phrase. The source says "praised", so that or something similar would be better. If there is another source that is more specific (i.e. who was praising her and what did they say) that would be best.
  • I've reworded a little: other sources don't seem to say exactly who did the praising, because her early life has received very little attention. I'll look again, but I'm not hopeful.
  • "and sang in church choirs, in English". I'm no MOS expert, but is that comma proper?
  • I think so? It reads naturally to me
  • "Her mother successfully treated her cancer." How? The source isn't very specific; it only notes that the treatment was "unconventional". Do other sources have more detailed information? I must express my hesitance to believe such a vague claim.
  • You're right. I've removed it pending further support.
  • The Independent article "Miriam Makeba: Singer banned from her native South Africa for fighting apartheid" says the Sunbeams/Skylarks was created by Gallotone Records, but this Wikipedia article reads that she founded the group. The Independent implies that the Skylarks were put together in such a fashion to purposefully not have any "mention of royalties, management or intellectual property" on purpose (this Wikipedia page does mention her lack of royalties). I see that the Al-Ahram Weekly weekly notes she founded the group, but gives less detail. On its face, I'm inclined to believe the Independent; I think the Al-Ahram just summarized too much. At any rate, this discrepancy should be resolved.
  • I would agree with your assessment, and have modified the text accordingly. I suspect Nkrumah meant "founder member", but that's only a guess.
  • The Independent article also says, "In 1953 she recorded her first hit "Laku Tshoni Ilanga" with [the Manhattan Brothers]." This seems relevant to include.
  • Done
  • "The record became the first South African record to chart on the US Billboard Top 100." Seeing as this is the first time the United States has been mentioned in the body of the article, it might be better to list the name instead of the acronym.
  • Done
  • "During its recording, she and Belafonte had a disagreement, after which they stopped recording together." Is there any further information on the nature of this disagreement?
  • I'm afraid the source does not say; most sources don't mention it at all.
  • "Makeba later stated that it was during this period that she accepted the label "Mama Africa"." Any information on the origin of this phrase?
  • I'll dig further, but it seems to have emerged gradually; hard to pinpoint it.
  • "In 1973, she had separated from Carmichael". This should be reworded (the past tense is already stated once), probably by dropping the word "had".
  • The reason for the "had" is that we're jumping back in time, having discussed the Soweto uprising (1976) just before this.
  • "She worked closely with Graça Machel-Mandela, the South African first lady, for children". The phrase "worked...for" is rather vague. Perhaps, if accurate, it could read "worked closely with Graça Machel-Mandela...advocating for children"?
  • Done
  • "and has been described as having a sensuous presence on stage". Seeing as she is now dead, might bit be better to say "and was described"?
  • Done
  • "She wore no makeup and refused to straighten her hair for shows, thus establishing a style that came to be known internationally as the "Afro look"." Was she the first person to do this, or was she just among the earliest to do it? If the latter is true, the text should perhaps read "thus helping to establish a style".
  • Yes, that's probably safer: though the sources do her a fair amount of credit, it would be a really extreme claim to say she was the very first to exhibit this style (and I'm fairly sure she was not).
  • "The prize has been called the "Nobel Prize for Music" in Sweden." This information seems more suited for the article on the Polar Music Prize than here, especially considering the source has nothing to do with Makeba and describes the prize as it was awarded to other artists in 2010.
  • I guess it's there because nobody has heard of the prize and the linked page is inadequate. If you still think it irrelevant, I will remove it.
  • "Google honoured her with a Google Doodle on their homepage." This information needs to be cited and the date on which this occured should be given.
  • It was in fact cited, the citation was just not at the end of the sentence: I've moved the refs there.
  • Citation number 87 [Tobler, John (1992). NME Rock 'N' Roll Years (1st ed.). London: Reed International Books. p. 427. CN 5585.] should be changed to harv sfn style as per FA criteria 2c on consistent citations with the bulk of the reference in the "Bibliography" section and a shortened footnote used as the direct citation. The same goes for citation number 98 [Stanton, Andrea L.; Ramsamy, Edward; Seybolt, Peter J. (2012). Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. SAGE. p. 318. ISBN 978-1-4129-8176-7].
  • Done
  • Citation number 2 [Allen, Lara (2011). "Makeba, Miriam Zenzi". In Akyeampong, Emmanuel K.; Gates, Henry Louis Jr. Dictionary of African Biography. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-985725-8.] refers to the Dictionary of African Biography. This needs to be in harv sfn fashion as well. I recall this book as having page numbers. If these are available, they should also be cited. If not, I recommend using the following citation: {{sfn|Allen|2011|loc=Makeba, Miriam Zenzi}}.
  • Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Many thanks: I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy to offer my support. Yes, I do believe the comment on the Polar Music Prize should be removed from this article, but other than that all my comments have been addressed. Best of luck! -Indy beetle (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, Indy beetle. I've removed that particular sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

No spotchecks done. In general, subject to the case discussed below, the sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. A few issues:

  • Refs 80, 95 and possibly others (check): BBC is not a print source and should not be underlined.
  • I think you mean italicized? In any case, that's what the template does: not sure if I can get around it, or whether I should.
  • I've just gotten around it by replacing work= with publisher=. I've also done some other tweaks to the refs for consistency. Graham87 06:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 91: "Tony Hollingsworth" is indicated as the author, but the article is actually written by Peter Elman – Hollingsworth is the publisher. What makes Hollingsworth a reliable source? A lot of the text reads as Hollingsworth promotional material.
  • Fair point, this is some of the little text that predates me. Source replaced.
  • Ref 110: p. should be pp. (per ref 152)
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 144: The title, "Zenzi Benga - the Musical" does not appear in the source. Is this the intended link, or is the title wrong?
    • @Brianboulton: I'm responsible for adding that ref and I can confirm it was the intended link ... the title of the website seems to have changed along with the title of the musical. Graham87 14:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the bibliography, for books you should be consistent about including publisher locations.Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed the few that were there.
@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review: your points have been addressed, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment in regards to spotchecks: I can verify that the information taken from citation 9 [Ewens, Graeme (11 November 2008). "Obituary: Miriam Makeba". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 March 2012] and citation 15 [Lusk, Jon (11 November 2008). "Miriam Makeba: Singer banned from her native South Africa for fighting apartheid". The Independent. Retrieved 12 March 2015] is accurately represented in this article. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a popular character from the Resident Evil video games and films. For the sake of transparency I will mention that the article's original author no longer edits Wikipedia. I 'adopted' the article in January 2015, making a series of improvements before successfully nominating it for GA. In early 2017 I made another round of improvements, then nominated the article for peer review and a copyedit through GOCE, both of which were completed. After implementing suggestions made at peer review, I nominated the article for FAC two months ago. I received seven supports on prose, however, two unfinished reviews opposed on issues of sourcing and comprehensiveness, and the nomination was closed. After having made another series of improvements, I believe the article meets the requirements for FAC on these issues as well, and accordingly have renominated it. Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to co-ord: the images in the article have not been modified since passing the image review at the previous FAC. Freikorp (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: I stand by my verdict from the last FA review, now more than ever as multiple improvements have been made since the last FA nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: I have commented during the previous FAC and my view holds: this article is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of the subject, should be ripe for promotion. SLIGHTLYmad 10:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review: This looks huge, but you know the deal. Parts in green represent an issue that needs addressing. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

I'm satisfied every source is reliable and of high enough quality to meet the featured article criteria, and that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. There are a total of seven off-line sources used on the article: I managed to access five of them. There is no issue with close-paraphrasing with any of those, although two of them are used on the article to source direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

Support based on my comments that were resolved in the first FAC. -- 1989 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

  • I am glad that I could help. You have done a wonderful job with this. It was a very interesting and informational read. I fully support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong support as a really well-written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This was an interesting and well-written article. I support this nomination. Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I'd be happy to look at your nominations. Freikorp (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't see any outstanding prose glitches or omissions...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

(Resolved issues moved to talk)

  • Support on 1a only, and stepping far, far away from this review. Some copy edit work done; Freikorp, you may not like all my changes, so feel free to change back whatever you don't like (my humble apologies for the delay with this, life is extremely busy for me, main reason my WP contributions are historically very sporadic). It's clear from some of the comments over the past few days that the article is never going to satisfy editors for what it can be versus what they subjectively want it to be. How you've had the patience to try and work with certain people would certainly be beyond my capacity. I've said my piece on this and copped flak for it, and I simply don't have the time or energy to get further involved. Your diligence and work ethic is outstanding, and I hope the fruits of your labour on this article will be a nice, shiny star at the top of the page. Anyway mate, I wish you all the luck in the world. Cheers. CR4ZE (tc) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin

  • Oppose, per 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). This an explanation of the oppose for the coordinators.
The article is not well-written or well-researched. It's disjointed, sources are misunderstood or missing, and material is missing. The problems are being fixed (very slowly), but others are being added. I'm not convinced that the nominator appreciates how much work it needs.
  • The following is an example of the failure to use sources properly. The article gives the impression that sources have been quickly skimmed, so that quotations from them can be added to the article. In the process, the source material has been misunderstood and/or key issues have been missed. This is just one example; there are issues like this throughout. (Since writing this, I've fixed the lead, but the issue (heroine v damsel) should be discussed in full in the "Critical analysis" section, with reference to academic texts that explore those roles.)
The lead and legacy section say that The Escapist described Jill Valentine as "a classic example" of a female horror-game character. But this is meaningless. The source is an interesting four-page article by Bonnie Ruberg, which explains that, because of sexism within the gaming industry, female characters are either "brainless beauties or nonexistent". The horror genre is unique, she writes, in that female heroines are normal (along with damsels and monsters), and Jill Valentine is a "classic example" of the heroine. Damsels, on the other hand, have to be saved by men, which presents problems for female gamers. She then says more about the bounded role of the heroine and ends up arguing that the female monster is the only empowering role. Therefore, the sentence about "classic example" needs to be fixed to refer to heroines and the "Critical analysis" section should explain the concept, and whether women's roles in horror games differ from other games.
The lead then said that, in fact, she is not a heroine but a damsel, without explaining the contradiction. The source, a paper by Sara Grimes, argues that Jill Valentine is not a good heroine, because she has features inconsistent with being a heroine. She's too easily harmed, keeps having to run away, and is frequently subordinate to the male characters. The heroine therefore ends up playing the role of damsel because this is a game made by men. The sentences devoted to this source in the "Critical analysis" section miss the point, because the article doesn't explore the juxtaposition of the roles or provide any critical commentary about their history. It's also not clear why Ruberg is in the "Legacy" section (I've removed her). Her article should be discussed (and fully used) in "Critical analysis".
  • The article doesn't frame the discussion of gender roles with a summary of the scholarship on women in games. The reader is left to guess why these issues might matter in representations of women. A few sentences explaining the background would make all the difference.
  • I'd expect to see the games themselves used throughout as sources, but they're barely referenced. I wonder whether that means material about the gameplay is missing. jp:ジル・バレンタイン (Jill Valentine on jp-wiki; Google translation) contains a lot of details presumably sourced directly to the games.
  • Space is taken up with issues not relevant to understanding the character or games. For example, Jill Valentine is played by Sienna Guillory in the films. Then: "At first, the films' director Paul W. S. Anderson chose Natasha Henstridge, but she was unavailable;[26] he then considered Mira Sorvino though she declined." At most, that belongs in a footnote.
  • Per WP:V (WP:NOENG), we need quotations in footnotes for the material relying on the Japanese source, Enterbrain 2002 (current refs 49 and 56).
  • Victoriaearle left a note on my talk, having seen this FAC, with a source, Thinking Dead: What the Zombie Apocalypse Means. In it, Hanli Geyser argues (p. 72) that Jill is the only player in the game to be restored from the parasite without having to be killed, and she is not held accountable for her actions while infected because she's a Western woman and therefore assumed to be generically good. The argument is that this is racist compared to the way the others are treated.
As I've said since FAC1, the problems with the article are extensive. It should have gone to peer review before being brought to FAC2, and that could still be done, rather than trying to fix it here under pressure. The sources have to be not only found but read carefully, which takes time. People could brainstorm there in peace. SarahSV (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Response to oppose from Freikorp
I mention the following bullet points as a rebuttal to the oppose for the attention of Sarastro1.
  • Sarah came here with five bullet point complaints about the article. She has struck four of them. Her fifth bullet point concern was the quality of the reception section. I have completed a major restructuring of that section, to the point where another editor withdrew their objection over that issue. I have, and will continue, to address any specific concern regarding the wording and flow of the article.
  • Sarah removed content she perceived as being problematic, even though there was no consensus to do so and nobody else stated they shared these specific complaints. I did not revert the changes. [14] She has the right to make bold edits; that's not why I am mentioning this. I am just trying to highlight the lengths I have gone to to try and appease her concerns.
  • Sarah complained about some of the wording in the article, so I openly said she could reword whatever she wanted. She has actually already addressed the specific concerns she mentioned in her oppose (such as the "classic example" and "damsel in distress" issuess). My point is that, once again, she is opposing over issues that have already been addressed.
  • I always take an article to peer review before FAC in order to get outside opinions, and this nomination was no exception. I didn't see the need to take it to peer review again after FAC as Sarah was the only person who had a problem with it (I was almost finished addressing Ealdgyth concerns before the first nomination was closed and I completed this shortly thereafter). I'm not saying peer review isn't a good idea. I'm just saying the situation didn't deem it necessary. When seven people say the prose is fine and one person does not, that does not indicate a dire need for a peer review.
That's all from me. SlimVirgin, thank you for your comments. For what it's worth, I do believe this article is better following both your reviews. This process has been stressful for me, so I assume it has also been unpleasant for you also. I hope we can simply agree to disagree over the remaining points. I do not wish to keep debating anything with you. Now that you have stated you oppose the nomination, I would like to focus my attention on addressing the concerns of other editors. Freikorp (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Note to co-ord: Sarah has modified her existing reasons for opposing and added additional ones since I posted my response. Based on her previous actions, it is my opinion that even if I address the new concerns, she will still oppose the nomination. Accordingly, as previously stated, I am going to focus on the concerns from other editors at this time. I will probably return to focusing on her concerns once all other editors have finished saying their piece. Freikorp (talk) 03:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Per WP:NOENG, we need both languages in the translation, particularly because it's controversial and contradicts what you wrote about the director.
  • Re: Samantha Lay, I can't see that in the source. Please quote here what the source says (I can see her say that about the films, but not the games.)
  • I corrected your summary of Trepanier-Jobin and Bonenfant; they were criticizing that this was regarded as "natural", whereas you wrote it up as though they agreed with it. The more I look at the article, the more I'm concerned about how the source material has been summarized. Several of the academic articles are fairly long arguments about the representation of women, using Jill Valentine as an example for one point. If all you do is search for the name and grab a quote, it's going to be easy to misunderstand how the example was used. SarahSV (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've swapped the lead image for the original uniform. I looked around and couldn't find the previous lead outfit in sources about her, whereas the original is common. SarahSV (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You've been making a lot of bold changes to the article, without consulting other editors, and some of these changes I do not agree with. If you are given free reign to reshape the article the way you see fit, are you going to remove your oppose? Opposing the nomination is fine, but now that you've opposed, can you please explicitly state whether you are rewriting it for the purpose of moving the article to a position you can support? If not, I don't find this continued interference helpful.
  • Re Samantha Lay: the source reads "Game avatars do not require in-depth characterisation as players bring themselves to the avatar."
  • Requiring the original Japanese text as well as the English translation presents a problem. I have the original source, and skills in Japanese, but I do not have a Japanese keyboard. How am I expected to type this up? I've used several foreign sources in FACs before and nobody has ever asked for the original text as well. At this stage I really think you're just trying to make this as complicated for me as possible.
  • It's customary to have the latest design of a video-game character as the lead image, but personally changing it to the first representation does not bother me. Freikorp (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: Lay, I meant about her lacking depth in the games. What does the source say that supports your text?
  • Re: Image: when claiming fair use, it's customary to use an original, first edition, etc. Also that's the iconic uniform.
  • Re: Japanese, the reason I requested it is that what you've added is contentious, and it contradicts the earlier point about the first director and his view of women. So I would like to know what the Japanese says. Providing both languages is part of WP:NOENG if you're quoting. Can you take a photograph of it?
  • Re: your comment about me trying to make things difficult. Please stop these remarks. Everything I've done and suggested has improved this article, and if you would only allow it, it could be improved a lot more. SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Re: making things difficult. Sarah, I understand you think all your changes are improvements. I thought my change finding a source that said the only detail originally given about the character "didn't explain a thing really" was an improvement, however, you removed it on the grounds it was sexist. My point is, I have accepted what I believe is an improvement is not necessarily going to be shared by everyone else. You should do the same. As per my message left on your talk page when this nomination was first listed, your choice to not explain certain actions or why you want certain things done is very frustrating. Several editors have expressed frustration over your decision to oppose the first nomination based on how it used to look, however, you've only recently attempted to justify why you did that. Explaining it better in the first place would have made things less difficult.
  • Re: Japanese. I don't think it's a contradiction to want a character to be strong and not gratuitously eroticised, but still be tastefully sexual (please, let's not get into a discussion about what constitutes tastefully sexy haha). Yes, I have taken photographs of the sources.
  • Re: Lay. Quote reads: "I was first made aware of this in the posts by the remarks of one gamer who claimed that the game had gritty and in-depth characterisations whereas the film had bland, two-dimensional characters. I have played the games. The only thing we know about Jill Valentine for instance is that she is the ‘master of unlocking’." If Lay thinks the only detail given about Jill is that she is the master of unlocking, and says this as a direct rebuttal to gamers who argued the characters did have depth, I would argue that is Lay stating the character does not, in fact, have any depth. Your thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
She's arguing that the relationship in the games confers depth on characters, all characters, not just Jill Valentine. "Avatars are depthless archetypes and the avatars of Resident Evil are certainly no different." It becomes obvious in the films that there's no depth, but the relationship between player and avatar in the games masks that.
Can you email me photographs of pages 7 and 8 of the Japanese source? SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, well since you have an understanding of the Lay source can you reword it in a manner that allows you to remove your clarification tag? Or just remove the whole source and the tag if you don't think anything is salvageable from it. I understand she's making the statement about all gaming characters, but I do not think it's a stretch on any level to apply this to Jill since she specifically mentions Jill's depth and avatar in the same source.
I'll email you the photographs once the clarification tag is removed, even if that necessitated the removal of the whole source. Your answer to this question won't affect me emailing them to you, but out of curiosity, what are you going to do with the photographs? Do you read Japanese well enough to translate it? Freikorp (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
You said my edits were "continued interference", so I'd prefer to avoid further edits. The "heroine v damsel" material also needs to be expanded. Re: the photographs, I'd like to show the two pages to a Japanese speaker, mostly to get a better sense of Mikami's position. SarahSV (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I said the interference was only unhelpful it you were not making all the bold edits for the purpose of moving the article to a position where you could support it. You didn't answer my question whether you are doing that or not, but I guess you just did. If it isn't obvious, which I think it is, bringing up new concerns if you have already decided to oppose the nomination no matter what I do is just distracting me from addressing the concerns of people who are still undecided.
Do you have a problem with me removing the tag then? If so, what rewording do you suggest based on your interpretation of the source? Also I've emailed you. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Also the image you added to the article isn't Jill in the original Resident Evil, it's Jill in her alternate costume from Resident Evil 3. Accordingly I'd rather change back to the old image.
@Niwi3: Sarah has requested clarification for the statement that Jill "was the only character who was physically abused by her teammates" in the original game. The claim is made in the Grimes source and has been added to the article accordingly, thought the source does not clarify when or how this occurred. Do you remember Jill being abused by her teammates in the game? Because I don't (it's been a while since I played). If nobody knows what Grimes is talking about (or if she's mistaken), I'd suggest we just remove that statement. Hoping you can shed some light on the situation. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This source explains it. It also says the current lead image is from the original. SarahSV (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Forgot to add: I'll email you shortly about the images, but just to make sure I haven't misundertood, this is a Japanese source and the words in the quotations in the article are your own English translation. Is that correct? The citation is: ゲームキューブ版 バイオハザード オフィシヤルナビゲーションブック [Biohazard Official Navigation Book] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Enterbrain. 2002. ISBN 4-7577-0851-3.  I suppose I'm wondering how you were able to write that Japanese title, but not any other Japanese. Apologies if I've misunderstood. SarahSV (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: @Freikorp: Grimes probably means this cutscene from the 2002 remake (watch from 23:50 to 25:30). However, I think this source clearly refers to her "puppet" role in Resident Evil 5. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


(Resolved issues moved to talk)

Coordinator comment: I'm keeping a fairly close eye on this. If the nominator wishes that I recuse, I am happy to do so but personally don't see the need as I have no opinion one way or the other on this article. However, just a couple of points: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Any other commentary is unactionable and can be disregarded; I'm happy to provide clarification if there is any disagreement as I don't want this one to run away from us. I also notice a little personalisation creeping into this once more, and I will move anything that is not about this article to the talk page. I've no intention of closing this any time soon, and there is zero danger of this being archived as it has not been open two weeks yet and has a lot of support. I think we should be able to reach a consensus here this time, and my personal inclination is to leave this open until we do. Finally, it would really, really help the nominator, who is trying really hard to compromise here, if everyone could try to focus solely on the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Sarastro1. I don't see any need for you to recuse yourself. I'd really appreciated it if everyone moved forward and focused on the article like you said. Now that more than one editor has raised concerns about the reception section I will make changes to it, though I stand by my opposition to the request that high-quality best-of lists need secondary sources commenting on them. As AdrianGamer stated, that's a bizarre idea. Freikorp (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cognissonance

The article has come a long way since the peer review. (moved to talk) I agree with CR4ZE's concerns, but show my support under the circumstances. Cognissonance (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

Comment from czar

I wouldn't support this as it stands. SV's bullet point concerns are solid. The Reception needs to be reorganized. First, it doesn't describe a Reception, but mostly the character's Legacy in the series and as a female character. There are a few different ways to organize that, but I would start by organizing along those themes within the paragraph if not splitting to separate sections. The problem with the listings/listicles isn't primary sourcing, but the attention called to the list. "In 2013, Complex's Michael Rougeau ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines in video game history, describing her as the most likeable woman in the Resident Evil series" gives heat without light: What's the importance of 30? 30 out of what? The rank signifies nothing (especially here), so it only clutters the prose. Along the advice of Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, combine the sentiments: "Multiple video game journalists ranked/listed [your choice] Valentine among the greatest heroines in the medium.[ref][ref]..." Then follow with the specific, clarifying comments ("X described her as the most likeable", though that's not very descriptive/helpful either). This presents the importance of the citation without overstating the individual list's importance. It also makes for better prose.

This isn't even to touch the sourcing, though I agree that the development could use connective tissue not just describing but explaining why the character has developed, if those sources exist. SV makes the point that the "supports" above may reflect video game articles being held to a lower standard. She's right. The article assumes familiarity with Resident Evil and isn't smooth reading for a general audience. Worth addressing and not a big deal for a normal article (last 20% is 80% of the work, etc.), but we expect more of FA status. Sometimes video game articles pass (I've seen many...) without reviews external to the topic area. It means we should be even more grateful when outside editors show us endemic blind spots. The goal, though, should be nothing less than to make this article a model for its type, and we sorely lack model fictional character articles. (moved to talk) czar 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Czar: OK, I've just taken your advice and have reworked the reception section, making the mention of all the lists disappear. Better? Freikorp (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As for Sarkeesian on Valentine, I wouldn't call Fem Freq a RS without more assurances on their editorial processes, but its RS status is irrelevant if we're not citing it for fact but for opinion (with due weight). Sarkeesian's noteworthiness as a commentator on sexualization in video games is well established (cf. her whole article) so while I'm not finding RS that note her commentary specific to Valentine, there is plenty of coverage specific to any of her videos by theme. I'd cite one of those RS on the video related to the Valentine coverage to establish the theme and noteworthiness of Sarkeesian's opinion, and as necessary, use the primary source transcript (WP:SPSAS) to (briefly!) flush out the crux of her position as commentary/opinion. This can be done without delving into factual, challengeable claims, which should instead be backed by a RS (with editorial reputation for fact-checking/accuracy). That's at least the rationale—it would have taken less time to just write it: [15] czar 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, having someone neutral decide how much weight this particular source is given works for me. My end-goal with this nomination is to improve the article, and I think it would be best for the article if neither myself nor SlimVirgin has any say on how much weight it is given. I am happy to leave this entirely up to you and then I'll just reorganise what you've added around the other content when I restructure the whole reception section. Freikorp (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want, ping me when you've done the reorg and I could take a stab at a concise copyedit but caveat emptor, my edits are brutal (hence my usual lack of participation) czar 15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy for you to do a copyedit now that I've finished with the section. I have no problem with anyone performing brutal or bold edits (assuming they don't push a particular POV of course). Freikorp (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see a compelling reason to use Uproxx or as a source. Having an edit staff listed is not the same as having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or editorial credibility. For what it's worth, the Virgin Media site is low-grade too, despite its corporate pedigree. It's 2008-era Buzzfeed with "Hot PC games", "Top game babes", "Get your geek on!", not high-quality content, no author bylines or signs of editorial credibility, etc. czar 16:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no qualms with ditching the CheatCodes or Virgin Media sources, since they're not being used for anything of real importance. Unless it's literally going to make the difference between you supporting and opposing the nomination, I'm going to keep the Uproxx source. I accept that it's probably at the lower end of high-quality, but firstly, we're not citing it for fact but for opinion. Secondly, it fills in an important blank in the history of the character's portrayal. Only one actress has portrayed the character in live-action cut-scenes, and if we don't use this source, we can't give the reader any idea of who it was. I really think the information this source backs adds something valuable to the article. Freikorp (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's exactly why I wouldn't trust it. If Uproxx is the only source that repeats the otherwise unsubstantiated, fan-researched claim[16][17] that "Una Kavanagh" is the voice actor, then it's as good as the claim being unconfirmed. I wouldn't trust Uproxx's editorial process/pedigree for even simpler facts, nevertheless one that requires investigatory work. We shouldn't view the actor identity as case-closed-rumor-confirmed on the basis of a site like Uproxx. That's the beauty of source reliability. czar 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: OK. Would you be OK with me using the source to verify the first sentence only? So just to say that the original actors used pseudonyms? I really think that's beneficial to the reader. I've already made the change, and I ditched the virgin Media and CheatCodes sources. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to trust it with that either, but if you want, you can request an outside opinion at WP:RSN czar 14:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you think I even need a source to say they used pseudonyms? Or is this obvious from the fact all the characters are credited by first names only? Or in other words, can I delete the inline citation from Uproxx supporting the current line and just source everything as it is currently written to the credits of the game? Freikorp (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. The "Critical analysis" section (formerly "Reception"), apart from an official strategy guide ref at the beginning, is entirely about the character's sexualization. I think something more to that effect would be a more fitting title.
  • What do you suggest I do with the first paragraph then? Should I give it its own header? I understand most of the content is based around sexualisation, but I'm inclined to leave it how it is so as to not complicate things. Freikorp (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. Does the character have any specific link to Japan or Japanese culture apart from being created by a Japanese company and (in-universe) designed as half-Japanese? (Doesn't appear so in the article.) Since she has an official, well-used English-language name, the name by which she is primarily known, I don't see a need for the {{nihongo}} (Japanese translation) in the lede. (WP:VGG#Lead) czar 14:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, that's a good point. I never thought about that. Removed accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Video sources tend to have poor longevity—either the company goes down or their video portal after some time, and the videos are tough/illegal(?) to archive. I'd rely on them as little as possible for this reason to save the trouble of finding replacement sources later. czar 14:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I know :). I actually cited that as a reason for not deleting multiple sources from the Appearances section at the first FAC nomination (see 'Comments by Finetooth' section). I've tried to rely on them as little as possible. If they go dead though I guess I'll just cross that bridge if and when the time comes. Freikorp (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Niwi3

(Resolved comments moved to talk)

@Freikorp: @SlimVirgin: After going through the whole article again, I think the article fails criteria 1a (engaging and professional prose), 2b (appropriate structure), and especially 4 (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail). Although several improvements were made to the article over the past few days, it still has major issues that I think are not easy to fix; the article doesn't stay focused on the main topic, lacks context, has too many irrelevant details, and its prose is very average. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose this nomination. Here are some examples of its current issues:

  • A special-operations agent, she made her debut appearance in 1996 as one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists, in which she and fellow Special Tactics And Rescue Squad member Chris Redfield are trapped in a mysterious mansion. -- I don't think this is gramatically correct; "In which" should point to a place, not to "one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists".
  • Fixed by SlimVirgin during copyedit. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Two of the four mentions have been removed, I believe that is sufficient. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Too long and confusing: In the 1998 novel Resident Evil: The Umbrella Conspiracy, Jill is said to be professional thief Dick Valentine's daughter and accomplice prior to her career in law enforcement (in apparent conflict with her supposed Delta Force background), explaining her infiltration and "master of unlocking" skills. - It also assumes the general reader understands the "master of unlocking" meme.
  • Shortened, and removed mention of meme. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sienna Guillory portrays Jill in the live-action film series. - This should be merged into the Design and portrayal section, along with the image.
  • Just to clarify, you want me to move the entire 'Film' subsection from 'Appearances' to 'Design and portrayal'? Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't want you to merge the entire section into the Design and portrayal section. The issue is pretty obvious: you mention who portrays Jill (in the video games) in the "Design and portrayal" section, yet actress Sienna Guillory, who portrays Jill in the film series, is not included in that section. Why? In my opinion, it would make much more sense if you include all the actresses in the same section. The image about Guillory portraying Jill should also be moved, because it's a portrayal thing.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The "In merchandise and attractions" section should be merged into the cultural impact section, maybe in a "promotion and merchandise" subsection?
  • Would you be satisfied if I just moved the entire sub-section as is and renamed it 'Promotion and merchandise'? I will add the information about Voth cosplaying to the section if so. Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
You need to move the section, rename it, an offer a better context. The picture about Voth cosplaying Jill should also be moved there, along with the corresponding info from the "Design and portrayal" section: In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character.
  • In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character. - This would fit better in a promotion and merchandise section
  • Within the Resident Evil universe, she's invaluable to her Alpha Team; competent, clever and professional, she's the resident bomb expert and, of course, the master of unlocking. - Again, the general reader will not understand the "master of unlocking" bit without reading the last paragraph of the article. The highlighted quote also assumes the general reader knows Rebecca, Claire and Ada's individual strengths.
  • Removed mention of the meme as well as Rebecca, Claire and Ada. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Appearances section, there are too many fictional details that are not properly introduced (Alpha team, Arklay Mountains, Spencer estate, Racoon City).
  • I've removed the Aplha team designation. I think the remaining ones work. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is wrong: Eventually, she and Chris discover that STARS commander, Captain Albert Wesker, has betrayed them. After defeating the monster Tyrant released by Wesker, Jill escapes the self-destructing mansion in Brad Vickers' helicopter along with Chris, Barry and Rebecca Chambers. - The game has several endings, depending on the players actions.
  • Yes yes, but only one of those endings fits in with the series' continuity. The player is supposed to get the good ending. Accordingly that is what is mentioned in the secondary source. I will happily add the other endings citing the game itself if you would like. Freikorp (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
There are at least two "good" endings and the Tyrant can be killed by either Jill or Chris, depending on which character the player assumes the role of. This is another problem of this article: you mix gameplay (player choice) with fictional details. The first Resident Evil is a stand alone game that was developed without a sequel in mind, so don't try to "connect" its story to the rest of the series, per Wikipedia:No original research. The series is very inconsistent, so don't try to make it more consistent just because you are a fan.
Yeah OK, that's a fair point. Done. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Jill is infected with the T-virus, though Carlos is procures a vaccine from a nearby hospital. - the article assumes the general reader knows what the T-virus is. Grammatical error in bold.
  • Grammar error fixed. Given the T-virus a brief introduction. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The article assumes the general reader knows what the "Uroboros virus" is.
  • The article repeats content from other articles: Jill is a playable character in two Resident Evil 5 downloadable content (DLC) scenarios: Lost in Nightmares shows the events leading up to Jill's disappearance,[14] and Desperate Escape shows her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. - As a result, it loses focus.
  • I disagree with your opinions on content forking. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I disagree and I won't turn my oppose into a neutral vote unless the article stays focused on the topic. These DLCs are simply episodes that are part of the story of RE5. A proper summary of the general plot of RE5 should be more than enough. If readers want to know more details about how the story of RE5 is structured, they can go to that article. This article loses focus if you start talking about features/subject_matters of RE5. You confuse the general reader if you start adding unnecessary details.
  • Irrelevant trivia: She appears as a bonus character in the special edition of Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds (2011).[22] In addition, she makes a guest appearance in the action-adventure game Under the Skin (2004),[5] and appears as a playable character in the crossover tactical role-playing games Project X Zone (2012)[23] and Project X Zone 2 (2015).
  • I really don't think that's trivia. If she appears in another game, and I didn't mention it, I think that creates an issue regarding a lack of comprehensiveness. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Before adding information, you need to make sure you have a proper context. Details without context are irrelevant to the general reader; they are only relevant to fans.
  • More content forking: At first, the films' director Paul W. S. Anderson chose Natasha Henstridge, but she was unavailable;[26] he then considered Mira Sorvino though she declined.[27] - This should belong to the corresponding film article.
  • This should be moved to the critical analysis section: In a negative review of Resident Evil: Apocalypse itself, Cinefantastique described Guillory's performance as the film's only "saving grace"
  • Yeah, I considered that. But it was the only high-quality source I could find that specifically commented on Guillory's portrayal of Jill. I placed it where it is because I think it improves the reading flow. I thought a single sentence on this in critical analysis might look too out of place. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
It needs to be moved to the reception section, and if you cannot find a proper context there, then it needs to be removed from the article. In my opinion, it feels completely out of place in the "In films" section. Again, too many details without proper context.
  • Off-topic: Guillory was set to appear in the sequel, Resident Evil: Extinction (2007), but she had commitments to other work.[30] Instead, producers Anderson and Jeremy Bolt decided to have Claire Redfield appear alongside the film's lead, Alice.[31] - This material should belong to its corresponding article.
  • Jill is the main antagonist of the fifth film, Resident Evil: Retribution (2012),[32] where she ultimately regains control over herself during a duel with Alice. - Lack of context. It does not explain why.
  • Expanded context. Freikorp (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Jill was not featured in Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016). Her character disappears from the series' ongoing story-line, along with several other reoccurring figures, without explanation. - Why is this relevant in an appearances section?
  • Secondary sources comment on her unexplained absence from the final film in the series. I wouldn't have just stated she didn't appear if there was no secondary coverage. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
In that case, it need to be moved to the reception section, because it is an opinion from a critic, not a fact. Keep in mind that the reference that backs up Jill's "mysterious" disappearance is a review.
  • Jill has been featured in various Resident Evil merchandise, including action figures, such as one made by NECA in 2011. - is the "such as one made by NECA in 2011" bit really necessary?
  • No. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • More content forking (already covered in the RE3 article): Mikami, who served as the producer for Nemesis, said that Jill became the protagonist as they could not use any of the characters from Resident Evil 2 (1998) for reasons of continuity, and Claire Redfield had already been chosen for Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000), meaning Jill was "the only suitable character remaining.
  • Irrelevant fancruft: and has a "control device" on her chest which players must remove in order to free her from Wesker's influence."
  • I disagree, the control device forms a focal point of her appearance. Now that I've expanded on this device appearing in the film also, I think it is even more relevant to mention it's original appearance. That being said, if removing this information will turn help turn your oppose into at least a neutral vote I'll remove it. Freikorp (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Freikorp: This is partially correct: Jill's facial and physical appearance for the remake was based on Canadian model and actress Julia Voth,[46] and her likeness has continued to be used for Jill in several other games in the series. - But you should note that her facial appearance in Revelations was redesigned, according to this source. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a good find. Thanks. Updated. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sexism: Because the skirt was so short - It is previously explained that she wears a miniskirt. No need to put more emphasis than neccessary
  • Reworded, though I really fail to see how this constituted as sexism as opposed to just generic repetition. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Freikorp: I think that the fact that the article describes her RE3 costume in great detail but completely ignores her military outfit in the original Resident Evil makes the article sexist. Her outfit in the original game should also be described in great detail, especially because Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games, and I think it would add more context to the following sentence: While subsequent games in the series not directed by Mikami have continued to portray strong female characters, they have featured more revealing outfits. I would add a description of her military outfit right after the opening sentence: When questioned on how he chose to portray women in the original Resident Evil, the game's director Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Niwi3: Right, this is a general problem SlimVirgin didn't seem to understand either. The reason the RE3 costume is described in great detail is because so many sources comment on it. This is a reflection of sexism in society; I'm building the article with the sources that actually exist, not the sources that should exist. Of all my sources, I can only find one that mentions what Jill's original costume actually consisted of, and it only describes the top half of it: [18]. Even the feminist sources that complain about the original costume being inappropriate don't actual mention what the costume consists of. I can't add information balancing out the inherent sexism of the video gaming industry if the sources don't exist. I didn't even have to try and look for sources commenting on the RE3 outfit; they were everywhere. I'll keep looking for a source that describes the original costume in full. Freikorp (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Cite the actual game instead. It's not an opinion, but a simple descriptive fact, so you can use a WP:PRIMARY source. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Freikorp, you wrote above "My honest assessment is that her design process consisted of slapping an inappropriate military-ish outfit on a pretty girl." This is your own sexism getting in the way here (and she's not a girl), not only that of some of the secondary sources. The games should be cited directly for lots of facts that are missing about the character, including the original costume, especially given Mikami's comment. SarahSV (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll cite the information to a primary source later today when I get the chance, but the fact I need to resort to using a primary source to counter the "sexism" in secondary coverage proves my point emphatically. SlimVirgin, considering you cited the use of the fully referenced word "appreciated" as an example of sexism that was apparently so heinous you felt the need to compare it to white supremacy, I'm not going to value your opinion on anything you deem to be sexist. Freikorp (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: It seems that you still don't get it. You could probably keep the word "appreciated" if the article offered a better context. Why was the costume "appreciated"? because fans liked it? because the author was being sexist? I said it before and I'll say it again: context is key; you can't randomly throw words like "cock tease" or "appreciated" around and then expect a NPOV just because they are sourced. If you offered a reason (a context) for their inclusion in the article, then that would be a different story. Also, the primary source is simply there to add context (to explain to general readers how her outfit looked in the first game), not to "counter" or "attack" secondary sources. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────SlimVirgin, I played all the games where she appears and sadly they don't include much information about her. However, I have two official guides of the 2002 remake and they both include a small biography: --Niwi3 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Position: Machine Specialist
Age: 23
Height: 5 ft 5 in
Weight: 111 lbs
Blood Type: B

Valentine is an intelligent soldier, usually fine under pressure, who has saved many colleagues in past operations. With Chris Refield, she has been reassigned from an out-of-state S.T.A.R.S. unit, and her exceptional skill in using mechanical devices (from APCs to Lockpicks) make her an excellent team member. She has strong moral convictions for which she fights. She also has a propensity for storing items, and she tires sooner than Redfield.

Resident Evil (2002) Prima's Official Strategy Guide, page 22
Jill is an experienced S.T.A.R.S. member from a unit in another city, recently reassigned to the newly-formed unit of the Raccoon Police Department. WIth years of tactical training and certification, Jill knows how to open 126 varieties of locks without a key and has trained with a wide variety of weapon types. Jill is an intelligent officer; she thinks on her feet, and her bravado has saved lives of countless citizens and fellow S.T.A.R.S. members. Her strict sense of loyalty and duty make Jill a great asset to the team.
Resident Evil (2002) Official Strategy Guide by Bradygames, page 5
Niwi3, thanks, that's helpful. SarahSV (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Niwi3, I also have the a copy of the BradyGames source. I actually just used page 5 to cite what Jill's uniform looks like before I even looked at what your sources were haha. Do you suggest I add this information and the information from the other source into 'Design and portrayal' along the lines of "The official strategy guide for X described Jill as a intelligent officer ..." Or should I just present this as fact without attributing it?
I also have a completely different source that lists the exact same age, measurements (though in metric) and blood type for Jill. Do you think any of those details are relevant? Personally I thought stuff like height and weight would be considered fancruft, and assumed that adding her weight to the article would (justifiably) make SlimVirgin pretty upset as there's no real reason the reader needs to know this. Freikorp (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant fancruft: The outfit also appears as the alternate costume for Jill in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D.[16] Jill appears dressed as a pirate for her alternate costume in Resident Evil: Revelations.[57] In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked: one in her catsuit from the game, and one in her BSAA uniform.
  • It's a brief and comprehensive account of all costumes, and expands on the "sexualized costumes as rewards" issue that is touched on later. How is a pirate costume relevant to series? Answer: it isn't. Between the lines message: Sarkeesian might have a point. That being said, if removing this information will turn help turn your oppose into at least a neutral vote I'll remove it. Freikorp (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Too many gameplay details that are not of importance to the general reader: She has two more inventory slots, access to stronger weapons, and is armed with a pistol and a survival knife at the start, whereas Chris begins with only a Bowie knife. She carries a lockpick to open doors and caches, whereas Chris must find keys. Against this, Jill runs slower, takes more damage from attacks, is less accurate with firearms and has less reach with her knife. - Saying that she is physically weaker than Chris, but noting that she can carry more and better items should be more than enough.
  • No context: Writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research, Samantha Lay argued that Jill lacked depth as a character in the original game. - It does not explain why she lacks depth in the original game.
  • I've fleshed this out a bit. Freikorp (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary trivia/fancruft: The memes have been referenced in subsequent Resident Evil games, such as a poster in the mobile game Resident Evil : Uprising (2009), which advertises a recipe for a Jill Sandwich,[86] and Barry asking "Who’s the master of unlocking now?" after physically destroying a door in Resident Evil: Revelations 2 (2015).[91]
  • Reworded by Czar. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And I haven't even reviewed the references. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The article has received a thorough source review. Freikorp (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I won't be sure until I personally review it.

Niwi3, you've raised some valid issues, and you are in any case entitled to your opinion on this. Nonetheless I confess I am baffled by your complaints about content forking. This article should discuss the character Jill Valentine at what the community decides to be an appropriate level of detail. That will of necessity involve including details also present elsewhere, and is not a violation of any policy. Objecting to a detail because it is too much detail is reasonable; but I do not find it reasonable to suggest that a detail shouldn't be present because it should be covered elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally think the content forking and off-topic issues are the reason why the article does not stay focused on the main topic and violates criteria 4. The problem here is not that the article repeats some info from other articles, but the fact that subject matters from other articles are brought into this article. Of course, this is my opinion; the FAC process is about reaching consensus, so my opinion is not the only one that matters. I won't object if the general community thinks the article meets the FA criteria. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Niwi3. I've responded to all of your specific points. I also disagree with your opinion regarding content forking, and for the sake of brevity have only mentioned this underneath your first point citing forking as a problem. Some of my responses seek additional clarification from you. I am very interested in turning your 'oppose' into at least a neutral vote, so please mention any further specific problems you find with the article and I will continue to try and address them. Freikorp (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Left some comments above. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sergecross73

Just another one jumping in to say that I can't support it unless/until the reception section is cleaned up a bit. Some of that stuff is just really low grade stuff. Comments about sexuality can be done well, sure, but there's too much bare-bones "Website X called her the (number) hottest character. Not FA level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Rest assured I will make changes to the reception section and will ping you back here once it is done. Freikorp (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Sergecross73, I've made some major changes to the flow of the reception section. I still plan to tweak it around a bit, but this is basically how it is going to look. Do you have any major concerns about it now? I agree the section shouldn't be peppered with "Website X called her the (number) hottest character" stuff. However, I have several high-quality sources placing her on such lists (and several more I could add to the article but I think five sources backing up the single sentence that she's been placed on many lists is sufficient). At the last nomination, an editor seemed to think fleshing out one of the list mentions was all that was required. I agree with this. I've chosen to only have one in depth mention of her appearing on a list, and I've also deliberately chosen it to be a list of the sexiest "characters" (as opposed to women; the list includes men also). Freikorp (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I approve of your changes - it's all handled much better now. I no longer have any objections. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I've just gone through the whole FAC page and moved anything which I do not consider relevant to deciding if this article meets WP:WIAFA to the talk page with this edit. I've also moved what I consider to be comments about editors, and not the article. I am not passing judgement on what I have removed, it is simply that I don't consider it relevant and it is material that the coordinators will disregard in judging consensus. It is also material that is likely to deter new reviewers. If anyone has any huge problems with their comments being removed, they are welcome to put that particular comment back if they feel it is moving this review forward. I also apologise if anyone's comments have been mangled when they were moved to talk. But we really must focus on the article from this point. Any irrelevant commentary will be moved to talk immediately.

To reiterate what I wrote earlier: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Any other commentary is unactionable and can be disregarded; I'm happy to provide clarification if there is any disagreement as I don't want this one to run away from us. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

When Freikorp invited me to comment here I did not expect a slugfest of 14 (?) reviewers. I believe that more scrutiny can never be a bad thing, so I will offer a few comments as well, though given the nature of some of the objections above, I think I will limit myself to general observations at this stage. If the general issues are resolved, perhaps we can return to specific prose questions. Though I do have concerns vis-a-vis neutrality/portrayal of gender, I think these are the result of the industry to a fair extent, and that the nominator has made a genuine effort to address these. Though that isn't necessarily enough, it should be acknowledged.

  • The lead says "She is widely regarded as one of the most attractive female protagonists in video games, though her sexualization and role in relation to gender stereotypes has received both praise and criticism." This is the right sort of balance to strike, but we could make this more nuanced. Who regards her as the most attractive? It isn't Sarkeesian, that's for certain. Similarly, who praises, and who criticizes? Or at the very least, what were their criticisms and praise about?
  • I think I made a good addition to the lead. Happy to hear alternate suggestions if you think this could be better. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm uncertain if the generic "attractive" is the best adjective here, but there's problems with the alternative "sexually attractive" also, so maybe there's no easy way out of this.
  • I think the paragraph beginning "For the 2002 remake of Resident Evil" needs to be slightly reworded, so that we're distancing ourselves a little more from the words of the producer. I'd suggest something like "Kobayashi stated that ... which, according to him..."
  • That's a good point. Done. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That quote about her ethnicity is strange at the moment. If it is actually referring to the phenomenon wherein Asian women are portrayed as "exotic" in Western popular media, this is a relevant comment to make, but needs to be made a little clearer. If we're referring to something else, I'm not sure what that is.
  • I can only assume the comment was about the exotic appeal of Asian women, but the source only stated exactly what I said in the article so I can't expand on it at all. In the meantime another editor has removed the information from the article anyway, and I'm too over it to argue so I'm just letting it go. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I confess that the "critical analysis" section as it stands here does not strike me as problematic. I will investigate other reviewers comments in more detail, because I am familiar with some literature on fictional characters, but not so much with video games.
  • With respect to a concern raised above that the article needs to discuss how her portrayal changed in response to scholarly critique: yes, ideally, we would have such a description. But that presupposes that such a change occurred at all, ie that the developers cared what analysts (rather than the market) were saying...I'll take a look into the literature if I'm able, but I guess my point is that we cannot expect the article to cover stuff that is not covered by reliable sources, even if we would like it to be.
  • Thanks so much for your comments Vanamonde93, I really appreciate them. I've addressed your concerns that required a response. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've seen that concerns about sexism have been now raised by at least three folks. It is my belief that the best way to deal with problematic media is to describe it in detail, and then describe the critique in detail, which I believe is a direction this article is headed in, thanks to good work on the part of reviewers and of the nominator. That said, I am ignorant of the many issues specific to video games, and so in the interests of not blundering about making life difficult for other folks, I think I am going to sit out until these complaints are sorted. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from bridies

I've been involved with this article, I think copy-editing and GA-reviewing with the "original author who no longer edits Wikipedia" (and is the elephant in room, perhaps; although I haven't bothered to check out all the stuff removed collapsed/redacted from this discussion, I assume it involves that editor and his style/obsessions). I would casually state that the article is nowhere near as sexist and biased as it was at one time, but that there are some sentences/quotes that (even if are merited, because a reviewer said it) not as put as professionally NPOV as is possible (pretty much as I think Serge said above). I would also stress that I don't formally oppose on those grounds atm and that I currently have no specific instances to point out (atm), because I haven't read the article (atm...) and I'm not familiar enough with the secondary discourse on the subject matter (if it's all about attractiveness, and one thinks that's crass, what is one to to?). The familiarity I do have is with the original game (and only that, really). I also used to edit old video game articles and got several GAs and an FA in that area. So my question/borderline beef is there why nothing contemporary on critical reception of the original character? There appears only to be only 1 indirect reference (cited in later work, referenced). The sources appear high quality and definitely merit inclusion, but some are up to a couple of decades after the Jill first appeared. Overall I'm not sure there's a good picture of how the character was perceived initially. Sure, the whole franchise is much bigger now than that first game (and first Jill), but the original (game) is looms inordinately large because of its influence, no? Whatever the case, IME at video game FAC, there must be multiple quality contemporary reviews (difficult to obtain though they be, due to being print magazine) which provide a representation of criticism at that time, It may be that the nominator has checked contemporary reviews and found that Jill is not discussed (though if that's the case, one would expect the later academic research to have noted and mentioned this, and that it should in turn be mentioned in the article, no?); otherwise that contemporary discourse has to be included. I'm not outright opposing because I have not followed all the previous discussion(s) and I don't what research the nominator has done in the contemporary media and what he got or didn't get from it. Just a question/concern. (After previewing, I cannot seem to format this correctly; can some current-FAC person fix it for me; much obliged.) bridies (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bridies. Thanks for your comment. I too would prefer to have more reception of Jill from when the original game was released. As you and every other video game editor is aware, it is very difficult to track down printed video game reviews from the mid 90s. I only found one that said anything about her as a person, and that was that "Gill" (the source misspells her name, lol) is half-French, half-Japanese and "this detail 'doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her". I added the information to the article but another editor removed it on the grounds it was sexist. I have tried to locate other relevant reviews in printed magazines, though have proven unsuccessful. There are currently two magazines from 1996 that review the original game for sale on eBay, [19], however, I am very hesitant to spent upwards of $50 (postage fees to Australia from the UK/US are typically more expensive than the magazine itself) on a magazine that might not actually have any information that is relevant. The article Resident Evil (1996 video game) cites several magazines from the time of the game's release, however, none of them are used to cite anything about Jill. If they had of been, I would have been willing to spend the money on tracking them down. As Jill was obviously a brand new character at the time of the game's release, it's extremely probable that sources reviewing the game will concentrate almost entirely on game-play and not really think twice about the avatars. Does this answer your question? Freikorp (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I made a similar search before nominating, but just to clarify; searching the Internet Archive for video game magazines printed between 1995 and 1997 containing the text "Resident Evil" gets 12 hits.
  • These ones don't mention Jill at all: [20][21][22]
  • This one mentions Jill is a member of STARS, is one of two playable characters, and is better equipped than Chris due to the addition of her lock-pick and handgun. Nothing we don't already know: [23]
  • This one has a profile on Jill, but it only describes gameplay, like the stuff above. It does mention than Barry Burton is her "Secret admirer"; that's about all that's new here: [24]
  • The only thing this one mentions that is new is that Jill is able to pick up a rocket launcher wheres when playing as Chris this weapon is unavailable: [25]
  • This one only confirms the rocket launcher as well: [26]
  • This one only comments on the differences betwwen Jill and Chris in terms of gameplay: [27]
  • This one only mentions that Jill does not appear in Resident evil 2: [28]
  • This one does mention Shinji Mikami saying why Jill didn't feature in Resident Evil 2. I could use if for a brief mention in the development section: [29]
  • This one mentions the differences between Chris and Jill in gameplay, and also gives a walk-through of the game: [30]
  • This one only recommends first time players start with Jill: [31]
There you have it. Sources from the time the first game was released just don't give any reception of the character herself. Freikorp (talk) 06:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I read your first comment earlier, and was coming back to say that while I empathise (having brought pre-web 2.0 games to FAC and GAC), a statement that information exists (or even, might not exist but you haven't checked it out) but is difficult or expensive to obtain and thus has not been included, will not play well at FAC. You obviously then added those archive links which are (taking you at your word, didn't read them) consistent with your assertion that there will not be anything substantial to be found in contemporary coverage of the first game. That gives pause for thought; nice effort. But still: those articles seem to come from 3 publications referred to multiple times (correct me if I'm mistaken; can't be far wrong, though). Not a great sample IMO, especially for a multi-platform game. Nothing from Edge, formed a few years prior? That would be the place where serious discussion could be found if at all (if there were nothing pertinent in an Edge review, I'd probably assume/agree there likely isn't anything at all). Edge is/was (and these days there may be similar publications; not of course relevant to a mid-90s game) a go-to source for serious rewrites of articles; and could be got from other editors. That's another thing: you got those articles via internet archives (which is fine), but really I'd like to see a broader spread of sources (other magazines, but also perhaps newspapers, non-English language sources - this being a Japanese-made game, etc too). I understand you don't want to shell out serious money to take a look at sources (again, empathise...), but others do, or have kept their magazines. It was the norm for me and anyone else editing this sort of material to look for collaborators at WP:VG. There used to be other avenues/people around the web to take a look at maybe a page or two of a magazine; I actually used to be able to acquire whole magazines (this may no longer be the case due to copyright policing or whatever). Tried doing that at the WP:VG (as a starting point even)? Anything come up? I'd again stress I don't outright oppose or want this rejecting on my account, but just not convinced about whether the above could be represented, or whether it's really established that it couldn't. bridies (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right, Internet Archive's collection consists of only three magazine series in the relevant time-frame. Accordingly, I had already made a comprehensive search of Sega Saturn Magazine, GamePro and Computer and Video Games. While there are, of course, many more magazines I could search through if I was willing to spend the time and/or money on accumulating them, searching through these three has consistently shown the magazines do not care much about the character herself. As I indicated to another editor, one of the first things I did when I decided I wanted to improve this article to FAC level was search the Japanese Wiki article for sources, however, it had none; I would have attempted to contact Japanese editors to get sources if they were in the article. I then searched the wiki article for the original Resident Evil game, though none of the sources there were used to say anything about Jill. After the first nomination ended I searched the wiki article for Resident Evil 3, and after noticing some sources there may be used to support information about Jill, contacted the editor. He gave me three digital copies of magazines, two of which I used as they had information I thought was relevant (1999 issues of Edge and Official US PlayStation Magazine). I've also spent a fair amount of my own money on sources to write this article. I have purchased the physical books Biohazard Official Navigation Book, Resident Evil Official Strategy Guide and Resident Evil 5: The Complete Official Guide and also the digital copies of Unraveling Resident Evil, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Conspiracy, and issue 133 of GamesTM. Anyway I know you are not currently opposing, but just to clarify for future reference since it looks like this nomination may not pass now, on top of everything I've already done, if I did track down all the relevant copies of Edge from the game's first release, would you consider that to be sufficient research for the purpose of FAC? Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Victoriaearle

There are four problems here: structure, sourcing and prose. The fourth I'll address at the end.

  • Structure: character analysis articles are the most difficult type of Wikipedia article to write, and must adhere to MOS, writing about fiction WP:WAF. Nancy Drew and Kenneth Widmerpool are the only two examples I know of that have passed FAC. This article doesn't follow the guidelines in terms of structure. Instead the structure, before it was nominated for FAC1 is very similar to something like Mai Shiranui (sans the bouncing boobs), and subsequent changes simply overlay the existing structure. All of the tweaking in the world won't fix what needs to be fixed. What's necessary is to explain succinctly in a "Background" section that the character is of the Resident Evil world/franchise. There's no reason to provide unnecessary detail of that world; it's not necessary for the reader already familiar and confusing the reader not familiar. The focus should be only on the character and her actions, relationships, developments, etc., within that world. A description section is required to describe the character and if there's no direct analysis in the section it's okay to lean on primary sources, i.e the games, books, films. Then we need an analysis section, sourced to the best secondary scholarly sources, of which there are plenty. Next is a short and succinct Reception section. Since Jill Valentine appears in games, books and films, it's appropriate to have a section towards the bottom briefly mentioning that, and mentioning various actors, etc. That's all. Keep a tight focus on the character.
  • Sourcing: there's not an overwhelming number or sources but good secondary sources do exist and need to mined and leaned on heavily. A search on Google scholar with "Jill Valentine" as a search term returns these sources. A search with ""Jill Valentine" video games" these sources. These are the sources that drive the content. The same searching needs to be done on Google books - there's a fair amount there, certainly enough to cobble together a decent article (in fact even the jumpsuit is mentioned in a book, but that's a distraction for the purposes of this comment).
  • Prose: it's very difficult to read the article, partially because of the structure and also because the prose is choppy (which happens when things are cobbled together too quickly and without leaning on proper sourcing). But the prose can't be fixed until proper sources are used and the appropriate structure put in place. Once all of that is done, it needs a good copyedit.

The fourth issue is this: a reviewer shows up and essentially says what I've written above and is labeled as a "feminist" and told her review is POV. The scholarly secondary sources are labeled as feminist. We don't do that and we don't get to cherry pick which sources we like or do not like, especially for a featured article. We search for the best sources available, we lean on them and they drive the content. Furthermore we don't label reviewers. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I'm clearly female and, although I've had my eye on both FACs (Jill Valentine is a catchy title and caught my eye months ago), I have absolutely zero wish to engage. At first I dumped some links on Sarahs page, but it's not fair to do that to her and expect her to take the heat, so I'm posting this. My opinion is that the coords should archive and the nominator take a big step back, do a thorough source search and review, read the sources, restructure the article appropriately, etc. All of that takes time but it will result in a much better article and much less stress. If I were here to give a full review I'd oppose based on the above comments, but I refuse to get into a situation where the nominator either tries to fix the extremely deep problems mentioned during the course of a FAC, and in which I might be badgered. Plus my schedule is such that I'm not always online, and can't really follow up. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(Off topic moved to talk)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Victoriaearle: You've stated your reasons for opposing and they don't give me any room to address the concerns while the nomination is open. That's fine; thanks for your input. After reading your "Fourth issue" paragraph I feel the need to say a couple things though. Your account is not an accurate description of what happened. I did not cherry pick sources. Sarah's opening comment on the first nomination suggested I add two sources to the article. I added them to the article straight away; I said "thanks for finding that it improves the article and was very interesting." She replied "Thanks for adding Harper and Sarkeesian. You summarized them well." The first Jill Valentine nomination was my fourteenth featured nomination; several people have opposed previous nominations of mine and I never labelled any of them. I lost my patience with Sarah because it is my opinion, an opinion voiced by other reviewers here as well, that while many of her concerns were valid, many were also not based on the actual FA criteria, but by her own set of standards of what was "problematic". I was also infuriated by the fact she opposed the nomination based on several issues that had already been fixed, and on how it looked in the past. I don't want to debate the issue, I'm just making my motivation clear. We don't label reviewers? I've lost count of how many times she's labelled me a sexist now, for such offenses including referring to Jill in passing as a 'girl' (as opposed to a woman, I assume; my apologies). Furthermore I don't see any issue with labeling sources such as "Feminist Frequency" as feminist sources. And I don't have a problem with feminist sources anyway; I've added feminist sources to several of my featured nominations without being asked to. If you look at the talk page for my featured article The Fifth Element, you'll see someone criticising me for adding too many feminist sources to the article; I stuck to my guns and would not remove them because I thought the feminist opinions were valid. My problem was not with the fact Sarah is female, or the fact she wanted me to add feminist sources to the article. That's all I have to say in response. Have a nice day, I really mean that. Freikorp (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)

Nominator(s): — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about, arguably, the most popular American kids' TV game show ever, Double Dare. It helped jump-start the media behemoth known as Nickelodeon and, 30 years later, still has a long-lasting effect on a generation of young adults. I crafted this article from the bottom-up, practically by myself (with assists from Bcschneider53 and Twofingered Typist), taking a mess with very few citations six months ago and turning it into what I feel is a very well-crafted and cited article on how Double Dare worked, its history and current evolution, and the impact it has had on television and culture. The GA process went really well and even though the first FA nomination stalled, I'm optimistic about this time around. I took some comments from the first try into consideration and have bettered it further, I think. Thank you! — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Double_Dare_logo.png: n/a and empty parameter should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C.

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Welsh football club that competes in the English Football League. I have recently rebuilt the page and it was promoted to GA status soon after. I was encouraged by the reviewer and another editor to make an attempt at becoming a featured article. I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I reviewed this for GA status and found it well-researched, comprehensive and a pleasant read. I can't find any other quibbles (ensure you change all-caps titles in references to title case though..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lemonade51 - always nice to see a football nom here, not a detailed review:

  • The usual issue when it comes to sports articles, are clubs singular or plural? The first paragraph of the history section reads "The club was founded in 1899 as Riverside A.F.C.," yet under that there's "Despite their exploits in Europe, the club were still struggling in league competition". I'm not sure what WP:FOOTY's consensus on this is, but consistency is vital. Maybe @Struway2: could shed some light?
    • More heat than light, probably... I doubt if WP:FOOTY has a view, but both usages are grammatically correct. In the first, the club refers to a single entity, so takes a singular verb. In the second, it refers to Cardiff City's football team, which has a collective meaning and in British English takes a plural verb: who are Cardiff playing on Saturday. Having said that, to avoid the appearance of inconsistency without drifting into mid-Atlantic grammar, it might be an idea to restrict the words "the club" to when you're talking about the entity that is Cardiff City Football Club, and use "Cardiff" or "the team" when you're talking about what the football team did. Or if you do use "the club" when writing about what the football team did, only do it if the verb form is the same for both singular and plural :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "South Wales FA" the same as South Wales and Monmouthshire Football Association? If so, wikilink it.
  • When did Cardiff stop participating in the Welsh Cup, and why? If they qualify for Europe like Swansea did, do they represent England? Think the answers to these questions could be included somewhere.
  • Bit about Thames being Cardiff's record league win: it's mentioned twice in the article (which isn't a problem), but the club are wikilinked twice.
  • Cardiff's win against Real, "Despite going out after losing the second leg 2–0 the result would still go down in the club's history," doesn't really add anything. Every game Cardiff play will go down in history if you get my drift. I'd rephrase that line.
  • Looking at recent seasons: "On 18 August 2013, Cardiff played their first ever Premier League match away to West Ham United, losing 2–0.[33] However, Cardiff won only three games in the first half of the season...," however is unnecessary here.
  • The other concern I have is sourcing. Crosschecked the sentence "In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828 seater stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million," and the capacity is nowhere to be found in the source.
  • Source formatting is a minor problem. Footnote 39 and 41 for instance use different parameters for BBC Sport. The Guardian and The Independent are newspapers so they need newspaper= parameter.

This is not far off meeting the criteria, but it needs another once-over from you. Go over the sources, format them consistently and make sure the material in the article is covered by it. There are some sentences that are excessively long and could do with trimming, namely in the 'Colours, kit and crest' section. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reviews both, I'll get onto those improvements as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lemonade51: I've implemented all of the improvements you noted above and given the article a bit of a once over, rewording and adding refs where required. Hopefully it's considerably better than it was. Kosack (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


  • Second "the" should be removed in "the most recent being in the 2013–14".
  • 1920's success & later decline: Should the apostrophe be in this subsection header?
  • Typo in "suspnded" towards the end of this subsection.
  • Post war & European competition: Another excess "the" in "one of the most famous victories in the Cardiff's history".
  • Is "present" missing from the Recent history section title? It looks odd to have 2000–: there. Maybe it's because the formatting is a little different than the other section titles.
  • I'm seeing a bit of repetitive language in various places, such as "Hammam invested heavily in the team, investing in new players". A little more variety in word choice would be good, both here and in a few other places.
  • Ninian Park: Is "of" missing from "due to the scaling down grounds"?
  • Not doing a full source review here, but I'll note that the bibliography should probably be in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for the review, I've fixed all of the typos and errors listed above. I've changed some of the more repetitive lines that I could find, if there's anymore let me know. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • A few pedantic points
  • "BBC Sport" should not be italicised in the references (refs 40, 42, check for others)
  • Neither should "WalesOnline" – ref 70, check for others
  • No citations to the Grahame Lloyd book C'mon City... which shouldn't be listed as a source
  • Same thing with the David Collins book. Both Lloyd and Collins could be listed as further reading.
  • Reliability: A number of online statistical sites are referenced. I am not at this stage questioning their reliability, but I'd like a little more information about these sites, in particular who, in each case, is the publisher with ultimate responsibility for site content. The websites I have in mind are:
  • English Football League Tables
  • Welsh Football Data Archive
  • Historic Football Kits
  • The Football Fan Census
  • 11 v 11

Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I've fixed the issues raised above. In regards to the sources used:
  • English Football League Tables I'm unsure of the website publisher, I can replace this ref if necessary
  • The Welsh Football Data Archive is compiled by a research team which is listed HERE
  • Historical Football Kits I'm also unaware of but I believe it's considered a reliable source and is used in other features articles such as York City F.C. and Luton Town F.C. and it includes its sources at the bottom of the page Here
  • The Football Fan Census is run by a company of the same name.
  • 11 v 11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians.
Kosack (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Referendum Party

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a minor British political party which stood in the 1997 general election. A single-issue party, it was devoted solely to Euroscepticism. After it dissolved, many of its candidates switched to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which subsequently helped to force UK membership of the European Union as a major domestic political issue and resulted in the 2016 referendum on the topic. The recently GA-rated article therefore provides an interesting slice of history for those wishing to understand the current situation that the UK finds itself in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brian Boulton

An interesting article – I'd completely forgotten about this short-lived forerunner of UKIP. I'll need to read it through more carefully, but for the time being I'll make a few comments on the lead:

  • In the opening paragraph: "Specifically, it wanted a referendum on whether the British population wanted to be part of a federal European state or whether they wanted the EU to revert to being a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Much clunking there, with three "wanteds" in the sentence. More importantly, the sentence muddles the question the party wished to put to the British people which, according to your wording in the main text, asked them to choose between being part of a federal state or "to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market". The British people could not by referendum determine the nature of the EU; thus, if they voted for the latter option they would be choosing to leave the EU and return to a non-EU bloc such as EFTA (of which it had been a member between 1960 and 1973).
  • Good points. I've changed the wording to "Specifically, it called for a referendum on whether the British people wanted to either be part of a federal European state or revert to being a sovereign nation that was part of a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph: " psephologists argued that it deprived the Conservatives of a victory in several parliamentary seats, and thus helped Tony Blair's Labour to defeat John Major's Conservative government." You need to delete everything from "and thus helped..." Labour's overall majoriity in the 1997 election was 176 and its lead in seats over the Conservatives was 253. You estimate that the Referendum Party deprived the Conservatives of from 4 to 16 seats; even the higher total would scarcely have dented Labour's majority.
  • I was humming and harring about this when I put it in the lede. You have confirmed my initial concerns, so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was recognised as Britain's most successful minor party in recent years". I would dispute use of the word "successful", even if cited sources use the term. The party put up more candidates and gained more votes than other fringe parties of recent times, but since none of its candidates came remotely near to winning a seat (only four achieved even 7 percent of the vote), how can it be called "successful"? You could say "its performance was recognised as the best by a minor party in recent years" or some such wording.
  • I've removed this wording, but in its place I have added a new sentence to help retain some of the original meaning: "It stood candidates in 547 constituencies, the most that any minor party had ever fielded in a UK election." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few oddities of language:
  • The British are a "people", not a "population"
  • "it gained 811,827 ballots, representing 2.6% of the national vote". We don't use the word "ballot" in the individual context, we say "votes". Thus: "it won 811,827 votes, representing 2.6% of the national total".
  • "it failed to attain any MPs in the House of Commons" → "it failed to win any seats in the House of Commons"
  • I was a little cautious that readers in countries without parliamentary systems might be unfamiliar with the term "win any seats", but I am okay changing it unless someone else pops up to endorse my concern. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add further comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments from me
  • Lead
  • Add the words "shortly before that year's general election" to the end of the second paragraph
  • Background and ideology
  • First line: the verb "transformed" used in this sense is transitive, and therefore needs an object. Thus "transformed itself"
  • You should very briefly explain that this transformation created a political union, membership of which involved some loss of individual national sovereignty. This was – and still is – the heart of the Eurosceptic argument.
  • I've added an additional sentence to this effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a Member of Parliament (MP) elected " should be "Members of Parliament (MPs) elected", and you should delete the redundant "then"
  • The sentence beginning "It also claimed that..." is likewise redundant, as the same exact point is made in the following sentence which includes the Goldsmith quote.
  • I've rejigged the wording slightly so that we now have only one sentence rather than two, as opposed to simply deleting one of the two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Early growth
  • This is an unsuitable title, since the section covers the whole history of the party up to the 1997 election. I suggest "Establishment and growth"
  • The word "little" occurs twice in the first line. (One could be "limited")
  • I have replaced the second instance with "limited". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Third para: generally, paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun. You could simply delete the "Its"
  • 3rd para second sentence: the "it" is ambiguous, and would should be replaced by "the new party"
  • the words "for his party" after "endorsements" seem unnecessary
  • 1997 general election
  • 2nd para: close repetion of "The Referendum Party". The second could be replaced by a pronoun
  • You should also avoid "...candidates. Candidates...". You could merge the second and third sentences, to read: "... its selection of candidates, who had only one interview..." I'd also replace the words "before becoming the official party candidate" with the more concise "before acceptance".
  • These are good ideas. I've amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You might mention who carried out these interviews.
  • Unfortunately, it does not specify this in the RS we have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 5th para: "these positions" should be "this position", since only one has been mentioned
  • "enter...enter into": the second could be replaced by "engage in"
  • Another suggested sentence merge to avoid verbosity: "The electoral threat posed by Goldsmith's party was taken seriously among the Conservatives, among them Major, Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Brian Mawhinney and Michael Heseltine, who launched vitriolic..."
  • I've merged the two sentences as you suggest, although I have not followed the exact wording as I wanted to avoid a repetition of the term "among". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "putting forth": "putting up" is idiomatic
  • Results
  • A minor confusion re deposits. In Brit electoral law a candidate's deposit is returned if he/she gets 5% or more of the constituency vote. You say that 46 RP candidates achieved this, but later: "42 of their candidates gained a sufficient number of votes that they had their deposits returned". Both figures can't be right. A further nitpicky point is that sentences should not begin with numerals (MoS).
  • Hmm, you are right - there is a discrepancy. I've double checked the two RS and the Wikipedia article does accurately relate the information contained within them. I'll try and delve a little further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done some delving, and that has simply raised more questions. Carter et al say, quite clearly, that "42 saved their deposits." That would be supported by the data from the PoliticalResources website (here), which says that of the 547 Referendum Party candidates, 505 lost their deposits (which leaves 42). At the same time, McAllister and Studlar state that "There were only 46 constituencies where the Referendum Party's vote reached 5 percent or more", and when examining the list of Referendum Party results at our own article (Referendum Party election results), I can count 46 instances where the party secured over 5%. So 42 or 46? Perplexing. Perhaps, for some reason, there were four candidates who did secure over 4% of the vote but did not retain their deposit... are you aware of extenuating circumstances that result in such a situation? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll look at this again in the morning – got to go to bed now! Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've looked, and the answer is simple: our article, and perhaps other sources, have rounded percentages up/down to one decimal place. In four constituencies where the RP percentage is shown as 5.0, the actual figures was slightly smaller: Cambridge SE 4.995, Havant 4.955, Richmond Yorks 4.957 and Tiverton/Honiton 4.999. This explains the discrepancy between 46 and 42. How you deal with this in the text is up to you – personally I'd amend the sentence cited to McAllister and Studlar to read: "The party's best results were in four constituencies where it achieved more than 7% of the vote." Or you could simply delete the sentence. But the statement that "The party gained over 5% of the vote in 46 constituencies" clearly has to go. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That explains it! Thanks for figuring that one out Brian. I have amended the McAllister and Studlar quote in the manner that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You should state the amount of the deposit. It is £500 according to this
  • But was it £500 back in 1997? The PDF dates from 2009. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's been £500 since 1985. This may not qualify as a RS, so I'll try to find something better. But it isn't a critical point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is a reliable source that confirms the deposit was £500 in 1997. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian. I've added a few words, linking to the reference that you provide, referring to the cost of the deposit at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As a matter of interest, can you provide any gender division between the 547 candidates? My instincts tell me that they would have been overwhelmingly male, since we generally are the more obsessive-minded. The information might exist somewhere.
  • I share your suspicions, and indeed, the list of names over at Referendum Party election results does suggest something of a sausage fest. However, the RS do not seem to specifically provide us with any breakdown of the figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • My OR indicates that between 70 and 75 of the RP candidates were women – about 14% of the total. That's about par for the course in nineties terms, roughly in line with the Conservatives, who only achieved 19% in 2005, and as recently as 2010, 24%. But none of the reliable sources I've comsulted seem to cover this question, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Although failing to win any seats, they..." Better if you replace "they" with "the party".
  • Legacy
  • A brief explanation of Goldsmith's death should be provided, as this was the reason why the movement disbanded so rapidly. He had been terminally ill during the campaign, and lasted a mere eleven weeks after polling day. His ODNB entry provides a source - if you don't have access I'll deal with this for you.
  • Good idea. I've used the ODBN entry to provide an additional sentence on his terminal illness and death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Other issues
  • The article is light on images, for obvious copyright reasons, with only Farage gawping in the bottom right corner. In view of Goldsmith's closeness to the Referendum Party – its sole begetter, financier and leader – it would in my view be justifiable to include an image of him in the lead, under a fair use rationale. I would strongly support this. I suggest you have a word with Nickimaria who is an image guru. See what she advises.
  • Personally I'm doubtful that we will get away with using such an image, but I'll drop Nickimaria a line at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Midnightblueowl, perhaps now would be the time (by the way, it's Nikkimaria, with two "k"s) as the main outstanding check here seems to be an image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

There, I'm done. I will see no reason not to support when these issues have been considered. I've much enjoyed this first-class article, a timely reminder of the nineties. it's been a pleasure to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Postscript: A candidate representing the "Referendum Party" stood in the Kensington and Chelsea byelection held on 25 November 1999, long after the party had disbanded. Details p. 268 here. I guess this was a rogue element and nothing to do with Goldsmith's party, but you could mention it if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I have added a brief sentence about this in the "Dissolution and legacy" section. It's interesting, if perhaps fairly tangential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: There's a couple of points I'm waiting on, but the nominator seems to be absent at the moment. I will be away from wiki myself for several days after today, but I'll check in as soon as I'm back. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your comments Brian; if there is anything else then please don't hesitate to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: Excellent and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would encourage you to add ALT text for the images.
  • For the James Goldsmith quote box, there is an extra space between the citation and “1994”.
  • I am not sure how currency is linked in articles (as it was never really necessary in any of my projects), but do you think it would be helpful to link the first instance that the pound sterling symbol is used in the article?
  • You typically include a short descriptive phrase in front of a person’s name upon their first mention, but you do not include one for James Goldsmith. Do you think one would be helpful, not only for clarity, but also for consistency? I would also include phrases for John Curtice and Michael Steed, again for clarity and consistency.
  • This may be a silly request, but do you think it would be necessary to put UK in parenthesis following your first mention of “the United Kingdom” in the lead and the body of the article as you have done for EU with “the European Union”.
  • I was wondering this myself. I'll add the acronym in. Certainly, it can't do any harm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that you should include the link to single-issue politics in the body of the article (i.e. “a classic single-issue party”)? I have seen that the link is used in the lead, but not the body of the article.
  • At the start of the “1997 general election”, you use “the United Kingdom” in full while you primarily use “UK” throughout the article. I would recommend changing that instance to “UK” for consistency.
  • Please include the full title and link for MP (i.e. Member of Parliament) in the body of the article. You only use the full title and link in the lead, and you only use the acronym unlinked in the body of the article. I have received notes in that past that everything should be linked on the first mention in the lead and body of the article (and please correct me if those comments are not correct as I have seen some mixed responses to it).

Great work with this list. Unfortunately, as an American, I have very little knowledge on this matter (or any political topic outside of American politics) so I cannot check for anything else beyond questions on prose. I hope that my comments help out at least a little. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read the article and for offering your comments, Aoba47. I have responded to every one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments! This was a very interesting read, and you have done a great job with this. I really do need to learn more about world politics; maybe, one day in the future, I will work on a more politics-based article or list. I support this for promotion. If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting article on a party of which I was probably aware but have long forgotten:
  • "which was experiencing high rates of unpopularity" I might say "which was becoming highly unpopular" or maybe "increasingly unpopular"
  • I've gone with "increasingly unpopular". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a Member of Parliament representing Britain's Conservative Party" do MPs represent parties? Is that the proper term?
  • I've always thought so, although if you think that there is a more appropriate term then I would certainly be interested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldsmith's intervention in British politics has been compared to that of the multi-millionaires Ross Perot in the United States and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.[6]" It would be more effective if you could say "was" rather than "has been". Surely there were comparisons at the time.
  • On that I am not sure. It may have been that the comparisons were only made by later academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Its new headquarters was in London.[13]" I might see if this very short sentence can be merged into the one before or following.
  • "It also sought to attract the support" I would say "The party" rather than "It"
  • "the politician George Thomas," he was titled by then though I'm fine with it either way.
  • We initially gave his title although I presume that he is more widely known by his actual name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldsmith's party was the biggest spender on press advertising in the 1997 campaign;[32] it spent three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on press adverts." I would strike the last three words. It's implied.
  • I see your point, however I can also see the possibility of the latter half of the sentence being misunderstood that they spend three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on the entire campaign, rather than just press advertising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldsmith talking directly to the camera to promote a referendum." rather than the last four words, I would put a comma and "arguing for a referendum".
  • You might toss in the date of the 1997 election.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, User:Wehwalt! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde

I reviewed this at GAN, and think it's a high-quality article worthy of promotion. I just have few quibbles over wording. Feel free to revert any copy-edits I make.

  • "The party's sole policy was for a referendum to be held" I'm uncertain if "policy" is the right word here: I somehow think of "policy" as applying to things you have control over. "objective"?
  • "having greater political functions" tad vague
  • It's complicated, and to be honest I'm not really sure if it is best if the prose starts getting expanded at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, but you don't need to extend much, if at all: even saying "political authority" or "regulatory authority" or something like that would be better than "political functions."
  • I've gone with "political authority"; that works nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that it resulted in increased German hegemony in Europe." Hegemony is a strong word here; control, perhaps? could also lose the "resulted in".
  • I've gone with "dominance"; do you think that that works better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, better.
  • I wonder if there is a link we can add to Perot's campaign at "Perot in the US"
  • May be worth adding a footnote to explain the three other colors in the election results box not mentioned in the caption
  • I did not really want to add too much on Northern Irish politics to the article, but I have now added a short sentence: "In Northern Ireland, where it did not stand, domestic parties took all of the seats." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay
  • "Much of this press coverage was negative" not entirely clear what the "negative" refers to here; the party, the EU, or the referendum
  • I've gone with "Much of this press coverage took a negative stance toward the EU". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we find a link for by-elections?
  • uncertain whether "adverts" is an accepted abbreviation or a colloquialism: it sounds odd to me, but that doesn't mean much.
  • "Ads" would certainly be an colloquial abbreviation but I am not so sure about "adverts". I could change it to "advertisements" if you think it important? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd say "advertisements" would be better: "adverts" just makes me pause in my reading, which is ultimately what we want to avoid, right?
  • Sure thing; I've changed the two uses of "advert/s" to "advertisement/s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "making it the largest minor party to have ever contested a British general election." I think how you phrase it in the lead is better.
  • I've changed the prose in the body to match that in the lede on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it common to use "Labour" as a description for multiple party members: as in, "they are Labour"? Otherwise, the parenthetical (65 of them conservatives...) needs rewording.
  • Yes, in the UK it is. It's not very common to see "Labourites" or anything like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Link or explain "psephologist", perhaps.
  • I've added a link rather than an explanation because at this juncture ("analysis by the political scientist John Curtice and psephologist Michael Steed,") it would be very difficult to smoothly insert a description without it looking very messy indeed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I just realized the year is actually never mentioned in the last section, and I think it needs to be, for folks skipping to the section; maybe with GOldsmith's date of death.
  • Support A worthy candidate for promotion. Vanamonde (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability. Formats are consistent and accurate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a medieval kingdom in Central Europe. It received two reviews and underwent a comprehensive copyedit. Thank you for all comments during the process. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "the introduction of new taxes and their farming out to Muslims and Jews": I don't know what "farming out" means here.
  • "The Mongols "burnt ..."": Don't mix quote marks and blockquotes, because usually, it's not clear what the quote marks mean. Is someone else being quoted in the middle of a quote? Who?
  • "four or two": two or four? And, was one number much more likely than the other?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dank:, thank you for your edits and support. I hope I fixed the problems you addressed above ([32]). Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay, check my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your edits. "Tax farming" is the practice when tax revenues are leased to individuals. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I understand. What difference does it make to the history of Hungary exactly how the taxes were collected? What would be wrong with "Royal revenues decreased, which led to the introduction of new taxes"? I doubt that a description of the financials is relevant ... but if it is relevant, then you'll need to explain it, rather than just relying on the term "farmed". - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I see. I tried to provide a context for the relevance of the sentence ([33]). Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

The article seems excellently sourced. A couple of points:

  • I'm getting repeated error messages from the link in ref. 2. Maybe it's a temporary fault, but please check it out.
  • The Spinei book is lacking publisher.

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I fixed the above problems ([34] [35]). Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Best add a retrieval date to ref 2, since you are citing an online copy rather than the magazine itself.
Fair point. Retrieval date added ([36]).

Sea mink

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Very pleased to see this here.

  • "It was found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?
added "probably"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." If you mean the century, perhaps "the late 19th century" would be less ambiguous?
I always thought they were synonyms, is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".
I removed the use of the word "said" and I used the authors of the studies instead of just saying "the [year] study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Pausing there, sorry- a little distracted... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A few more thoughts:

  • Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.
I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is false precision.
It's in millimetres, I just set the sig figs to 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, then; sorry! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "a hybrid by a 1966 study" As before; you have also have a few references to "a 2000 study"
the 1966 study's only mentioned once, so I figure to just leave it as "1966 study," but I fixed all the repeating study mentions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?
yeah, I made it more clear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." This sentence is all over the place.
fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!
I reworded it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "proceeding 1860" Surely you mean preceding? Or do you perhaps mean following?
no, I meant after 1860. Is "proceeding" not allowed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't use it like that; I'd say "following" or simply "after". Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hope this is useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century? ...No... There isn't. This suggestion is confusing. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have always referred to 1800-1899 as the 1800s, also I find 19th century confuses some people because they might confuse it with the 1900s, but I'll do it if you insist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • File Herring Cove (10105704513).jpg misses ALT text.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1988) (20332897078).jpg needs a copyright tag.
it looks like it has all the right licensing displayed already   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, I thought we should have had a CC there, but I guess it is fine. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.
  • ¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
  • ¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
  • ¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
  • ¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
  • ¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.
Taxonomy and etymology
  • ¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
  • ¶2 Link paleontology?
  • ¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
  • ¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."
  • Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
  • ¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
  • ¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new ecological niche."
  • ¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
  • ¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
  • ¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
  • ¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
  • ¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?
Exploitation and extinction
  • ¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
  • ¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?

fixed all the above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That's what I call a quick turnaround. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I enjoyed reading this. Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Vanamonde

  • Some inconsistencies in capitalization style: some refs use title case, others do not.
I'm not really sure what a title case is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just realized this is still an issue. See [37]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source?
The author is part of the Catfish Study Group which is a journal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
  • Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
  • I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
  • I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:
  • "Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.
It's saying that the closest mink subspecies to the sea mink is the common mink, not that the common mink's its own species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.
there're a couple of other sources lined up there, the Sealfon one says that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "and the carnassial teeth make a more acute angle" Not an error, as such, but should specify angle with what.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.
Yeah, common names change but the scientific name is generally the one you wanna trust with species identification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe I missed something, but where does Manville specifically say "however, these kills are speculated to be of large American minks."?
oops, it's only for the 1894 kill. Manville's describing the specimen collected in 1894, and at the end concluded that it's an American mink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.
  • That's all I have for now. If I find the time, I may check the other source, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now......

  • Add descriptor of who/what Prentiss was.
I just added a wikilink to his wikisource page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I meant describe, "American doctor and naturalist" or something similar before the first mention of his name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • last 2 sentences of first para of Taxonomy and etymology section repetitive....? Streamline?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to mention that it was hunted to extinction again as you did so in the previous section. It comes across as laboured otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you've chosen millimetres rather than centimetres (I think most laypeople think in the latter as default measurement)
the source gave it in mm so I just did it but I changed it to cm   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"
there isn't I was just worried about repetition, but I can change it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
In which case if you want to include both you could say, "the last two reported kills were..." or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Exploitation and extinction I'd flip the material in the first para, so that methods of killing come before last killings and vanishing.
I just ordered it in level of importance, people're gonna wanna know when they died out before how they died out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but it sounds funny as it sounds like the hunters are trying to kill them...when they are all already dead....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't help. I think I am not so opposed to it to make it a I can agree to disagree on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can't see anything else jumping out at me prose-wise nor can I see anything a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Groix

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

An article about a largely-forgotten naval battle of the early French Revolutionary Wars. By earlier standards it was a significant victory for the Royal Navy, but by the standards of the war to come it rather paled in comparison.

I have 12 FAs to my name, but none since April 2010. I wrote this in 2012 and moved on to other things, with a full break in 2015. I am now returning to Wikipedia after two years hiatus and felt this might be a good place to start. I've revised and copyedited it and I think it is ready. I can't see any major changes to the criteria in the last 7 years, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Many thanks in advance.Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jackyd, welcome back -- as it's been a long time between drinks for you, we might get a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing, on top of the regular image licensing check and source review for reliability/formatting, but apart from that I don't think there'd be too many surprises... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I'm in the hands of you fine people - let me know what needs fixing!--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bridports_Action_Groix.jpg: source link is dead and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Done and found another cool image to use in the process. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps and source review

  • There is currently a mixture of British and American spellings. What English variation is being used here?--Ykraps (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be British - I've scanned for American spellings and can't see any but it might be a function of my spell-checker, which is unapologetically American despite my best efforts. Can you let me know where they are? I also reverted a couple of changes you made, one was an alteration to odd capitalisation in a direct quote and the other was to return to the French military rank "Vice-amiral". Also, court-martialed only has one "l". Thank you very much for the copyedit.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it was User:Finetooth who changed amiral to admiral but guilty as charged over the others. I wondered at the time if the caps were part of the direct quote, hence the question mark in my edit summary. With regards to court-martialled/martialed, both dictionaries I own Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5.  and The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8.  give the spelling as martialled. This is consistent with words like dialled and initialled. Collins also states that martialed is the US spelling. Totaled (Aftermath, 2nd paragraph) should also have two 'L's. Compass points (south-east etc) are generally hyphenated in British English and never all one word. This is mentioned in the manual of style here:[[38]]. 'Maximize' is more commonly 'maximise' in modern British English but both spellings are still acceptable so I'll leave that one up to you. 'Maneuvered' should be 'manouevred' in the translation from the French quote in the last paragraph.--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Which ever of you made the edits, thanks to both for the copyedit. I've checked several versions of "court-martialled" and there is no consistency, so I've gone with yours. Made all other changes. Thank you very much for these notes, much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any consistency with "mizzen" either. I always thought it was two zeds but I was looking at a book by Sam Willis this morning where it's spelt with one. I have hyphenated the compass points but if you think I'm wrong you can of course revert.--Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Allen, Joseph (1905) [1842]. Battles of the British Navy. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. , used to reference the first sentence in the second paragraph of the 'Battle' section, should be labelled as Volume I. Also can you check the page number? Unless you have a wildly different version, I think you'll find it's 418.--Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
My copy of this (from 1905), is a single volume and the page reference appears to be correct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought it might correspond with this version [[39]] and as the digits were identical I thought it was a typo. Obviously not!--Ykraps (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the text on page 59 of James' The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume 1 supports the statement, "...followed by a purge of suspected anti-republicans which resulted in the death or imprisonment of a number of experienced commanders". Do you have another source?--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Good spot. James references the mutiny, but not the ensuing repression. I've added a new source. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The first two sentences in the second paragraph of the "Background" section are referenced to page 256 of Clowes but the supporting text to the first sentence appears on page 255. I would suggest either citing those sentences "pp.255-256" or adding a separate citation to the first sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Same with the rest of that paragraph, James p.238 cited but ought to be pp.237-238.--Ykraps (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Background" section, 6th sentence of 3rd paragraph - Cornwallis had ordered the frigate HMS Phaeton to range ahead of his squadron making false signals announcing the imminent arrival of a British fleet. These concerned Villaret so much that at 18:40 he called off pursuit and returned to the French coast... James, to which this part is referenced, says on p.242, "At 6 p.m., as a singular coincidence, there actually appeared, in the direction to which the Phaëton's signals had been pointing, several small sail. The British frigate immediately wore to rejoin her squadron ; and very soon afterwards, as has already been stated, Vice-admiral Villaret, to whom the strange sails must just then have discovered themselves, gave over the chase and tacked to the eastward...", indicating that it was a combination of these two events that caused Villaret to withdraw. Can the sentence be rewritten to reflect this? "This ruse de guerre coupled with the arrival of several sail on the horizon at 18:00, concerned Villaret so much that he called off the pursuit...", or similar?--Ykraps (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Done all of these - are you intending to go though every reference like this? If so thank you, but wow that's quite a job. Let me know if you find anything else.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I was only intending to look a sample but because I have an interest in this type of article, I often find myself doing some extra reading. Fortunately/unfortunately I have the books you have used for sourcing the article. If it's any comfort, given what I've seen so far, I'm not expecting to unearth anything major.--Ykraps (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, first paragraph: "It was one of Warren's ships, the frigate HMS Arethusa, that first discovered the French as Villaret led his fleet out from the sheltered anchorage. Lookouts on Arethusa miscounted the French fleet however, identifying 16 ships of the line and ten frigates; Warren immediately sent word to Bridport while ordering his convoy to turn away from the French" is referenced to Clowes p.260 but Clowes makes no mention of 'Arethusa' nor "16 ships of the line and ten frigates". This might be better referenced by James p.244 which does have this information.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "The adverse southeasterly winds delayed both fleets..." I wonder if delayed is the right word here. To me, a delay is when something is expected to arrive somewhere at a particular time and doesn't. The source gives no indication that the fleets were expected any earlier. Perhaps 'hindered' or 'hampered' might be better? Unless of course they were expected earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, not 'hampered', I can see you have used that a little later on. 'Frustrated'?,'impeded'?--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "To maximise his chances of catching the French, Bridport specifically ordered his fastest ships HMS Sans Pareil, HMS Orion, HMS Colossus, HMS Irresistible, HMS Valiant and HMS Russell..." Not sure we can say they were the fastest, even if they were; Brenton p.231, doesn't mention that as a reason.--Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
However, Clowes p.261, says "...his best sailing ships", so add that as an additional reference and we're good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "To ensure that his fleet was in a position to intercept..." Brenton doesn't mention the signals given at 19:00 and 19:25, so again an additional source is needed here, such as James p.245.--Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "...The main body of the French fleet was sailing in a loose cluster with three or four ships trailing behind and one ship, Alexandre under Captain François Charles Guillemet far to the rear and only 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) from the British vanguard". Guillemet is mentioned on p.246 of James, so strictly speaking, the citation here is pp.245-246.--Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Battle, second paragraph: "As the French crew scrambled to extinguish it, Sans Pareil, flagship of Rear-Admiral Lord Hugh Seymour, reached the ship and fired a broadside in passing..." The engagement between Sans Pareil and Formidable is described on p.246 of James with the casualties on p.248. So again, shouldn't this be pp.246-248?--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Battle, third paragraph: "The entire combat was slowly pulling closer to the fortified rocky island of Groix..." Needs pp.262-263 of Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Battle, last paragraph: "...which Bridport was not aware had already surrendered", might be better referenced by James pp.246-247 as Clowes doesn't really make it clear that Tigre had previously surrendered and had to strike a second time to Royal George.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Aftermath, first paragraph: "Bridport had remained off Quiberon to ensure that Villaret did not return to harass the expeditionary force, returning to Britain on 20 September but leaving the bulk of the blockade fleet off the Breton coast under Rear-Admiral Henry Harvey. The 68-year-old Bridport was forcibly retired in October after an unrelated argument with First Lord of the Admiralty Earl Spencer, but was reinstated in 1796 and continued to serve in command of the Channel Fleet until 1800". The ONDB source only confirms the last sentence. Clowes p.267 can be used for the first bit.--Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Aftermath, second paragraph: "Villaret meanwhile gathered his scattered ships and called a council of his senior officers on Peuple to discuss their next course of action". This sentence is referenced to James p.249 but James says the council was held "...on board the Proserpine frigate, in which his flag was flying".--Ykraps (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the sentence, "In common with the battle of the Glorious First of June the previous year, rewards for the British victory at Groix were unevenly distributed" (Aftermath, third paragraph). I can see why you've said that but without a source to verify it, it looks a bit WP:SYNTH.--Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also in third paragraph of 'Aftermath' section, "The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball", needs a source. Winfield, Rif (2008). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. London: Seaforth. p. 51. ISBN 1-86176-246-1. , will do nicely here.--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not absolutely necessary but I just wonder if some sort of footnote listing the ships might be helpful. There are so many with similar names; Prince George, Royal George, Prince of Wales, Prince, that one could be forgiven for thinking they were one and the same.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this - let me know when you are finished and I'll address them all in one go.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Jackyd101, I think I’m just about done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Done all of these except the footnore - there is an Order of battle in the Biscay campaign of June 1795 linked in the infobox and in a hatnote which should help people to differentiate between the ships. Thanks for your comprehensive review. Quite a few of these were cases where the text in question was originally referenced further down the paragraph and then a new reference was inserted between the text and its reference.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Jackyd101 - There are just three other points which appear to have been overlooked: The claim that Sans Pareil, Orion, Colossus, Irresistible, Valiant and Russell were Bridport's fastest ships isn't supported by the source; the meeting on Peuple occurred on Proserpine (This one?) according to the source, and the claim I suggested could be seen as synthesis.--Ykraps (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. Changed fastest to best-sailing and gave source you suggested; added the frigate, good catch on the error (it was this one actually) and I added a source about the concern regarding the 1st of June, which should keep us in line with the facts.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
As long as the comparison between the two events is sourced that's fine and if you don't think the footnote is necessary then that's fine too.--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

All my points have been satisfactorily addressed and I am happy that the sourcing meets FA standards: Reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked a good proportion for accuracy and close paraphrasing. Examples below -

  • Article: Throughout the day the French vanguard kept up a distant but continual fire on the rearmost British ship HMS Mars, until eventually the ship began to fall behind the others. In an effort to protect Mars, Cornwallis interposed his 100-gun flagship HMS Royal Sovereign between the British squadron and the French force, its massive broadsides driving the French back
Source:(Clowes pp.257-258)…at length, the Mars, considerably damaged aloft, began to fall to leeward. Observing this, Cornwallis signalled her to alter course ... …and then, in the Royal Sovereign, the Vice-admiral himself bore round towards her, followed by Triumph, and delivered raking broadsides… This manoeuvre saved the Mars… Four French van ships, which had bore up hoping to secure the Mars, considered it wise to haul to wind.
  • Article: At 06:15, Queen Charlotte passed Alexandre and began firing on Formidable, Linois returning fire against his much larger enemy for fifteen minutes before a fire broke out on the poop deck.
Source:(Allen p.184) At about 6h. 15m. the Charlotte fired her starboard broadside into Formidable, Captain Linois, and a close action about this time, [0630] the French ship [Formidable] caught fire on the poop.
  • Article: Bridport gave instructions as he withdrew for Alexandre, Formidable and Tigre to be taken under tow by HMS Prince, HMS Barfleur and HMS Prince George respectively.
Source:(Clowes p.263) The Admiral ordered Prince, Barfleur and Prince George to take the prizes in tow; and the fleet stood away with them to the S.W.
  • Article: Following their advice, Villaret decided to shelter the fleet in the nearby port of Lorient to seek supplies and repairs before returning to Brest. He found however that, having sailed without sufficient provisions, Lorient was not equipped for a fleet of such size and Villaret was forced to discharge the majority of sailors as he was unable to feed them. It was not until December and the winter storm season that a number of the ships were able to travel quietly up the coast to Brest, while others were sent southwards to Rochefort.
Source:(James p.253) The ships in the latter port [Lorient] ; having, as stated before, quitted Brest with only 15 days' provisions on board, had been compelled, owing to the poverty of the place, to discharge the principal part of their crews ; disease and desertion had gradually thinned the remainder.
  • Article: All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball. Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle.
Source:(James p.250) Of his three prizes, the Alexandre, or Alexander, as now again entitled to be called, was scarcely worth anything ; but the Tigre and Formidable were fine new 74s, similar in size to the Impetueux and America captured by Earl Howe. The Tigre was allowed to retain her name ; but there being a Formidable 98 already in the service, the name of the Formidable 74, as if to perpetuate an acknowledged discreditable mistake, was changed to that of the island, close to which, instead of to Groix, the action was supposed to have been fought ...
  • Article: Twenty-first-century historians Noel Mostert and Richard Woodman have compared Groix with the battles of Genoa and Hyères fought earlier in the year in the Mediterranean, where in similar circumstances another elderly admiral, William Hotham, had also allowed scattered and retreating French fleets to escape when they might have been destroyed.
Source:(Woodman p.61) Two similarly unsatisfactory actions between British and French squadrons were fought in the Mediterranean, where Vice-admiral William Hotham had relieved Lord Hood. Off Genoa in March Hotham took a French 80 and a 74, and in an action of Hyeres in July...
Source:(Mostert p.164) The French had lost their opportunity off Fiorenzo, the British off Hyeres, where a superior fleet of twenty-three British ships had failed to come to action with a French fleet of seventeen... ...For the British the consequences of Hotham's failure were soon to become apparent. There was nothing better on offer from the Channel Fleet at the Western Approaches. On 22 June, an unusually powerful Channel Fleet... ...Bridport's explanation echoed Hotham's off Hyeres...

Support--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is a well-written account of an interesting sea battle. Here are my questions and suggestions. I think a map would be especially helpful.
  • Images need alt text.
I used to have to do this and was wondering if it was still necessary, couldn't see anything about it on the FA criteria page. In any case, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if not required, it's a nice thing to do for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Link aquatint in the lede image caption?
done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • View of the Close of the Action Between the British and French Fleets, off Port L'Orient on 23 June 1795; aquatint by Robert Dodd, from the original by Captain Alexander Becher, RN; published 12 June 1812, NMM – I would omit the publication date and the name of the publisher since those details are readily available on the image description page.
Date reduced, but I think it is important to have the date for context - whether the image is contemporary or not is crucial to its value as an illustration. The Maritime Museum is the owner of the image (i.e. its an image of a print from their collection), not the publisher. I always put the owner of the image in a caption when I use one - its both professional and polite.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • An exact Representation of the Capture of three Ships of the Line, and total defeat of the French Fleet, by a Squadron under Command of Admiral Lord Bridport, on the 23 of June, 1795" E. Godefroy & J. Pass, 1795. NMM.]] – For a more clean image, I would consider cropping the text from the image itself and re-uploading the cropped image to the Commons, and I would eliminate the publisher's name and the publication date from the caption.
See above. Also, I think that the text is an important part of the image in this instance. The print is a composition as a whole, not a simple picture.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A map showing Brittany, Lorient, Brest, Groix, and Belle Île would be helpful in understanding the ship movements. It could be a map of any time since 1795, not necessarily an old map, as long as it showed the relevant coastline, cities, and islands.
Haven't found an appropriate one yet. Still looking.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't found one either. This one would do as an appropriately licensed base map to which a few names and a couple of city locations could be added. I don't want to hold things up, so I'm striking. It's something you might consider adding later. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "Several of his ships were too slow however," – I don't think you need the "however".
  • ¶1 Link "anti-republicans" to something explanatory, perhaps Republicanism?
I've linked the purge to the Reign of Terror, of which it was a small part, but a link to Republicanism isn't going to be helpful. The people executed were political prisoners from a range of ideological stances from monarchism through a bewildering rainbow of republican factions; most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were actually executed on trumped up charges anyway (e.g. sailors executed for protesting a lack of edible food or dock administrators executed for failing to meet impossible work quotas), so the link might actually be misleading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "the French fleet sallied out into the Atlantic" – Delete "out"?
I don't think its a tautology, but sure, OK. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "The febrile atmosphere..." – "Fevered" would be more familiar to most readers, I think.
I quite like the word febrile and I don't think fevered really matches the tone of what was happening - I've compromised with "tense".--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "French commander Vice-admiral Villaret..." − Elsewhere in ¶2, you have "Vice-Admiral William Cornwallis". I'm not sure whether little "a" or big "A" is preferred. Should they be the same, or is the difference important?
Its actually an important difference - the French ranks of vice and contre-amiral are not exact equivalents of Vice and Rear-Admiral in the Royal Navy, and in the context of this article are proper nouns and should I think be rendered in the original French (note that I refer to contre-amiral, but anglicise it to French admiral when I'm not using it as a proper noun, as they were still collectively admirals). THis is also consistent with my many other articles in this field.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 Link Contre-amiral since even "counter-admiral" may be unfamiliar to most readers?
  • ¶3 "heading out into open water " – Delete "out"?
  • ¶3 "the ship began to fall behind the others." – Delete "the others" as unnecessary?
Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Groix
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the article title in a head. Instead of Battle of Groix here, would Engagement" be better? Or something else?
That's a new one on me and I'm not sure why its a problem, but sure, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Umm. Redundancy is the problem. MOS:HEAD contains the guideline I'm thinking of. It says, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life) or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." In your revision, the word "battle", which is one of the main words of the article title, appears in the subhead "Battle off Groix" and in the sub-subhead, "Battle". Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made changes as you suggest, but honestly, having read that guideline, I still don't see how having redundancy between the title and section headings is a problem for readers in any way. Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Villaret's retreat
  • ¶3 "The ship was a poor sailer, whose position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet... " – Since a ship isn't a who, maybe "The ship was a poor sailer, and its position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet..."
Most sailors would I think disagree with your first statement, but changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The same guys who like to think of a ship as a she? Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "had been forced out of the engagement due to severe damage to his rigging and sails" – Use "its rigging" here instead of "his" since the damage was to the equipment, not Douglas?
I would humbly suggest that this is okay. It is his ship so by extension, his sails and rigging. --Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ykraps; there is a standing convention in a lot of naval histories to conflate the captain with the ship in this way - i.e. as captain authority over the ship's equipment rested entirely with him and thus they were in a very real sense "his". Have no objection to changing it to "the rigging" though if you'd prefer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
No change necessary. Most of my suggestions are minor, and I'm an outsider who is mostly unfamiliar with sailing conventions. Finetooth (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "At 07:14, he drifted past that shattered hull of Alexandre, Captain Guillemet, opening fire briefly before surrendering as the first rate returned it with devastating effect." – Something's amiss here. Remove the comma after Guillemet?
Yep, bad comma. Changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded, with Queen Charlotte and Colossus with the heaviest casualties of 36 and 35 respectively." – I'd suggest replacing the double "with" in this sentence. Maybe "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded; Queen Charlotte and Colossus had the heaviest casualties, 36 and 35 respectively."
Good call.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "opposed by Rear-Admirals Kerguelen and Étienne Eustache Bruix" – Since you used "amiral" and "contre-amiral" earlier, should "Rear-admiral" be given in a French equivalent, if there is one?
Yes, this was an error, good spot.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "by the Parliament of Great Britain, who voted thanks" – Should Parliament be a "which" rather than a "who"?
  • ¶3 "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy, Alexandre reverting to Alexander (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball), Tigre retaining her French name while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle." – Too complex. Maybe "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. Alexandre reverted to Alexander. (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball.) Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle."
Rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "in the opinion of French admiral Kerguelen" – Admiral or amiral? To maintain consistency, it might be better to use all-English titles throughout rather than using the French equivalents.
See above about proper nouns (French) and common nouns (English).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To deal with questions like one that Ykraps raised above, it would probably be helpful to include OCLCs for the books without ISBNs. WorldCat lists them. Your edition of Battles of the British Navy, for example, is probably the 9th edition or the revised 9th edition of the Simpkin publication: here. You might also add the full title and the edition info to identify the source more exactly.
Added edition. Not certain which is the OCLC number on the link you sent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of a thicket of stuff to wade through. The trick is to click from the title on the page I sent you, and that takes you to another page specifically about the 1905 9th rev. ed. from which you scroll down to the "Details" section. The OCLC, 85994488, is cleverly hidden there. I added this OCLC to the article. You should be able to add OCLCs to any of the others. Here, for example, is the OCLC list of possibles for Chasseriau. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the finely detailed review. Comments above, otherwise I think I've done everything you've suggested. Let me know if you have additional comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Done except for the two remaining open questions about the head-subhead redundancy and the other missing OCLCs. Leaning toward support. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Done these both. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. By the way, I found a map that would work, but needs a red dot on it for clarity. I can't work out the formatting for putting red dots in images not in the infobox though. Can you recommend anything?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If you provide a link to the map, I'll take a look and see what might be done. You'll need to tell me where you want the red dot to appear. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The map is below. The dot should go off the southern side of the island of Groix, halfway up the southern coast of the Breton peninsula. Any help much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the map itself from this FAC page because I thought it might slow the page loading. Working on a solution. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Modified the base map, uploaded it to the Commons, and installed it in the article. If you want further alterations, just let me know on the article's talk page or my talk page rather than extending the map discussion here at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer made under Plan Z, which served two years in the Kriegsmarine, before being used for experiments by the US, and later as a pontoon by France. I believe it meets all the criteria, even though it is a bit short for a FAC article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There is one Z39 image in the article. It is well-relevant, has no copyright issues, ALT text, and no issues whatsoever. It is good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review = spotchecks not done

  • Further reading should be a separate section
  • Ordered date differs between infobox and text, and for a couple of other dates the text is unclear - captured, and commissioned by the French. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
     Done I have removed the unclear dates, as its not clear that they were actually done on those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Do you have any further comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, sourcing otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • the yard number "G629" is not mentioned in the body and is therefore uncited in the infobox


  • "After the modifications, she carried 14 2 cm" --> "After the modifications, she carried fourteen 2 cm" (to aid readability)


  • "between 13–26 April" --> "between 13 and 26 April" per MOS:DASH (please check for similar constructions)


  • same as above with "from 13–14 April" --> "from 13 to 14 April"


  • "British Air Force" --> "British Royal Air Force" (proper name) or "British air force" (common name)


  • there is a mixture of British and US English spelling, for instance "Draught" and "Harbor"

 Done, I believe I have changed all to British spelling. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "where Schlesien was deliberately grounded her" (typo: "her")


Comments from Ranger Steve

Sorry, but it's an oppose from me. Additionally, and I know this will appear harsh, but I'd suggest considering withdrawing this nomination so that it can be improved. I only say this because I feel it is far from complete and FAs aren't the place to make major changes. What's there is good, but what's missing is, in my opinion, quite a lot.

My principal problem is that this article is far too brief in its coverage. You mention above that the destroyer was part of Plan Z, but even that isn't in the article. Per the FA criteria, specifically 1B (comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context), I would expect to see a comprehensive background section. This would obviously include a summary of summary of Plan Z, but I would also expect to see some information on German destroyer use prior to Z39's commissioning and their high attrition rates. The cause of the lengthy construction times is relevant as well, as it is alluded to briefly in the article, but not explained. By the time Z39 entered service, fuel shortages were acute and training was poor (Z39's crew even took training voyages to teach seamanship in Jan '45); these are factors I'd expect to see in more detail in the service history section. Additionally, the impact of these factors and the course of the war in the Baltic and how they ultimately affected the employment of the destroyers (ie. how Z39 came to be principally a minelayer and not a combat vessel) should be in there for context. Somewhere, Project Barbara should be explained as well; why it was felt necessary and the extent of modifications made (Z39 received a full Barbara refit, others did not). Although there's plenty of detail about the voyages made in support of Operation Hannibal, there's no explanation of the evacuation of East Prussia and Courland - not even a link to the articles.

I'm also concerned that, partially through this lack of context, the service history reads as a list of short sentences listing dates and summary events. This is particularly true here: "On 25 March, Z39 finished repairs, while in Swinemünde, and resumed operations on 1 April. From 5 April to 7 April, she escorted transports and parts of Task Force Thiele around the Bay of Danzig.[18] From 8 April to 9 April, she provided naval gunfire support for the German army.[24] On 10 April she and T33 escorted the German destroyer Z43, which had sustained damage from both mines and bombs,[25] to Warnemünde and Swinemünde.[26] On 15 April German destroyers Z5, Z34, and Z39, German minelayers T23, T28, T33, and T36 escort German steamships Matthias Stinnes, Eberhart Essberger, Pretoria and Askari to Copenhagen, with a total of 20,000 refugees.[25] On 2 May she shelled Soviet Army forces from the Oder estuary. On 3 May she, alongside the battleship Schlesien, moved to protect the bridge across the Peene river at Wolgast." For this reason I feel it fails FA Criteria 1A.

I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but you're right, this is short for an FAC and I feel that's because so much is missing that could and should be there. Regards Ranger Steve Talk 18:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ranger Steve: I'll take a look into this, and see how hard it would be to fix what you've said. If it looks like it will take a long time; I'll withdraw it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Shout

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been a little while since my last FAC, but I think this one is up to scratch. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli invasion on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" over the next two days, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out. He was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing exploded prematurely. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006. The article was listed as GA some months ago and recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. Any and all comments welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian -- recusing from coord duties; good to see you back, Bryce!

  • Copyedited so let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining the position of his men... brought him back "to a place of safety"... As a result of his "great courage" -- if we use quotes I think they should be attributed inline; as it is we don't know if it's the author of the work speaking or an official despatch or something else.
Have tweaked this – let me know what you think.
    • having "served with distinction" during his time in South Africa -- as above.
Will get back to you on this one, as there is something I would like to double check with the sources.
Have cut this one – it was not really vital, and there seemed no smooth way of attributing the quote to Snelling.
    • the couple had a daughter named Florence Agnes Maud on 11 June that year -- not a biggie but I don't think we generally name children unless notable in themselves, nor worry about their exact birthdates.
Have cut the middle names and specific date of birth, but as Florence was Shout's only child I think the name and month is worth retaining.
    • Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914 for active service overseas. -- I think this sentence has one clause too many for comfort; suggest you lose either "Following the outbreak of the First World War" given the section header, or "for active service overseas" since you explain the purpose of the AIF next sentence.
Have cut the latter.
    • the "impregnable" Ottoman position at Lone Pine -- I seem to recall from my readings that it was generally considered so therefore perhaps not appropropriate to attribute to this particular source but simply to paraphrase in some fashion.
    • "bitter, savage fighting" over the next three days, predominantly in the form of "deadly bombing duels" -- since the quotes don't relate directly to Shout, I wonder if rather than attributing the first one we could just try paraphrasing; I think "deadly bombing duels" would be worth retaining if attributed.
    • Shout was fighting with "splendid gaiety" throughout the assault, "laughing and joking and cheering his men on" -- probably worth retaining the quotes with attribution.
Done – let me know what you think.
    • he remained cheerful, "drank tea and sent a message to his wife" -- if only one of the cited sources described him as cheerful I think worth attributing that, as well as the quote.
    • Shout was evacuated from the Gallipoli Peninsula to the hospital ship Euralia shortly afterwards. -- given this is the start of a new section, I think "shortly afterwards" needs clarification; shortly after he was wounded I assume?
    • Although Sasse's Sap "was never wholly regained" -- I think preferable to just paraphrase this one; we need to guard against the article becoming a quote farm.
  • Structure is straightforward and level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll try and look over images and referencing at some stage, if no-one beats me to it.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Much appreciated. The following are my edits: [40]. Will get back to you on the second point asap. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian Rose. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Tweaked a little bit but generally no probs from my perspective. I'd prefer to see Ealdgyth's response to your ping before supporting outright; if I have time I may just comb through the changes in response to her comments myself -- let's say I've no objections to promotion anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Support and image review by PM I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and could find little to comment on then, I've had a look at the above improvements, and believe it currently meets the FA criteria. I also checked the image licensing during ACR and they are all fine. Great job on this article and welcome back to FAC! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Okay, we have a problem with the use of the "record search" from the National Archives of Australia. These are all primary sources. And it's an 83 page file but all sorts of things are cited to the entire file. I'm pretty sure there are some problems with interpretation of the primary sources going on here - but I'm not going to freaking scroll through the entire slowly loading 83 page file trying to figure out which of the 83 pages (that take forever to load) supports each tiny bit of information. Each bit of information should be sourced at the least to a page range, but ideally to an individual page.
  • Actually I have to agree here regarding closer citation. When I've used NAA records, I tend to cite the page (as defined by NAA) or a narrow range where the information comes from across a couple of pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, will differentiate between cites. However, I will not get a chance to do so until at least this evening. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • there is no rush. To be honest, I probably won't have a great deal of time to get back to it before Monday or Tuesday Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries – I'll let you know as soon as I am done, but it should be before then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of these sources are primary sources - embarkation rolls, the various bits of paperwork in the archival records, the Gazette mentions, etc. The extensive use of primary sources concerns me - we should be relying on secondary sources not primary. It's entirely too easy to slip into interpreting the primary sources - can none of these details be cited to secondary works instead?
  • This has not been a problem in the past, as the sources have not been 'interpreted' to make an argument. Rather, in almost every case they have been used alongside secondary sources to provide slight additional detail, such as a specific date. Indeed, the embarkation roll is backed up by Snelling and, while all of Shout's awards can be verified by basically any of the secondary sources used here, the London Gazette provides the date of announcement and a complete and accurate rendering of his VC citation (though this does appear in Staunton and others too). Further, as every single one of the records are freely accessible and available online, there is not really a verifiability issue (excepting perhaps the above, which will be addressed shortly). To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find an FA-level article on an Australian military figure that does not use similar sourcing. As for the London Gazette, this article features just four entries – compare this case to Richard Dannatt and Donald Hardman (both FAs, the latter promoted just last month), which make use of dozens, though in a similar method for a similar reason. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it isn't clear from the way you reference what the additional details ARE. An example: "Information on Alfred Shout's early life is rather scant, and the details differ between sources. It is believed that he was privately educated in his youth and," is sourced to the records search (page 1) AND to Snelling. What part of the two sentences comes from the records search? There IS interpretation in this sentence - is Snelling supporting the first bit? Even if the records search is just supporting the "privately educated" ... that phrase is actually "it is believed" which is interpreting the primary source document (which is emphatic about him being privately educated on page 1). Another example: "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... which is sourced to three sources: the records search which says that he served in the "Border Horse 1900-2 (Sgt)", to this source which says "Records suggest that he also served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop." and then this source which says "He was in South Africa when, as an eighteen year old, he joined the Border Horse and later served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop and the Cape Colonial Forces." None of these actually support the sentence "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... what is actually happening here is that the three sources are being combined together like a historian would to come up with a synthesized statement that isn't supported by the sources.
  • Clarified and substituted for more definitive source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's another "Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914." is sourced to the page 1 of the records search. But nothing on that page says anything about "following the outbreak of World War I" or that the Australian Imperial Force was "newly raised".
  • Arguably common enough not to warrant a further cite, but have added one in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Another "On 11 May, he was wounded once again, suffering a second gunshot to his arm. He was evacuated to the hospital ship HMHS Gascon but, having recovered sufficiently, rejoined his unit fifteen days later." - this is mostly supported by the source but it puts in details not covered by the primary source - the fact that HMHS is a hospital ship, that he was evacuated to the ship. Nor does the source explicitly state that the reason he returned to his unit was that he had recovered. We can assume that but it's not expressly stated.
  • Clarified and added additional cite. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A last example: this source is given as the source for "Shout was also posthumously issued the 1914–15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal for his service during the First World War." but nothing in that record states whether it was posthumous or not. It just says he was awarded these awards in addition to the VC.
  • This information is covered on pages 28 and 83 – the medals were not issued until 1921. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to be a pain here, but it's difficult to use primary sources in wikipedia because it is so tempting to interpret them or add information that included in them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are the long quote from the citation for the VC, which is properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Dank! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Tukwila International Boulevard station

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet another transit FAC, to complement my ongoing tunnel one. This one involves the other end of Seattle's light rail system, with the third-to-last stop, an elevated station overlooking parking lots, suburban chain stores, and majestic mountains and hills. The station also boasts a pretty nice design, with a roof that is meant to evoke the wings of an airplane (it's only one stop from the airport). Was promoted to GA a few months ago and recently touched up. SounderBruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Most images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the coordinates on the 2006 image. SounderBruce 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Passing comments from Vanamonde

  • I know very little about this subject, but just in passing, I find the diagram of the station layout somewhat confusing, because it suggests the northbound platform is above the southbound one (unless that is correct?) Also, forgive me for asking a pointed question, but isn't this your second solo nomination on this page? Vanamonde (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: The platforms are arranged side-by-side on the same level (3rd floor of the station), above the mezzanine (2nd floor) and bus terminal (1st/ground floor). The diagram is pretty much the same as most other transit station ones, and the gray line dividers are meant to indicate a floor change. This becomes a bit more apparent in more complex stations like this NYC Subway station, where the levels are more clearly labeled.
    • As for the 2nd nomination seems I have mis-read the FAC guidelines and mistakenly thought that other users with multiple nominations were also going alone. I hope an FAC coordinator can clear up whether I should withdraw this one or not, given that my other FAC is one step away from closure. SounderBruce 05:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I overlooked that this was a second solo nom when it was transcluded. Since your other nom is indeed near closure, and you've already attracted some commentary here, we'll leave things as is but in future pls note the FAC instructions, which state that second solo noms are not permitted without seeking leave from the coordinators. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I really like how this article is written. A few comments:

  • In "Location":
    • Second paragraph: "Within a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) radius of the station is a population of 4,155 residents in 2,332 housing units, of which 95 percent are considered "affordable". can be changed to A population of 4,155 residents live in 2,332 housing units within a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) radius of the station, of which 95 percent are considered "affordable". This is to fix clunky grammar.
      • Done.
    • Third para: "The city of Tukwila adopted an urban renewal plan for the area in 1998 and a comprehensive plan in 2015, both envisioning improved commercial access and additional residential units in the area around the station and on International Boulevard." can be changed to The city of Tukwila adopted two plans for the area: an urban renewal plan in 1998 and a comprehensive plan in 2015. Both envision improved commercial access and additional residential units in the area around the station and on International Boulevard.
      • Decided against having a sentence fragment there, and tweaked the wording. Is that alright?
  • In "History":
    • First para: "leading to a smaller proposal submitted to voters the following year by the RTA," → and as a result, the RTA submitted a smaller proposal to voters the following year.
      • Done.
    • Second para: "The RTA (renamed to Sound Transit)" → The RTA, by then renamed to Sound Transit,
      • Done.
    • Second para: "Ultimately, the board selected a light rail route in November 1999 including International Boulevard through Tukwila and an elevated station at South 154th Street with a park and ride facility." → Ultimately, the board selected a light rail route in November 1999. The route included International Boulevard through Tukwila and an elevated station at South 154th Street with a park and ride facility.
      • Done.
    • Sixth para: "The shuttle service was suspended after the opening of SeaTac/Airport station on December 19, 2009, replacing Tukwila as the new southern terminus of the line." → The shuttle service was suspended after the SeaTac/Airport station opened on December 19, 2009, replacing Tukwila as the new southern terminus of the line.
      • Also, if the shuttle was "suspended", this implies that it was later reinstated. Do you mean "discontinued"?
      • Fixed, and I did mean that it was discontinued. SounderBruce 03:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More to come later. Good work so far. epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I have to look over the rest of the article tomorrow, but I am impressed with the improvements made so far. epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • In lead:
    • Paragraph 1: "It also includes 662 total parking spaces and functions as a park and ride, one of only two on the line." → As one of two park and rides along the line, it also includes a total of 662 parking spaces.
      • Done.
    • Paragraph 2: Downtown Seattle is linked twice. Remove the second link per WP:DUPLINKS
      • Done.
  • In "Station layout":
    • "Since 2013, 62 additional" → Since 2013, sixty-two additional per WP:NUMNOTES
      • Done.
  • In "Art":
    • Para 2, sentence 1: "Sculptor Tad Savinar has three works at the station's mezzanine and platform levels." → The station's mezzanine and platform levels contain three works by sculptor Tad Savinar. (I strongly suggest this because the current wording sounds weird. It sounds like the sculptor is claiming possession over the art, which technically is true because he owns the rights, but the artworks are physically in the station.)
      • Done.
    • Para 2, sentence 2: "... plants and animals; The Seattle Times called it a "regionally apt pop-art image" and praised its wittiness" → it would be better to rephrase to something like: ... plants and animals; it was praised by The Seattle Times, which called it a witty, "regionally apt pop-art image". Or you can write: a witty and "regionally apt pop-art image".
      • Done.
    • Para 4: "It was created by Christian French as part of the Stellar Connections series and its points represent nearby destinations ..." → Best to split in 2 sentences, or replace "and" with a semicolon, since these are two separate trains of thought: It was created by Christian French as part of the Stellar Connections series. Its points represent nearby destinations...
      • Done.
  • In "Services":
    • Not really nitpicking about this, but some of the links in this section are duplicates, including Seattle–Tacoma International Airport and Washington State Route 99. If you want to leave them to give the reader further context, it's fine.
      • Removed the links I found to be unnecessary.
    • Para 1: Replace the semicolon before "during regular weekday service" with a period: ... from 6:00 am to 12:00 am. During regular weekday service.
      • Done.
    • Para 2, first sentence: As this is a run-on sentence, replace the colon with a period after "... four bus routes, including two RapidRide lines, operated by King County Metro". Also, you would have to separate the rest of the sentence into two or four separate sentences to avoid writing another run-on sentence. So sample new sentences would read like this: Tukwila International Boulevard station is also served by four bus routes, including two RapidRide lines, operated by King County Metro. The RapidRide A Line terminates at the station and travels south along State Route 99 through SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center. The RapidRide F Line passes through the station on its route between Burien, Southcenter Mall and Renton. Route 124 terminates at the station and travels north through Tukwila, Georgetown and SoDo to Downtown Seattle. Finally, route 128 connects the station to West Seattle, White Center and Southcenter.
      • Regarding the sentence about the A Line: reword "SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center" → SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way, ending at Federal Way Transit Center. Otherwise it sounds weird with "Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center".
      • Both done.
    • Para 2, last sentence: "The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the station" → maybe replace the second instance of "station" with Link platforms or light rail platforms because that word is repeated in short succession: The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the Link platforms.
      • Done.

That's it for now. Once these concerns are resolved, I'll be happy to support. epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: All finished. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I support this nomination. If possible, could you review my current FAC? (I totally understand if you don't want to do so.) epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now:

The alignment would keep light rail off of International Boulevard - I'd remove the "of" here....
Budgetary problems with the Central Link light rail project lead to the shortening - you mean "led", right?
Not a fan of single-sentence paras in the Art section but concede it is tricky to rejig...
I merged the two short paragraphs together, since the pictogram generally represents the station as a whole.

Otherwise looks very comprehensive and prose is else ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: All finished. Thanks for your review. SounderBruce 21:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Sources are all of the appropriate quality, and all are formatted correctly. No deadlinks. I didn't think spotchecks were needed, but I'll be glad to do them if necessary. Otherwise, this looks good to go as far as sourcing is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

Overall this seems like a solid, readable article. I only have two issues to raise:

  • The "Station layout" section discusses the station's parking, including the leasing of additional spaces and a carpool permit program, but it omits the reason why ST has added those options. The cited source about the carpool program mentions complaints about inadequate parking. Another source (not currently in the article) about the garage lease mentions commuters overflowing to park on nearby streets. The opening of the Angle Lake station was expected to help, but apparently Tukwila is still "chronically full". I think omitting the parking concerns is a problem for comprehensiveness and NPOV. (In the spirit of NPOV, it may also be appropriate to mention that some local activists think adding more parking at stations is a bad idea, although I didn't find a source about that point that mentions this station particularly.)
  • A lesser issue in the "Art" subsection: It says there are four art installations. It then describes a pictogram by Christian French, three sculptures by Tad Savinar, and an abstract by Clark Wiegman. This seems like it could be three installations or five installations, but I don't understand how it would be four.

The second issue should be an easy fix; the first is more substantive, but I hope I've helped by providing some potential sources. --RL0919 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for mentioning the point about parking. I omitted it mainly because complaints about transit station parking is rather common across the Seattle metro area, with most lots being full before 8 a.m. It's not extraordinary by any means in Tukwila's case, between the early fullness and "park and hide" habits on neighborhood streets. It might be best to cover this in Transportation in Seattle (which I plan to rewrite eventually) or Public transportation in Seattle.
French's pictogram is a component of a singular piece of art that is used by every station, so I don't describe it as one of Tukwila's pieces. I can remove the count entirely, since it's not really that necessary. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Lesley J. McNair

Nominator(s): Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Lesley J. McNair, a United States Army officer who served as a general during both World War I and World War II. He is notable as the primary architect of the Army as it was organized, trained, equipped, and fielded for World War II. Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Nick-D

While this article is in good shape, I think that it would have benefited from a Military History Wikiproject A-class review prior to this nomination. In particular, I don't think that it really captures the debates over McNair's performance in World War II. This is a complex topic: from what I've read, while historians tend to strongly approve of some elements of his approach and strongly disapprove of others, what they like and dislike varies considerably! I have the following comments on the World War II section:

  • "In addition to Mark Clark, other officers who served on McNair's AGF staff and later achieved prominence included: Alexander R. Bolling; Floyd Lavinius Parks; James T. Duke; Willard Stewart Paul; Lyman Lemnitzer; and Robert A. Hewitt" - does this need to be specified? It's not surprising that some of the officers at this very high level and large HQ went on to achieve prominence during the war.
  • "McNair identified difficulty with training National Guard units" - slightly awkward wording
  • "He recommended demobilizing the National Guard" - did he really want to stand down the Guard units (and their personnel), or disband the often-dysfunctional Guard units to free up their personnel?
  • Regarding the 'Fielding army divisions' section, wasn't one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? The US Army's divisions of World War II were pound for pound probably the best-equipped of any combatant (for instance, the standard US Army infantry division of 1944 was more mobile and had more firepower than the supposedly elite German Panzergrenadier divisions, of which Germany only ever fielded a small number). I believe that most historians regard the organisational structure as a success.
  • The 'Individual replacement system' section seems much too kind to McNair. In particular, the statement that " more recent assessments have viewed it more favorably" isn't supported by the source: its Thomas Ricks quoting with approval a ten year old paper. Recent works continue to be highly critical of this system (in particular, how inexperianced soldiers were posted to combat units while they were on the front lines, leading to appalling and avoidable casualty rates)
  • "McNair attempted to improve recruiting into the AGF through improved public relations" - given that the US had conscription and most conscripts were allocated to the Army, why was this necessary?
  • The 'legacy' section should note the continuing debates over McNair's role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Billmckern, how are you going working through these comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Ian Rose: I've worked off all but the individual replacement system and the additions to the legacy. I'll try to get to those tonight.
      • Billmckern (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:SandyHookProofBattery1900.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:General_Carlos_Brewer.jpg: source indicates that author is unknown
  • File:Lesley_McNair.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and source links are dead
  • File:McNair-TIME-1942.jpg: not sure about this - press images with the {{non-free historic image}} tag generally require a strong argument in favour of transformative use, and IMO there's not enough discussion of the image to support this
  • File:Lesley_J._McNair_Purple_Heart_1943_(2).jpg: where was this first published? And I think "uncredited" photographer was intended, rather than "unaccredited"?
  • File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sign itself?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Fixed all but individual replacement system. Work continuing.
Billmckern (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: @Nikkimaria: List of fixes:
Deleted line about officers on McNair's AGF staff
Re-worded line about training program for National Guard units
Added additional details on recommendation to demobilize National Guard
Added additional details about success of 90-division program
Added additional details about individual replacement system
Added additional detail about recruiting effort, and note to review individual replacement system section for additional details on why recruiting effort was necessary.
Added additional comments to legacy section about historical debates over McNair's decisions and actions, including individual replacement system, tank fielding, and tanks versus anti-tank guns.
Edited photo captions to remove periods where necessary
Added new source link for Sandy Hook Proof Battery photo
Added additional details about source of Carlos Brewer photo
Changed out File:Lesley_McNair.jpg for another version with better source data
Updated description of File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg to indicate that sign is not copyrighted (Per DoD Community and Public Outreach Division; written confirmation pending)
File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg - I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. The current design has a license tag for the current design, and one in the data for the original design on which it's based. If there should be more information included, I don't what or how.
Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
PS - I also included details about the publication of the photo which shows McNair wearing his Purple Heart.
Billmckern (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any info on the original design? (The immediate source is plwiki - I'm wondering about the original source). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: File:Legion d'Honneur Officier Ribbon.png - How about using this one instead?
Billmckern (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Same issue. If you compare the other ribbons, they include a tag representing the copyright status of the original ribbon design, but I'm not sure what tag would apply to this since it's non-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: - Well, what's the fix, and how should I do it? I don't understand how to proceed to solve the problem.
Billmckern (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The fix would be to find a tag that does apply. Would any of these match what is known about the ribbon? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Well, one contributor is from poland and the other from the UK, but I don't see a license tag from either that seems to fit. I don't see an EU one that looks right, either. How about PD-shape, which is contained on File:Legion Honour ribbon (II class).svg and File:Red ribbon bar - general use.svg.
Billmckern (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure the design is simple enough to qualify. But it doesn't matter where the uploaders are from: they didn't create the design themselves, it's based on a pre-existing work, right? That's the original design I'm referring to. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I give up. How about just deleting that image from the McNair article?
Billmckern (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I get someone to re-look the Lesley McNair article and see if it's ready for featured status? I confirmed that the sign at the Ft. McNair main gate is not copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise restricted in terms of making use of a photograph of it. I have no idea what to do to resolve the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon image. If anyone else is in a position to help with it, I'll be appreciative.
Except for the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon illustration, I think I've made all the other edits and fixes.
Billmckern (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged it with {{PD-shape}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Hawkeye7

I reviewed this article at GA. I have to agree with Nick that this is a complex topic. So don't feel bad about it. And debates over his performance go a lot further than just military historians, being the subject of heated debate among professionals over the years:

  • In answer to Nick, whether one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? No, the goal was to have a large number of average-quality units. But the ground Army was forced to halt at 89 divisions ("the 89-division gamble") instead of the 250 originally envisaged.
  • Having fewer divisions led directly to the problem with the divisions being in combat for too long. Replacement shortages led to melting most of the separate regiments into the replacement stream, exacerbating the problem. It also led to divisions being stripped for replacements, which disrupted McNair's training regime.
  • US equipment was not invariably better than the enemy's. Case in point is the heavy artillery, which was used because the German medium artillery outranged its US counterparts. . See Mayo, On Beachhead and Battlefront, pp. 202-204. Note that McNair was an advocate of heavy artillery. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 233–234
  • The individual replacement issue was a vexing one because it would recur in Vietnam. Despite far less intense combat, the divisions slowly degraded. As a result, unit rotation was chosen for the War in Iraq.
  • The article is still too soft on McNair's opposition to the heavier tank. See Thomson and Roots, Planning Munitions for War, pp. 280-283 (available online) McNair: "the M4 tank, particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on the battlefield today ... Other than this particular request, which represents the British view—there has been no call from any theater for a 90mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank ... there can be no basis for the T26 tank other than the conception of a tank versus tank duel—which is believed unsound and unnecessary ... there is no indication that the 76mm antitank gun is inadequate against the Mark VI (Tiger) tank."
  • The downsized armoured division was resisted, with the 2nd and 3rd remaining on the old establishment.
  • Note that McNair doubted the value of the armoured divisions, and suggested reducing their number to six. It became frozen at sixteen. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 332–335
  • There is also the light divisision schmozzle, and McNair proposal to convert airborne divisions into light divisions.

Source review

  • Calhoun's 2015 book is not used as a reference; move it to the "Further reading" section
  • Nor is his West Point memorial page
  • And the last of the external links. (Remove the ref card)
  • FN136 source does not mention the M3 explicitly. Suggest Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 427
  • Last use of FN144 in "Tanks" does not support In 1943, Devers and other commanders with tank experience succeeded in convincing George Marshall of the need for a tank with more armor and firepower than the M3 and M4. You need another source, and I think you'll find it was in 1944.

More to come... Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

...Continuing source review

  • FN6, 33, 51, 55, 78, 83, 101, 122, 150, 155, 195 - okay
  • FN186 - Does not mention the museum
  • FN187 - Does not say it was redeveloped as an apartment building. You say that "it was closed and turned over to the German government when the 17th Signal Battalion moved to Kitzingen in 1992". But the source does not mention the 17th Signal Battalion, and although it did in fact leave for Kitzingen in 1992, it was not closed until 1994.
  • FN189 - I think it's the Fort Leavenworth Hall of Fame, not the Fall of Fame.
  • Zabecki's book has the wrong ISBN. The last digit should bve "8"
  • Calhoun's 2015 book should be added to the "Further reading" section; leave the facebook page in the external links
  • Link Command and General Staff College
  • Link Camp Fuji
  • "Seated (right) is Clare McNair's." Remove the apostrophe and the "s".
Otherwise fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I fixed all the source review issues.
I started working to address the other comments. Stay tuned.
Billmckern (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I believe the edits I've made this morning address all your comments here -- airborne divisions, light divisions, armored divisions, and so on. Please let me know what you think.
Billmckern (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Edits made in accordance with details of your 25 August comment.
Billmckern (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

This is mostly excellent, but I have a few small points.

Early life
  • Why do you list his sisters' husbands?
  • I think the list of classmates is formatted wrong. You could lose the colon and replace the semi-colons with comma.
  • Should "Engineer branch" and "Artillery branch" be capitalized? It seems out of place.
Early career
  • Is "temporary captain" the same as a brevet rank?
    No, it isn't. A temporary rank is normally held while serving in a particular posting; the holder recieves the pay, authority and allowances of that rank, but will revert to his or her substantive rank on termination of the posting. They are still in use today. A brevet rank was an honorary title which conferred none of the authority, precedence or pay of full rank. So they were permanent, but useless, although still highly prized. They were common during the War of the Rebellion, but disappeared from the US Army around the turn of the twentieth century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll follow up with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I listed the husbands only to make it easier for anyone interested in researching the family to keep track of them. I don't think it's wrong, but I'm not married to it, either. I can change it if that's a sticking point.
  • Not a dealbreaker, I just thought it was unusual. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed to commas instead of semicolons for list of classmates.
  • Changed to lower case for engineer and artillery branch.
  • A temporary rank is not the same as a brevet. A brevet was honorary - you could wear the insignia and be addressed by the higher title, but the lower rank was the actual rank for purposes of pay, benefits, and seniority. A temporary rank was actual for pay and benefits, but the individual lost the pay and benefits if he reverted to his lower actual rank. In fact, reading McNair's entry in the 1920 West Point Biographical Register just now, I noticed that he was promoted to temporary first lieutenant AND temporary captain while with the ordnance corps. I'll make that edit, too.
  • OK, thanks, I was unclear on the difference. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Billmckern (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
World War I
  • "In June 1919, McNair was named to the AEF board..." How long did the AEF exist after the war ended?
  • @Coemgenus: August 1, 1920. Reference Records of the American Expeditionary Forces (World War I) at the national Archives.
School of the Line
  • It might be good to briefly explain what the School was, something like " of the faculty members of the Army's School of the Line, a training school for infantry and cavalry officers."
  • I think I already did that by explaining that it was the school where field grade officers went to learn how to manage and lead operations at division and higher.
  • Yes, I missed that.
  • "Already a prolific author of professional journal articles on technical military subjects, he authored numerous articles..." I'd change "authored" to "wrote" or "penned" to avoid repetition.
  • Fixed

I'll come back with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Let me know if you have other suggestions.
Individual replacement system
  • "friends and buddies" one or the other should do, no?
  • That's really all I have. Nice article, I'm glad to support its promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Rossbach

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration, this article is about a crucial battle in the Seven Years' War. About 1000 infantry and the Prussian cavalry of Frederick the Great's army routed the combined French and Reichsarmee forces during a 90 minute battle. It was critical in forcing France out of its support of Austria's strategic goals. As always, I appreciate your ideas and suggestions. As usual, I've used what Ealdgyth considers a funky annotation system. It's what I know and have used since 2009. auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Pbsouthwood

(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver

  • What is the relevance of the plateau elevation? Is this the elevation above the general altitude of the lower lying areas, which would have obvious military relevance, or above sea level, which would not? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • general relevance to the type of terrain -- a rolling plateau--. It measures above sea level, of course, but within that there was very little elevation change. This influenced how the battle was fought, obviously. No hill was higher than 120 meters (390 ft), which influenced how and where troops could move, and how visible they were from the highest observation points (usually the church towers, sometimes well-placed manor houses). auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the elevation of the low-lying areas known? the relative elevation would be far more relevant to tactics. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I read through again, and now understand that the battle was fought on the plateau, which had an altitude ranging from 120 to 244m, so the variation of altitude on the battlefield was not more than 124m and may have been less? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ok, thanksw for re the article clearer now? auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to explicitly state whether the battle was on the plateau. The map does not clearly show steep sides to the valley, but suggests fairly steep hillsides, which is not supported by the text or photos. I am not getting a clear impression of the terrain where the actual fighting took place. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I've stated in the text, there were no steep hill sides. The entire region is rolling hills--none of them higher than 120 feet above the general altitude of the region. It's all relatively flat. I've tried adjusting the text, and moved the images of the terrain into that section. auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to nitpick like this. The section now reads more clearly, but I remain uncertain whether the elevation of the plateau is between 120 and 244m, or lower than this with peaks up to 120 to 244m above the base altitude of the plateau. (which is more than 120 feet as stated above) If I understand correctly, the 120 feet is a typo, and the altitude of the plateau including its rolling hills is between 120 and 244m. I made and reverted an edit which would clarify this point if I got it right. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The elevation of Rossbach is 104 meters (341 ft). Braunsbedra and Reichertswerben are the two closest villages and they are, respectively, altitudes above sea level of: 120 meters (394 ft) and 131 meters (430 ft). The site of the battle field is rolling hills and plains between 120–244, mostly between Braunsbedra, Rossbach and Reichertswerben. But the entire topography outside the villages, where the battle took place, has changed since the mid-20th century (and earlier) because of lignite mining. The steepest hillsides are in Merseburg at the river crossings, and then only in a few places where the river cut through sandstone. If you look at Mapcarta here you can see that the location of the Janus has been completely excavated. There is really no way of telling exactly how high or how steep it was in 1750s. Carlisle, who was there, says the hills were slight. Frederick and Gaudi, who were there and observing from the manor rooftop, could see most of the French troop movements--this means that the hills were not high enough to obstruct the view. The vintage maps do not indicate steep hills, simply "hills" or elevation changes. Better? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mapcarta gives Rossbach elevation as 124m, your sources may differ, otherwise good. I see what you mean about the topography having changed. The explanatory note does help. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pbsouthwood: Oh, the whole area looks different than it did 200 years ago. But that's what happens over time. Will you support now? auntieruth (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Within the scope of my review, in that it makes sense to a non-expert, and is well written and interesting, yes, and good luck with the rest of the review. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:The_Imperial_German_Army_1890_-_1913_HU68455.jpg: if the author was a German court photographer, why a UK tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • From what it looks like in the documentation on the photo, the German court photographer took the picture. The German king gave wrote on it and gave it to Hugh Lowther, 5th Earl of Lonsdale, apparently, because that's the collection it came from.
  • Okay - unless there was a transfer of copyright involved (?), this wouldn't be a UKGov work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's in the UK Imperial War Museum. The template doesn't accommodate the specifics of this particular instance. Something created by German court photographer, given by Kaiser to someone; from that person's collection it apparently went to the UK Imperial War Museum, which provided it. So I don't know what to do about it, and if you don't know what to do about it, I suggest we leave it as is, because it was uploaded under auspices of the UK museum, and it had been given by the Kaiser. Perhaps we should accept that the transfer of the photograph as a gift is sufficient? The museum provided the provenance. auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Er... the museum provided the provenance and their own IWM licensing; I don't see that they provided anything to support the tags used. Given available information I would think a German/EU tag would be more appropriate. Open to other opinions though if any other reviewers want to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with a change. What do others think? auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable given the provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • maps are scaled, although I don't know how to do that for the ones in the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "moved up the Rossbach itself": What's "the Rossbach"? I'm aware "Bach" is "brook" in German, but I'm not aware that you've mentioned that, unless it's "a small stream [that] ran between Rossbach and Merseburg". okay, fixed.
  • "The fighting soon dissolved into man-on-man combat": Not wrong, but I might say "the columns dissolved", or "the fighting devolved". fixed.
  • "muskets shouldered": Did you mean to repeat that? I only see it once.
    • Sorry, the other occurrence is: " Frederick ... boasted that the victory had come while most of his infantry had its weapons shouldered." - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Really good writing. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Another impressive article. I find this set of three fascinating even though they are far afield from anything I write about. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows.
  • Lead image needs alt text. yes, it was there.  :)
Yes and no. When I rolled over the image with my mouse, the alt text showed as identical to the image file name. The fix was to look at what you'd done with the Battle of Leuthen and to imitate. I believe the problem is fixed, but please doublecheck. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the difference between Battle of Leuthen alt text and this one.  ??? auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The gallery images need alt text. WP:PIC in the Galleries subsection shows a way to add alt text using table syntax. I think I did this right
  • I think you can scale the gallery maps if you use the table format that you'll find in the same section of WP:PIC. I think I did this right
The toolbox ( has been down for a week or more, but you can still check the alt text by mousing over the image and looking at the popup. The table method described at WP:PIC looks like a workable option, but I've never used it. Some experimenting might be in order, or perhaps User:Nikkimaria or another image reviewer knows the preferred solution. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You could also use {{multiple image}} Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text and upright= to all the images. Does this work now?
I see that you have added the parameters. However, if you mouse over the images, you'll see that the alt text does not appear. (You have to have navigation popups turned on in your Preferences/Gadgets user menu to be able to see the popups.) That suggests to me that the template is not configured to recognize the alt-text parameter. I'd like to fiddle around in a sandbox with the {{multiple image}} template that Nikkimaria suggested. I have rarely added galleries to anything, hence my lack of immediate insights. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I use galleries a lot, so when you fiddle, please send me a link, so I can see what you've done....:) auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The layout of the gallery at the bottom of the article looks odd to me because of the 3-4-1 arrangement. Suggestion: use one panorama rather than two. That would give you a more balanced 3-4-0 arrangement, which would look better if you centered the line of 4 images. They will center properly once you remove the bottom line of 1. Alternatively, a table might give you more options than the existing two separate galleries at the bottom. I took out one
  • To avoid bumping against second-level subheads or from displacing the Battlefield today head, I would suggest moving all of the maps to the right. ?
Seven Years' War
  • ¶1 "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Maybe it would be more clear to say "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war between Prussia and its allies with Austria and its allies." tweaked some, see if this is better
Hmmm. "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; in parts of the globe, it had no impact, and its influence among the European powers it was, however, no better than a truce." – This revision doesn't make sense to me. Maybe leave out "in parts of the globe, it had no impact" since the conflict wasn't global, and maybe adjust the last clause (which has a grammar problem) to say "among the European powers it was no better than a truce."?
  • The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; its influence among the European powers was, however, little better than a truce. Frederick II of Prussia, known as Frederick the Great, acquired the prosperous province of Silesia, but had wanted much of the Saxon territories as well. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had signed the treaty to gain time to rebuild her military forces and forge new alliances; she was intent upon regaining ascendancy in the Holy Roman Empire. Better? auntieruth (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That looks good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Terrain and maneuver
  • ¶1 "The story of the battle of Rossbach is as much the story of the five days of maneuver leading to the battle as it is those famous 90 minutes of battle, and the maneuvers were shaped by the terrain." – Since the "famous 90 minutes of battle" has not been mentioned in the main text before this mention, perhaps modify to say: "Five days of maneuvers, shaped by the terrain, preceded the battle of Rossbach." Or something like that. It was in the caption under the lead photo, and I've added it to the lead
  • ¶1 "at the confluence of the middle Saale from the Buntsandstein" – Some confusion here. Confluence refers to the meeting of two streams, but the Saale doesn't seem to meet another stream at Weissenfels. A map embedded in the Thuringian Basin article shows Weissenfels lying just outside of the basin, so perhaps the intended meaning here is "near the emergence of the middle Saale from..." Another possibility is that the confluence referred to here is the meeting of the Unstrut with the Saale upstream of Weissenfels near Naumburg.
  • ¶1 "in the so-called Weißenfels-Jenaer Saale valley..." – Delete "so-called"? sorry, that's a Germanism....
  • ¶1 "this influenced the troop movements leading up to the battle..." – Delete "up"? done
  • ¶6 "Until that point, Soubise had done nothing." – I had to go back to an earlier part (Situation in 1757) of the article to see who Soubise was. ok. did some tweaking there.
Initial battlefield positions
  • ¶1 "The French general, the prince of Soubise," – He's referred to simply as Soubise in the last sentence of the preceding section. Maybe "the French general, the Prince of Soubise" could replace "Soubise" in that earlier sentence, and you could use plain "Soubise" here. fix parallel construction
  • ¶2 "under the command of Charles, Prince of Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen" – Here they are identified again in a slightly different way. Integrate them somehow? Maybe add "Charles" to the first mention of him in the Situation in 1757 section and just go with ""under the command of Soubise and Saxe-Hildburghausen" here. Not quite sure. fixed, I think
I'm still a bit confused. Are Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen and the Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen two different people, or is this the same guy? Yes. Eventually he was "Prince" but at the time, he was "Duke" I've taken out his titles and just referred to him and Soubise by their family names.
I changed one additional "Duke" to "Saxe-Hildburghausen" in this same section. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶5 "When the Allied cavalry came striking distance..." – Missing word, "within"?
  • ¶5 "still in echelon" – Link to Echelon formation?
  • ¶7 "Seydlitz led his cavalry in their third assault." – A minor question. I'm not sure how these things are formally counted. I would have said "second assault". I suppose this is the third if the 20-squadron charge counts as one and the 18-squadron charge counts as the second. I assume the combined squadrons take part in the third assault. Maybe a bit of clarification here? tweaked some for clarity
  • ¶1 "Impressively, the Prussians took..." – Not sure you need "impressively". don't
  • ¶4 "While he did owe his position to his good relationship..." – Maybe "rank" rather than "position" since at first glance that might be interpreted to mean his battlefield position. Absurd interpretation on second glance, but still... "
Battlefield today
  • long quote: "set up his field bed in alcove" – Word missing? Maybe "an alcove"? got it.
  • long quote: "Hauptmann [Franz Leopold] von Funcke" – Missing comma after Funcke? fixed
  • "(Kreis roadway)" – I'm assuming that this means something like a side road or crossroad or secondary highway. Maybe a brief explanation or a link since it probably has clear formal meaning to Germans? Ah, yes, county highway.

@Finetooth: I think I've got them.  :) auntieruth (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Switching to support on prose, as noted above, regardless of how the alt text questions play out. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comments, contributions and support. Re alt text, it's weird, sometimes the proper box shows up with alt text and the whole stuff on the image, and sometimes it doesnt. auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it anywhere, I think we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • no you haven't missed it. Review is requested. auntieruth (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I am sure that in terms of reliability and authority, the sources are impeccable, but I found the arrangement of the section very muddled and confusing, with several inconsistencies:

  • What is the purpose of repeating detailed information in the citations that is given in the sources? Why not be consistent in the use of short citations? some people only go as far as the citation. It's listed in full in the first instance and in short form afterward.
  • It seems like a waste of time and space, but I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sources you prioritise surnames, in the citations you prioritise first names, which makes cross-checking difficult. I understand this. Bibliographies should be organized by surnames. Footnotes start with first names. This is standard Chicago Style.
  • The section headed "Alphabetical listing of sources cited" contains uncited sources: Jeremy Black; Robert M Citino I took Citino out. Jeremy Black is in fn 2.
  • Several other sources are not cited in the texts but are mentioned in the "Notes" in the "See..." format. These should be properly formulated as citations. (Karlheinz Fischer; Kapp & Bancroft; Hellmund Meinholf; Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; Poten & Mayer) They are cited in the note. I don't see the point in adding them to citations as well. If I were writing a print article, this is how I would do it.
  • I think you are not understanding my comment. The "See..." format is an informal method of citation, with the same purpose as regular citations, i.e. to indicate the source that supports the text. These "See..." citations should be converted to regular form. Thus, for example, "See (in German) Bodart, p. 220" should be converted to <ref>Boden, p. 20</ref> What you might do with a print article is not relevant - this is Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I guess I understand. Notes are converted to citations. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Spencer Tucker and Frederick King of Prussia appear in the citations but are not listed as sources. Frederick was there, spencer Tucker is added.
  • Ref 32 is not properly formatted. What is the nature of this source, and in what way does it support the text? These are standard links to the German webpage.
  • They are links to the German webpages, but where do they reference the inscription that you have cited in the text? The inscription in given in English – is this the language on the stone? And in any event these links need to be properly formatted as references, with publisher information etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think Ref 33 is properly formatted, either.
  • In your "Notes" section, Note 1 is unsourced. In Note 3 the sources are not included in your sources list and lack basic information such as publisher, access date and so on. this is fixed.
  • Note 1 is 'not fixed; you have added two external links, but these need to be properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are also a few minor formatting errors. Those that I see:
  • Ref 2 needs full stop after pp done
  • Ref 7 needs space after p. done
  • Ref 18: page range inconsistent done
  • Ref 20: missing pp. done

The section is in need of considerable attention. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you Brian, I've responded above. I realize that this can be a nuisance, but I don't see another way around it. I find the short notation style very difficult to follow when I read because I have to refer down to the bib to see the whole thing (publisher, etc). I've at least started to use the shortened references, a, b, c , d etc. which I find confusing in text, but am amenable to making life easier for editors. auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what it is that you "don't see another way round". If it's just the question of your use of short citations, well OK, I'll go along with your preference. But I've raised other sources questions, most notably the need to regularise the formatting of citations. These need attention.Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton:, they are all consistent now. First mention is author/title/publication/page number. Subsequent citations are short, or shorter (a,b,c,d,etc, using the ref/ref template). Thank you. auntieruth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • and I've converted the notes to citations, so the formatting remains consistent. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've basically used this as my bible for footnoting since 2009 and 2011, when I was convinced to start adding the refname= tag. auntieruth (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Brian, how is this looking from a sourcing viewpoint now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. The nominator has misunderstood some of my comments, and her efforts to comply have made things worse rather than better. She seems to be relying on fixed views and practices which are outside the FAC requirements for the organisation of sources. Someone needs to give a helping hand – it's basically to do with proper and consistent formatting, not the reliability of the sources themselves. I don't think my further participation will be helpful, as I seem not to be getting through, but my original and follow-up comments should clarify the problem. For example, I was not saying that all footnotes should be converted to citations, merely that footnotes needed to cited in the same style as the text, not via an informal "See..." formulation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: I've reverted all the notes back to notes and changed the citing style to be exactly the same as the citations. I'm going to ask one of the MH coordinators to also have a look. I don't know what else I can do to make it consistent! auntieruth (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Ruth, I had a quick look at this on the w/e and have a couple of initial thoughts, just give me a day or so to come back to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, Ruth, I have made a suggestion with this edit: [41]. I have self reverted, but if you feel it helpful, I'd suggest implementing across all of your notes. Brian, would that type of change help address some of your concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look at this, Rupert, I'm willing to do it for the notes (not the citations), but I'm not sure how that will help, other than to separate the note itself from its citation (if I've read it right--I could only see the intext change, not how it looked :( ). auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Maurice Wilder-Neligan

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an English-born Australian Army soldier of WWI who rose from the rank of private to command a battalion during the latter stages of the war. A superior tactician, one of his attacks was described as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France". He was also an eccentric character, once chasing his officers off a parade ground on horseback to show his displeasure with their efforts at drill. An administrator in New Guinea after the war, he died there, probably caused by wounds he received during the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • The URAA tag used by most of the images requires you to specify a publication date, but the Australian "expires worldwide" also means the URAA tag isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We have one, if we have any tag that says "applies worldwide" (as the Australian one does). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Used to, prior to that OTRS confirmation that expiry applies worldwide - including in US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Why are we linking Bean's name (and the Official History) in the fourth book listed instead of the first?
  • Fixed.
  • Why is "Bar" still being capitalised?
  • That is what the DSO1 syntax does in the postnominals template, so I'm just being consistent with that.
  • In the photograph where you say "Portrait of Wilder-Neligan while he was commanding the 10th Battalion", he is only a second lieutenant, and is wearing the patch of the 9th Battalion (black over light blue).
  • No, I don't think so. The AWM page for the image refers to him being CO 10th Bn, and it looks like a pip and a crown to me behind the Australia shoulder title. Also, the 10th Bn patch was purple over light blue, and this is a black and white photograph, so it could easily be the 10th Bn patch. He's also wearing two ribbons in the photograph, which, given the timing of his awards, must be the DSO and DCM, indicating that it is post the Fleurbaix raid in July 1916, by which time he was already a captain. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Spot check:
    FN 2a, 2b, 3, 12, 15, 26, 28a, 28b, 49, 54, 62 - okay
    FN24a - AWM site does not say that he was acting commanding officer of the 9th Battalion
  • That was odd. I checked, and it was Hill.
  • FN24b = Supports that the 9th and 10th Battalions were part of the 3rd Brigade, but does not mention Neligan
  • Added citation to Lock, who gives the date.

Comment, leaning support – I supported this article during it's recent MILHIST A-Class review and, having reviewing the changes made since then, am confident that it also meets the FA criteria. I have one question/comment before I outright support, however: I see that Wilder-Neligan has been the subject of a recent full-length biography—Peter Holmes' A Magnificent Anzac: The Untold Story of Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Wilder-Neligan (Reedy Creek: Peter Lloyd Holmes Publications, 2013). Not having read the book, I'm not sure of quality or content (though I do note that it appears to be self-published). However, I was just wondering whether you had viewed or considered the source when writing this article? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day Abraham, B.S.. I saw it when I was working through Trove for newspaper mentions, but haven't tried to get access to it as it is obviously self-published, and I couldn't find out anything about the author online. Frankly, I didn't think it would meet the bar for a reliable source in a FA. It is held by a few libraries, including my state one, so I could take a look, but I still think it has the unsolvable issue of being self-published by an unknown, so not subject to editorial oversight etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It is quite rare, but sometimes self-published sources will be by a reputable author. Obviously that is not the case here, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
During the fighting from 10–14 August - either "During the fighting from 10 to 14 August" or "During the fighting over 10–14 August".
Do we know any more about his wife and child? How/why did he abandon them - any contact later?

A nice read overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cas Liber. Fixed first one, second one, no we don't. It is a bit weird, leaving his family in London, but I haven't been able to find anything that explains him moving to Australia or returning after the war. Perhaps he was keeping away from debt collectors? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian historiography

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FA status because I think it meets all the basic FA criteria. This article has recently succeeded in passing its Good Article candidacy and has seen some massive improvements since then, although it is now stable with very little editing activity going on. There were some disagreements between another editor and I over some of the content and wording of the article, but we have since come to a consensus on how the article should look. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. The article is filled with a rich amount of historical details that should keep you entertained if you're a history buff like me. I've written and nominated various articles on European and Chinese history for FA status, but this is only the second African-history related article that I've nominated, the first being Ancient Egyptian literature. It's certainly my first nomination focused on a sub-Saharan African country and Semitic culture, two areas of our English Wikipedia that perhaps need a lot of work and still lack critical information. This is my little effort to help remedy that and hopefully spark interest in other editors to follow suit. Let's hope so! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • All the 18 images are well-relevant, have proper description templates, and have no copyright problems! ALT text is absent, though.

Looks good otherwise. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: hello. Thanks for reviewing the images so quickly. I wasn't expecting any response anytime soon! I'm glad to hear that everything is in order. Per your suggestion, I have also amended the article to include alt text for each and every image. I hope that you find the descriptions to be suitable. If not, please let me know! Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 12:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! No issues, now. It is good to go now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Once again, thanks for the speedy review. --Pericles of AthensTalk 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments from Hchc2009

An interesting article! Some initial comments, more to follow:

  • "The Church of Saint George, Lalibela and a panel painting inside depicting Saint George slaying a dragon; it is one of eleven monumental rock-hewn churches built in Lalibela, Ethiopia that were allegedly sculpted after a vision by the Zagwe-dynasty ruler Gebre Mesqel Lalibela (r. 1185–1225 AD), in which St George instructed him to do so.[18][19] The city of Lalibela was reestablished as a symbolic new holy site, following the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslim forces of Saladin in 1187 AD, yet archaeology reveals the religious structures to have been built between the 10th and early 12th centuries AD, with perhaps only the last phase carried out during the 13th century AD and reign of Gebre Mesqel Lalibela." - a very long caption, and failed the MOS test for me. I'd advise trimming after "...slaying a dragon."
  • File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well.
  • After Zagwe dynasty, the number of images produced a solid wall of images on the right hand side of my screen; I suspect that you should cut one or two to bring it into the MOS guidelines.
  • "An engraved book portrait of Ethiopian monk Abba Gorgoryos (1595-1658) by Christopher Elias Heiss, Augsburg, 1691;[72][73] Abba Gorgoryos aided the German orientalist Hiob Ludolf (1624–1704) in the translation of Ge'ez and Amharic, as well as with material for composing a history of Ethiopia.[74][75]" - I'd trim after the first clause
  • "File:Painting of St. Abbo, Church of Bet Mercurios, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3308268798).jpg" - needs an Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images (NB: if this is legal in Ethopia, I don't know!)
  • "File:Battle of Adwa tapestry at Smithsonian.png" - needs a tag for the underlying tapestry image (or painting, depending on which bit of the file you believe).
  • "File:"Yared An (sic) His Disciples Singing A Song In Front Of King Gebreme Skel . . ." (3171512810).jp" - needs an Ethiopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: hello! Thanks for the initial review. Unfortunately I don't have time to address this right now, but hopefully by the end of the week I'll have everything in order. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 06:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: hello? Are you still alive and/or active on Wikipedia? It has been a very long time since you have commented here. I was hoping to see the rest of your review. --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens' response

@Hchc2009: hello again. I have done several things to address your concerns listed above.

(1) Per your requests, I have shortened the captions for the "File:Bete_Giyorgis_06.jpg" and "File:Aba_Gorgorios,_1681.jpg" images.

(2) I have resized nearly every image after the "Zagwe dynasty" sub-section, and have removed several pictures. Keep in mind, though, that not every monitor and not eevry browser presents the page the same way. Are you viewing this on a mobile device? The page looks fine to me, but I have edited the article per your advice regardless.

(3) I'm not sure what sort of tag I would need for "Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art image", so I have simply removed the three images you have mentioned as being problematic. This is perhaps a temporary move until I am able to properly tag those images, but I guarantee that they will stay removed from the article until that happens. I just hope it doesn't lead to an edit war with the editor who added all three of them to the article. Since I added the majority of images to the article in its present incarnation, he might take this as some sort of slight or that I'm deliberately attacking the contributions he has made. I hope that won't be the case. Perhaps he can even help in locating the appropriate tags. I'd like for you to elaborate more on this in the meantime, though.

(4) You wrote that "File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well." - I think you made some sort of mistake here. These two files actually share the exact same tags (i.e. "PD-Art|PD-old-100" and "PD-1923"). I also think your suggestion here is unwarranted given how this article has already passed the initial image review and inspection of media content by User:Adityavagarwal. I'm willing to cooperate on any further suggestions you might have, but I think your particular point here is moot. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 06:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: well, it appears that User:Soupforone has found some suitable replacements for the pictures that I had to remove. Feel free to check the tags and licensing on these new images; everything seems to be in order now. Kind regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 17:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Welcome back to FAC ... you're bringing us an impressive array of underrepresented topics, well-researched and explicated.
  • "AD": There were too many of these, enough to constitute a MOS violation (i.e., we don't have any choice in the matter at FAC, at least not without a big hubbub). WP:MOSNUM says: "In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity (e.g. The Norman Conquest took place in 1066 not 1066 CE nor AD 1066) or awkwardness (January 1, 1 AD not January 1, 1). On the other hand, Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD will avoid confusion". I looked carefully, and the ambiguity required to support the automatic addition of "AD" just wasn't there ... it can be there in some texts, but so far, not in this text. I'll keep looking. I'll be back in a couple of hours, feel free to run through the text catching some of these yourself. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Historiography became an established genre": "Historiography" is a slippery word, and per my standard disclaimer, I leave these kinds of issues to other reviewers. But this is one I think other reviewers might want to comment on ... can the works you're citing in this sentence be considered historiography themselves? Isn't it the study of those works that constitutes the historiography? - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Most slashes should be removed per WP:SLASH (at WP:MOS). I normally try to fix these things myself, but there was some ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pericles

Greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review the article.

  • As for the BC/AD thing, I've had an FA review in the past (Sino-Roman relations) where people griped that I should consistently add "AD" after every date or mention of "century" or "centuries" in that article, to avoid confusion with BC-era dates. I'll side with your view for now, but if someone makes a similar complaint, then we'll have two conflicting if not totally incompatible arguments made by the reviewers. At that point there will be no appeasement for one side of that argument, because there is no seeming compromise to be made. Let's hope it doesn't head in that direction.
    • If there's a complaint, please ping me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have reworded the bit about historiography being an established genre. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have removed the forward slashes from the prose of the article, per your new suggestion above regarding WP:MOS. --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dank: do you have any issues with the sourcing? Choice wording of the prose? The narrative structure? Are there any glaring omissions in your estimation? I'm happy to fix all the minor issues like image captions and WP:MOS related stuff, but I'm more interested in tackling the meat and substance of the article. Perhaps I'm being impatient and you're getting to that point after a thorough read of the article? In either case, thanks for your recent edits. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 04:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Normally I get my part done pretty quickly, sorry for the delay, I know it's annoying. When I'm done, what you get is a "Support on prose per my standard disclaimer". I know that doesn't sound like much, but it does tend to increase the chances that this will pass FAC, by counting as a support (and a kind of vetting). Also, any support increases the odds that other reviewers will at least read the article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah! Got it. Excuse me, didn't mean to disturb your mojo, so to speak. Carry on, sir! --Pericles of AthensTalk 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dank: thank you kindly! The article is in better shape thanks to your review. Cheers. --Pericles of AthensTalk 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out. The sources appear to be appropriately scholarly and reliable, with a few minor issues:

  • You should be consistent as to whether you use "Accessed" or "Retrieved"
  • Some publisher locations in lesser-known places are not specific enough, e.g. Abingdon, Westport, Jefferson etc. These should be clarified by adding "U.K." or the US state abbreviation – as you have done with "Lawrenceville, NJ."
  • Bizumeh - source lacks publisher location
  • Two articles, Jalata and Omer, are behind paywalls, so you should add the (subscription required) template

Otherwise, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello! Thanks for taking the time to review the sources.

  • I have replaced all instances of "accessed" with "retrieved" instead.
  • I have improved the info about publisher locations as you've requested, adding US states where needed and "UK" for British publications.
  • There is no "Bizumeh" in the article, although there is a "Bizuneh", which does not require a publisher location, as this is a journal article, not a book. Not sure how you confused or missed that.
  • I have placed the "subscription" template next to the Jalata and Omer articles listed in the references section.

I hope you find these changes to be sufficient. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello again. Just following up here, since I would like to know your thoughts on the recent changes that I made. Is everything in order now? --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No outstanding sources issues Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Some comments about the sources:

  • Per FAC requirements about consistency in sourcing, Reference 46 [Africanus, Leo (1526). The History and Description of Africa. Hakluyt Society. pp. 20 & 30. Retrieved 2 August 2017.] and Reference 60 [Jeronimo Lobo; Joachim Le Grand, Samuel Johnson (ed.) (1789). A voyage to Abyssinia by Father Jerome Lobo a portuguese missionary: containing the history, natural, civil and ecclesiastical of that remote and unfrequented country. Elliot. p. 198. Retrieved 2 August 2017.] should be converted to harv shortened footnote with the bulk of the citation in the "Sources" subsection and the authors name and page in the immediate citation.
  • "Further Reading" should be its own section, not a subsection of "References"
  • What is meant by "External sources"? If they were indeed sources used for the article they need to cited and properly incorporated. If not, the title "External links" might be more appropriate.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: nice catches! I have changed "External sources" to "External links", made "Further reading" its own section outside of "References", and have conformed the Leo Africanus (1896) and M. Le Grand (1789) citations with the accepted format. Thanks for pointing these out! Kind regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Very good. I have no further concerns about this article and am happy to offer my support. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the song "Habits (Stay High)"—and its remixed version—by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, both of which became hits in 2014. This is the third time I nominate this article. The past two nominations failed because it struggled to receive reviews from other users, so no consensus was reached. I addressed every comment from every past review, so I think it's ready and I'm open to receive more suggestions. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 8 images in the article. Have proper description templates and are either under fair use or under CC licensing. All but one images have ALT text. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Added ALT description to that image. --Paparazzzi (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Great article, and the images are in great shape too. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • In the body of the article, I would put EP in parenthesis after the phrase "extended play" so that way you clearly define the acronym for an unfamiliar reader and can use it throughout the rest of the text. I believe the first time you use EP in the body of the article is in the "Background and release" section.
  • I am a little confused by the following sentence in the lead (the song under the title "Habits" on 25 March 2013 as her second single.). You say that Lo self-released the song as her second single (from what I originally assumed was the EP Truth Serum), but the next sentence says that the song was released on a different date as the second single from the EP. I am just a little confused by the timeline of events in this scenario. I think you say "as her second independently-released single" instead of "as her second single" that would make help to clarify the chronology.
  • Something about the phrase "she got over the breakup after writing the song" seems a little bit too informal, specifically the verbage "got over". Also, would it be more accurate to say that she dealt with the breakup "through" the song?  Comment: I changed "got over" to "recover", since she says in the interview that she "got better" after writing the song.
  • In the following sentence (The second version was filmed at a Swedish club for three days), I would say "over three days" as opposed to 'for three days".
  • I would link Tove Lo again in the "Background and release" section.
  • In the phrase "to re-released it with proper promotion because", change "re-released" to "re-release".
  • I am not sure you need the following quote "still [had] a lot left to give" and I think you can paraphrase and change the sentence to the following and preserve the same meaning (Then, the label representatives decided to re-release it with proper promotion as they believe it still had commercial potential.)
  • I would suggest adding a topic sentence for the second paragraph in the "Critical reception" section.
  • Please add the year in which "Chandelier" was released to the same section.
  • Not really a suggestion, but I have respect for you for putting the Roosh V review piece in as it is good for comprehensiveness, but that review does make mad and disappointed. Removed
  • You have Kesha linked twice in the "Critical reception" and the "Recognition and accolades" sections. You can unlink the second instance.
  • On the same note, you have Queen of the Clouds and studio album linked in two sections as well. It only needs to be linked on its first mention.
  • Make sure to include the year in which Queen of the Clouds was released when you first mention it. Same applies to Truth Serum.
  • In the phrase (lost to "Blank Space" by Taylor Swift (2014)), I would move the (2014) part to right after "Blank Space" rather than after Taylor Swift.
  • Allmusic should be written as AllMusic.
  • Would it be beneficial in the "Critical reception" subsection of the "Hippie Sabotage remix" section to separate the paragraph into two parts, with one focusing on the positive feedback and the other on the negative?
  • When you mention "Out of Mind", please include the year in which it was released.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope that this receives more attention in this round. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments. I just left one comment above. Thank you so much for your review. If you need something, count on me. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from edwininlondon

I reviewed it last time around and the issues that stopped me from supporting have now been resolved. The two music blogs are no longer used as source. Nice work. And admirable persistence. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

I made a few edits; as always feel free to object if you think I did something wrong. Just a couple of comments:

  • Carrie Battan is quoted from a review where she calls the singer "Nilsson". Since the fact that this is Tove Lo's birth name is not mentioned otherwise, this was confusing. Suggest that either you should mention the name prior to this quote, or it may be simpler to just replace "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" inside the quote.
  • The "Composition" section quotes several reviewers regarding the lyrical content, and in the process re-quotes a dozen lines of lyrics. More lyrics are quoted under "Recognition and accolades". I'm concerned that this is too much of the lyrics for fair use, which has as one of its criteria "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (emphasis added). Pop songs generally and this one in particular don't have a lot of lyrics, so overall we've quoted a significant fraction of them. I think we're fine on all the other fair use criteria, and maybe I'm being a bit conservative here, but I would be more comfortable if some of the quoted lyrics could be paraphrased instead. For example, the lyrics about binge eating could be described by saying "as indicated in lyrics about having the munchies, eating Twinkies, and throwing up" instead of quoting the lines directly. I'm not saying we can't quote any of them (we definitely can), just trying to balance against the fact that we are quoting from a short text.

Overall this looks very thorough and appropriately written. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Hello, and thank you for your comments. I replaced "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" and paraphrased two of the quoted lyrics in the composition section, including the one talking about binge eating. Have a nice day. --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the prompt response. Those were my only concerns, so I support this on prose and comprehensiveness. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Source review requested! Thank you and have a nice day, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

@Paparazzzi: Hi there! Sorry for the delay, but I was really busy this week. I have read through the article and I think it meets the FA criteria. Already as I passed it to GA back in 2016, it was of a very high status, but now with the other users' comments being resolved, I can't help but give this my support. You are close to getting this promoted. Best regards and congrats, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A break from ice hockey player nominations from me, this is about the Georgian luger who died on the eve of the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics. It went through GA years ago, then I updated it a few months ago with some more information, and recently had it looked over at WP:COPYEDITORS. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Nodar_Kumaritashvili.jpg: suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}}
  • File:Nodar.png: who is claimed to be the copyright holder here? The video from which this is taken appears to be a derivative work, but other than the music the original source(s?) is unclear. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Changed the first image's status. In regards to Nodar.png, I removed it from the article. While I'm fairly certain it comes from an IOC video, I can not confirm it, and while the image is a key component to the story, it can be restored if/when the proper information is found. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Interesting story. I remembered his death, but had forgotten the story behind it. These are my comments after a full read-through:

  • Life and career: Minor point, but you might consider putting refs 8 and 6 in numerical order at the end of the sentence in which they both appear.
  • I have some bad news for you: it looks like the references are dead. I tried looking at ref 16, to see if I could find the name of the Italian luger who died in 1975, and it redirected to the home page. You'll have to check the Internet Archive to see if they have copies of the pages (I count four of them cited here).
  • The last sentence of Accident and death is uncited; try moving the cite in the lead, which covers a similar sentence, and see if that will be adequate here.
  • Georgian response: "that it would consider skipping the opening ceremonies or withdraw from the games entirely". Should "withdraw" be "withdrawing" here?
  • For formality, the part that says "who was to compete with Nodar" should probably be using his last name.
  • Coroner's report: The November 13, 2009 date appears to be in different formatting than the others here. I'd imagine it should be DMY for consistency.
  • I'm not providing a full source review, but note that the publishers of refs 15, 19, 24, and 26 should be italicized, as they are all print publications. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
That's unfortunate that the site is gone. However a quick look suggests it shouldn't be too hard to find replacement sources, you'll just have to give me a day or two to have time to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Addressed everything here. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Support – I was waiting for Pbsouthwood's comment to be resolved. Now that it has been, I'm confident that this meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments - Pbsouthwood

  • Medics were at his side within seconds of the crash. Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation began within one minute, and a plastic breathing tube was inserted into his mouth. While not improbable in any way, this is not supported by any of the references in that paragraph. The description suggests this may have been added by someone who saw the accident on video, as the claim of within seconds, and within one minute and the layman's description of an airway as a plastic breathing tube inserted into the mouth all suggest information observed from a recording. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I took a try rewording it to be more accurate, but as I'm not familiar with medical terminology, if this is not accurate please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Ref 11 actually supports most of what you have there, except the airway. Airway is standard procedure with many emergency response organisations , but it is not mentioned in the sources specified. I do not see that it is very important to mention as the coroners report notes that standard procedures were followed although he was apparently beyond help. However ref 11 also appears to have a title ("Officials perform CPR after luger wrecks") which is not evident in the link, which is titled "Kumaritashvili killed in luge training". The date also differs between the linked article and the reference, so it is possible that the title also changed. Not sure what to do about that. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It does appear that ESPN has since changed the title and date of the article; I updated the reference here, and used it to remove the note about the airway, as you noted it isn't apparent in the other references. Instead I added that mouth-to-mouth was performed, as the ESPN article states. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

No spotchecks carried out. The sources – mainly press accounts or official reports – seem reliable and appropriate, and references are consistently formatted. A few issues:

  • In the cases of refs 6, 25 and 29, the links do not go to the source article
  • Ref 10: the link goes to a different NYT report
  • Ref 28: The headline in the source article is differently worded.

Subject to these, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Addressed everything here, they should all be fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
All well now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


  • Luger ... rather than relying on diversion to the link target just as we start the article, I wonder whether a brief glossing inline is possible? Not easy, but perhaps start second para: "The luge is one- or two-person sled."
I modified it to note he was a one-man luger, which hopefully should be sufficient.
Not really. I'd never ever encountered the word. "... was a one-man luger (sled rider)"? Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Outside of luge, Kumaritashvili had been a student at the Georgian Technical University, where he earned an economics degree in 2009." I levy huge fines for writing redundant "in order to" and "outside of". Would you like my bank account number? But why is the first phrase necessary in the first place?
  • "The region Kumaritashvili grew up in"—why not "Borjomi"?
He was born in Borjomi, but grew up in nearby Bakuriani, which is where the ski hills are. This has now been clarified.
  • "after having taken 25 previous training runs"—is something redundant there?
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here, but I think I addressed it.
You didn't. "... after 25 previous attempts, ...". Remove one word. Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Early in morning of" ... um.
No, "on", not "in". Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm stopping. My take is that the prose is not yet at featured standard. Tony (talk) 09:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed everything here, and if you have more to comment on I'll gladly go over it, though as its been here at FAC for two months, so I'd prefer to have it sorted out quickly if possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Further comments: Any FAC nomination that lies here for two months suggests it was prematurely put forward. Reviewers should not be the port of call for copy-editing: that task should be more adequately performed before nomination. I hope your writing is improving—it needs to for FAC preparation. There are basic errors and a need to weed out redundant wording and to simplify the grammar where possible. Here are more, which indicate there's quite way to go just to edit normal articles well in English:

Remove three words from this (contextual redundancy ... the reader knows it already): "He lost control in the penultimate turn of the course and was thrown off his luge ...".
"Early on the morning of 17 February 2010, Kumaritashvili's body arrived in Tbilisi. It reached his hometown of Bakuriani later that day, and he was buried on Saturday, 20 February, at the church he attended."—we have the body called "it", and then suddenly it's personalised as a "he". Two commas can go. "he had attended". (Apparently praying to his god before the practice run was when a cruel joke played out.)
Generally, too many commas. This bump needs removing: "... Kumaritashvili family, at the request of the ..."

Everywhere I look there's something.

But there are some good things about the article. I don't want to dishearten you. Keep going, but DO concentrate on improving. Me, I'd have sunk this nomination six weeks ago, suggesting it be worked up properly with the assistance of copy-editors and resubmitted. Tony (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the ZETA fusion reactor built in the UK in the 1950s, the largest and most powerful reactor of its era. ZETA is representative of the fusion field's history - a theoretical breakthrough suggests a new route to fusion power, a reactor is built to take advantage of the design, it proves not to work, and fixing it requires a larger and more expensive design. Unlike other examples, however, ZETA had the rather unfortunate problem of announcing it was successful in very public fashion in newspapers around the world and then having to retract the claim. In spite of this embarrassing event, ZETA went on to have a very productive career and provided several important advances in the field.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review
All the items in the first set were part of a press handout that went out shortly after the public annoucement in early 1958. I do not have the exact date. I do not have the publication dates on the last two., only the approaximate creation dates. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I have managed to track down all of these, mostly by finding the people in them. The cartoon was first published in 1984 so I removed it. The laser was published in Nature in 1964. The rest are all from the same press release. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Which version of English is this written in? I'd expect British English, but we have "skeptical", "aluminum", "canceled", and "furor".
All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Frederick Lindemann was already Lord Cherwell in 1949.
41 actually, but I think I'm missing the point. Maury Markowitz (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
You say "Frederick Lindemann and Cockroft visited and were duly impressed"; bit it should be "Lord Cherwell and Cockroft visited and were duly impressed" Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The MOS is clear on this: use the form that is most commonly used in reliable sources in English. "Peers who are almost exclusively known by their personal names, e.g. Bertrand Russell (not "Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell")." In all of the references I have used in this article, they universally refer to this person as Frederick Lindemann, or Lindemann. Most do not even mention his peerage, or when they do, as a parenthetical afterthought. Given what I know of his history, I believe he treated it the same way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert as needed.

  • "The basic understanding of nuclear fusion was developed using the then-new field of quantum mechanics": since we haven't set a base date for this paragraph, "then-new" doesn't help much. How about "The basic understanding of nuclear fusion was developed starting in the 1920s, using quantum mechanics", or perhaps "using quantum mechanics, a field that came into being earlier that decade"?
Indeed, I've done a bit of editing here to make all the dates specified.
  • "heated to a thousand of millions of degrees": "a thousand" -> "thousands"?
  • "It was also the most powerful design, incorporating an enormous induction magnet that was originally designed to induce currents up to 100,000 amperes (amps) into the plasma, but later amended to 900,000 amps": I think there's something off here, grammatically; "later" pairs with "originally", but the design wasn't amended to 900 kA; it was amended to induce currents of 900 kA. How about: "It was also the most powerful design, incorporating an enormous induction magnet that was originally designed to induce currents up to 100,000 amperes (amps) into the plasma. Later amendments to the design increased this figure to 900,000 amps"?
  • "a wider effort started to release all fusion research at the 2nd Atoms for Peace conference in Geneva in September 1958": on reading this I first parsed it as meaning that the effort started at the conference. How about "a wider effort started with the goal of releasing all..."?
  • "Critically, Cockcroft had stated that they were receiving too few neutrons from the device to measure their spectrum or their direction." This sentence seems to belong at the end of the previous section, rather than where it is now. If I'm wrong about that I don't understand its significance.
I've expanded on this a bit. See if it makes sense now, I'm not entirely happy with it.
  • "The inaccuracy of the measurement and spurious results caused by electron impacts with the container led to misleading results": can this be rephrased to avoid using "results" twice?
and expanded as well.
  • "ZETA was used almost continually": suggest "continually" or "almost continuously"; "almost continually" is probably not the intended meaning.
Interesting; my gr checker normally gets that one.

The article is fascinating and very well-written. I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but as a lay reader with some background in science I see no obvious gaps in the narrative or the discussion of the science. I expect to support once the points above are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. All the points above are fixed; this is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • (ooops) I'll try to get this done tomorrow... moving office/computers today so no chance to get to it. Mea culpa! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: It appears you are in the wrong article! I think you are looking at High Explosive Research? :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth:, any chance I can invite you back? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry - dead boot drive has left me playing catchup all this month. Working on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Bellan, Paul .. the isbn appears to be bad at World Cat
Fixed. Went with the one from Amazon. Reported it to Google Books.
  • Current ref 107 "Michael, Forrest" .. the isbn appears to be bad at WorldCat... and should it be "Forrest, Michael"? Also - if this is the correct entry, it appears to be self-published. What makes it a high quality reliable source?
Fixed first/last. Mike Forrest is the guy that went to Moscow to make the measurements, I'm going with reliable :-) He also reviewed the article.
  • Earwig's tool looks fine.
Otherwise, everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


  • "Based on the pinch plasma confinement technique, its goal was to produce large numbers of fusion reactions, although it was not large enough to produce net energy."—What is "it"? The technique? The goal?
It is Zeta. I moved the statements around for clarity (and smoother reading too)
  • "Built at Harwell, UK, ZETA was ..."—What about "... Harwell in the UK, ZETA was ..."? (And it's the same opening grammar as used in the previous sentence.)
Or better yet, let's put in the actual location...
  • "bursts of about million neutrons per "shot" "—Surely it's "a" million?
  • "Measurements suggested it was reaching between 1 and 5 million degrees, a temperature that ..."—I guess I presumed it wasn't angular degrees for a second; but you need the ISO here. No need for conversion to Farenheit, either, in a scientific context.
I put in a K.
  • "neutrons being seen"—"neutrons observed"?
... hmmm, I tried that but it seems to read poorly. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
  • "early" × 3 in the first eight lines. "Major" × 2.
Various changes, let me know.
  • "unlimited power"—political or electric? Sometimes the two are blurred.
It's not power anyway, but energy.
  • "a scientific advance for Britain greater than the recently launched Sputnik had been for the Soviet Union"—seems like an opinion. I hope it's reffed further down.
It is, it's a quote from Cockroft.
  • "Continued experiments on ZETA showed that the original temperature measurements were misleading, and the bulk temperature was too low for fusion reactions to explain the number of neutrons being seen."—Is "Further experiments" better? To exclude the second clause from the "showed", perhaps "... misleading; the ...".
  • "ended by 1961"—you mean "ended in 1961"?
No, it is not directly recorded in any of the references when such work ended, but there is no further reference to new machines after that date. So it might have ended anytime between 1958 and 1961, but definitely by 61. That said, ZETA itself continued on to 1968, so I'm not sure what that means.
  • "and was later".

And after the lead, flicking through at random:

  • "Arthur Eddington's 1920 suggestion that the sun was fusion powered"—It's stopped being that since? Why not use present tense?
Because the suggestion is in the past.
  • "The news was too good to keep bottled up and tantalizing leaks started as early as September." Two different propositions. Comma?
Grammarly says no, but I'm not sure what the rule is in this case.
Grammarly??? Please no. I do not want to read: "The news was too good to keep bottled up and tantalizing", and then have to disambiguate in reverse. Tell that to Grammarly. Tony (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "In October, Thonemann, Cockcroft and William P. Thompson hinted that interesting results would be following, and in November a UKAEA spokesman noted "The indications are that fusion has been achieved".[55] Based on these hints, the Financial Times dedicated an entire two-column article to the issue."—First, Thompson hinted, the spokesman noted, but this becomes "hints". Why not "based on this"? "To the issue" in that context grates against a newspaper issue (daily).

Needs a detailed run-through on the surface. 45-minute job by a third party. Tony (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Can I just check if the nominator plans to respond to Tony1's points here? I'm a little concerned that this has been open for over two months, but seems to have stalled. It would be unusual, but not unheard of, to archive with two supports, but I think it might help matters along if these concerns were taken care of, and if we asked someone to take another look. Maybe John would oblige as he is very good at the kind of run through that Tony thinks is necessary. In any case, I think if we are still in the two support situation at the end of the month, we might have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John

Thanks for the ping, Sarastro1. I have been working through this; I confirm that it was not ready for promotion as I found a couple of things already. --John (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Question: When we say millions of degrees, are we talking Celsius or Fahrenheit? --John (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
First one, then the other. I've clarified.
So the first was in kelvin, and the others in Fahrenheit? Kelvin would be preferred on a science article. I wonder how we should handle this. --John (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The "first one then the other" is a little physics joke. When something is being heated up (or cooled), any number will be met on one scale and then the other. All temperatures in the article are in K.
Thanks for clarifying, and for the joke. --John (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: When we say the older systems "suddenly looked old fashion" do we mean "old-fashioned"? I am unable to inspect p70 of the Bromberg source to check myself. --John (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
She's american, no dash. Great book BTW, she gets the political side that I would generally gloss over. Only really has the US program in it, sadly, but that was what she was paid for.
If the book writes "old fashion", that would be wrong in either version of English. This article is written in British English. --John (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand this comment. Are you suggesting I change this?
I suggest "old-fashioned" would be better, depending how the source describes it. --John (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
The current version is quoted directly.
I see. Well, I don't think we can run with it the way it is at the moment. --John (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Maury Markowitz, are you available to answer these questions? I may have more. --John (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Chandralekha (1948 film)

Notified: Ssven2, Numerounovedant. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been substantially reworked after one abundantly used source, which was later discovered to be a non-RS, was removed. Now I want to re-evaluate the article and see that it is still FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Could you please notify some relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've notified two users as seen above. I doubt if the users will respond to my request at the Indian cinema task force since they rarely respond to messages. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I have given a good look at the article and it still does seem to meet the standards for FA. Only one query: The critical reception can be improved by describing what the critics say in our own words instead of simply stating "xx said xx". Otherwise, I can't find much fault with the article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ssven2, thank you for your comments. I'll be travelling from tomorrow till 14 Sept, so I hope someone will respond to further comments in my place. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Sven. I have amended the bold title as we do not usually declare keep or remove in the review stage. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


I've been gone more than 5 years, and wasn't around to check the vandalism and edits. I shall be keeping an eye on certain sensitive articles from now on. I just want to clarify. Does this article still satisfy FA criteria, or should it be delisted? Do let me know what issues are there, and I'll do my best to make necessary corrections. Thanks! Liberal Humanist (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This article is not FA, but it should not require too much work to bring it up to standard.
  • The lead is not satisfactory. It should be an unreferenced summary of the referenced content of the main text, not a collection of referenced statements. It is also short for the size of article, missing such basic facts as population.
  • There is some 'recentism', that is comments which are or will become out of date - e.g. "Recently, a committee of experts constituted by the Tulu Sahitya Academy..." Also "The process of making Mangalore City Corporation into ‘Greater Mangalore’ has almost begun..." There are other examples and you need to go through the article deleting recentism.
  • The names of city officials are better omitted or given as at a specified date. I think there is also too much detail about the companies in the city. It seems a bit like advertising and is probably already out of date.
  • The details on civic government are skimpy. What are the responsibilities of the city and state levels?
  • The figure of 13.7% for the birth rate must be wrong. the highest in the world is Niger at 4.5%.
  • The article could do with a good map. The schematic one of tourist places is not much help.
  • I am not clear what is meant by saying that the city is on the backwaters of rivers. Is it on cut-off arms of the rivers? Does the city connect to river traffic?
  • "adding to its cosmopolitan look and appeal" Advertising language like this should be avoided.
  • "Cruise ships from Europe, North America and UAE arrive at New Mangalore Port to promote tourism around Mangalore." "promote" is the wrong word here.
  • "Mangalore experiences scheduled and unscheduled power cuts, especially during the summer, due to excess consumption demands." Why not inadequate supply?
  • "Potable water to the city is supplied by Mangalore City Corporation." Is this supplied to all residents?
  • I think comments about parks, golf courses etc belong in the tourism section, not utilities.
  • I think the main fault is extensive recentism. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Liberal Humanist: Are you able to work on addressing the issues raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is suffused with unsourced weasel words like "prominent", "prefer", "major", "well-known", "rare", "finest", "dominated", etc. and requires extensive copyediting. On just a quick scan, I can see spaces missing after punctuation, use of ampersands in flowing text, and short stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll try to check/address the issues mentioned here. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello! Thanks for bringing this article to FARC. I was the nominator of FAC of this article, and thereafter did try to maintain its quality, of course with the help of other editors. However, the article has been neglected for quite a while now. It will be excellent if this FARC process is continued beyond May 15 (I am hoping for some free time in real life after that date). With the help of other editors, we can surely save this FA! Thanks, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Comments This page does need some work but here are a few suggestions:
  • "91 million inhabitants"... as of when?
  • "making it similar in size to Serbia" is this a good comparison? Wouldn't it be better to compare it to other states in India?
  • " has borders with five Indian states" should be "borders five Indian states"
  • "West Bengal is the sixth-largest contributor" ... largest contributing state?
  • "It is noted for its cultural activities and the presence of cultural and educational institutions"... I don't know what this means specifically.
  • "stalwarts in literature"... I'm not sure that is the correct use of that word.
  • "to scores of musicians, film-makers and artists"... can't this be said for any state? What makes this state unique in this respect?
  • "playing association football besides cricket, the national favourite sport." This sentence is needlessly passive and can be rewritten to be more readable.
  • That's just my comments on the lead, have not had time to delve into the article itself. Mattximus (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dwaipayanc: It's now after May 15 - where are we at with addressing the concerns that have been raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi! Unfortunately I am very busy in real life and short of time for addressing the concerns. Still I am trying... I have covered only the history part. However I am not up to date with copy edit benchmarks, so there are problems even after I go through sections. Please let us have some more time. I'll try to get more people involved. Thanks a lot. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I am interested in trying .Even though I am a relative newbie after all West Bengal is my 'matribhoomi' .I will certainly try my best. Please give at least a month or two to do the work FORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Copyediting has been started in the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update 2 Copyediting is complete. Thanks,--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This article still has several 'citation needed' comments and unreferenced sentences. I would support delisting unless these problems are dealt with shortly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a pretty good article close to FA, but even a quick glance shows that it needs some fine editing first. For example the historic population table is good, but there is no reference to 2011 census in the box. What does "serial" mean in the districts section, and rank of what? All of India? These little things need to be clarified. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Titodutta and Dwaipayanc: Are you able to address the issues raised by Dudley and Mattximus? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I logged in after several weeks. The concerns raised are of course addressable. Copy edit was a difficult problem, and now has been addressed. However, I need some more time. I promise I will try my best to address the issues as soon as possible. Please allow some more time. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Assata Shakur

Notified: User talk:Savidan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

While it is obviously the product of a great deal of work, I found a number of areas where it did not live up to FA standards. It seems likely that there are more problems, as I didn't look very hard.

1) Accusing a BLP of perjury in wikipedia's voice, with flimsy sourcing. 2) Sourcing information to and then repeating it in wikipedia's voice. 3) SYNTHing "police authorities" and "prosecution" - may seem small but should have been picked up.

More detail on talk. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Shakur dropped out of Cathedral High School[ambiguous] to get a job and live on her own but later earned a General Educational Development (GED) with her aunt's help.[12] Before dropping out of high school, she attended a segregated school in New York, which she discusses in her autobiography. As the only black student or one of a few in her classes, Shakur said that the integrated school system was poorly set up, and that teachers seemed surprised when she answered a question in class, as if not expecting black people to be intelligent and engaged."
This sounds as if the high school was "integrated" but "mostly white", not "segregated".
FIXED NPalgan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
What she learned of history was sugar coated, because students were taught a version that ignored the oppression suffered by people of color, especially in the United States. As a child she performed in a play about George Washington's birthday, and said that she was to repeatedly sing “George Washington never told a lie.” In her autobiography she later wrote: “I didn’t know what a fool they had made out of me until i grew up and started to read real history” (Pg 33).
POV phrasing, wrong citation format.
FIXED NPalgan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Shakur attended Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), when she was introduced to the Golden Drums and then th
What were the golden drums?
FIXED, just avoid mentioning them as the name not important.
" Their relationship was damaged by Louis’s marriage ideals, including a wife to properly cook and clean. "
This article may have been "well-written... [with prose that is] engaging and of a professional standard", but that is not the case today. Needs a thorough rewrite
"That same year Chesimard changed her name to Assata Olugbala Shakur". The NYTimes referred to her right until her escape as Chesimard, so I assume that she did not change it legally - at least not until she reached Cuba? Article should clarify ambiguity. This book was published in 2015 (after the article was raised to FA) but got good reviews in NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, etc and should be included as a source (compared to the many pro-Shakur ones)
One of the biggest questions of the article: did the jury convict AS of personally firing the shots that killed Shakur or was she deemed jointly responsible because she was in a car with other BLA members with guns? This is really something the article should answer. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, the nyt noted that the jury convicted her of taking the cop's pistol, so maybe they convicted her of shooting him? on the other hand the police claimed she shot zayd, but the article says that conviction was thrown out when the supreme court of NJ narrowed the application of the law, so it looks like the jury DIDNT say she personally shot Zayd. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that I have cleared up most of the remaining problems; the article could do with some more trimming of extraneous details per WP:NOTNEWS. The major reamining problem is sourcing:

  • 7 times: Riley, Lisa (March 26, 2008). "Assata Shakur". The Langston University Gazette.
  • 4 times Churchill and Vander Wall, 2002
  • Paul Wolf's word doc on COINTELPRO
  • 14 times Kirsta, Alix (May 29, 1999), "A black and white case – Investigation – Joanne Chesimard". The Times.
  • 6 times Williams, Evelyn A. (June 25, 2005). "Statement of Facts in the New Jersey trial of Assata Shakur". The Talking Drum Collective.

Riley is not an RS, just an undergraduate newspaper from a disreputable university. Churchill was fired by Colorado for acadmic misconduct, so a better source needed. I have read Kirsta's article, she doesn't seem to have reread the trial transcript or anything, mostly just parrots AS's supporters claims uncritically. Deserves some weight but citing 14 times is over the top. Wolf is not RS. Williams is AS's aunt and lawyer. Should not be used for statements in wikipedia's voice.

The overall problem with this article is the problem mentioned by Burrough - most of the stuff on AS is either skimpy press clippings from the 1970s or nonRS advocacy from AS's supporters who recycle the same claims endlessly. Unfortunately Burrough's book does not rectify this in his brief mentions of AS. Trying to write a FA on AS with the lack of good sourcing is an uphill battle. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get some additional opinions on the status of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Tahirih Justice Center

Notified: DrFleischman, Finnusertop, UberCryxic, Jeff3000, PumpkinSky, Kirill Lokshin, WikiProject Human rights, Orangemike, Drmies, Kingsindian

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it substantially fails to meet criteria 1d, and contains frequent editorialisation about Tahirih Justice Center's pioneering work and how their organisation aids clients holistically. These issues were raised at NPOVN and at the article talk page in September 2014. Advertising and even notability maintenance banners were placed on the article, and remain in place to this day. I have not dug into it very far, but there appear to have been concerns in the talk page archive as far back as 2006. This article does not represent an example of Wikipedia's best work, and should be delisted. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC) rationale expanded at 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

  • Delist - It has been a long time since the concerns were rightly put up at this page and the link provided by User:TheDragonFire. There are also maintenance tags lingering around from a long time. Major issues still unfixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist--thanks for getting this going. I agree with myself from way back in 2014 or whatever. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist: undressed serious concerns that cast doubt on FA criteria being met at this point. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Miranda Otto

Notified: Underneath-it-All, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it no longer meets FA criteria 1(b)comprehensive and 1(c) well-researched.

The article passed for FA in 2007 when the process was fairly lenient. It was far from comprehensive and got almost no updates since 2007. I raised this issue on its talk page last week, but apparently no work has been done to address the problem. Artoasis (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to hopefully get further opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Lead is too short and the ten years of her life since 2007 is very sparsely covered. DrKay (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist As previous users has said. It is too short and too sparsely covered to be a featured article. (tJosve05a (c) 12:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Firefly (TV series)

Notified: TenTonParasol, Finnusertop, Fnlayson, AlexTheWhovian, Jclemens, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Science Fiction

Review section

More than ten years after the article was promoted to Featured Article status, I think now is the time to re-evaluate the quality of this article. Several years ago, the List of Firefly episodes was merged into this article. Currently, the episode summaries are not comprehensive, and I expect most readers to look through the whole episode list. However, the series itself lasted just one season, yet it achieved the cult status. It even spanned the film Serenity. Also, there has been additional content over the years, such as "Media franchise". The sources should be re-evaluated, including dead links. While there have been edits, most of them this year were just housekeeping cleanups. The issues were discussed at the article talk page early this year, and they should be re-discussed here. Therefore, I hope people interested can improve this article. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, those who promoted the article and contributed to the article at the time of the 2006 nomination may be inactive at this time, so I notified ones who recently contributed to the article instead. I also notified two WikiProjects, including semi-active one. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The available literature needs to be reviewed and incorporated. I have found some that look like they could be of interest, but I don't doubt that there's more out there.
  • Amy-Chinn, Dee (June 2006). "‘Tis Pity She's A Whore: Feminist prostitution in Joss Whedon's Firefly?". Feminist Media Studies. 6 (2): 175–189. doi:10.1080/14680770600645143. 
  • Canavan, Gerry (January 2011). "Fighting a war you've already lost: Zombies and Zombis in Firefly/Serenity and Dollhouse". Science Fiction Film & Television. 4 (2): 173–203. doi:10.3828/sfftv.2011.12. 
  • Erisman, Fred (2006). "Stagecoach in Space: The Legacy of Firefly". Extrapolation. 47 (2): 249–258. ISSN 0014-5483 – via ProQuest. 
  • Granade, S. Andrew (December 2011). "“So Here's Us, On the Raggedy Edge”: Exoticism and Identification in Joss Whedon's Firefly". Popular Music and Society. 34 (5): 621–637. doi:10.1080/03007766.2010.537858. 
  • Hill, Matthew B. (2009). ""I Am a Leaf on the Wind": Cultural Trauma and Mobility in Joss Whedon's Firefly". Extrapolation. 50 (3): 484–511. ISSN 0014-5483 – via ProQuest. 
  • Wilcox, Rhonda; Cochran, Tanya R.; Masson, Cynthea; Lavery, David, eds. (2014). Reading Joss Whedon. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815652830.  - at least three chapters in this book discuss Firefly.
Surveying the literature would help the article to meet the requirement for comprehensiveness that is expected of Wikipedia's best work. -- (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Comments in the review section mostly concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no access to any of these sources. Does anyone have a recommended way of seeking Wikipedians who might? The relevant Wikiprojects all seem inactive. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have access to some of them. I'll get around and look at them, hopefully soon. Is there any other issues with the article as it stands? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The episode list still has incomprehensive episode summaries, TenTonParasol. I recently reorganized pop culture references of Firefly and separated them into separate section "In popular culture". I think that "Cult status" subheader... is renaming it necessary? Also, besides the title card, three more non-free images are used. Is merging Firefly (franchise) into the article possible? I'm uncertain about the franchise's notability. The series lasted just one season, yet there's a franchise page. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
To comment on the fair use images, I personally am not well-versed in images, but I definitely believe the one with the horse in synopsis can definitely go. Frontier environment is not a thing that particularly needs to be illustrated. The marketing image at the bottom and the Serenity image may have cases because they're specifically commented on in the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I expanded a few episode summaries further after the comprehension done by TenTolParasol, to whom I thank. I also tagged File:Fireflyserenityhorses.jpg with PROD and then added the "deletable-image caption". --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens:, if you're referring to the sources I found above, maybe WP:LIBRARY might help. -- (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Casablanca (film)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it contains unreferenced content and the structure seems problematic - some sections could be merged ("Rumors", "Errors and inaccuracies", both sound like renamed trivia sections), while the expected 'significance and impact' section is entirely missing. Further, while prose quality is not my forte, I detect editorializing (ex. "Particularly notable is the "duel of the songs" between Strasser and Laszlo at Rick's cafe" - particularly notable according to whom?), and 'Quotations' section seems like a wikiquote-artifact. There are also expected minor problems with inconsistent citation styles and at least two books donn't cite page range (Eco (1986) and Eco (1994)). Last week I reported those problems to Talk:Casablanca_(film)#Not_up_to_modern_FA_standards, pinging editors who are still active and who formerly participated at FA-related discussions for this article. Since nobody even so much as replied there, I am forced to escalate to here, since it seems unlikely anyone is interested in fixing those problems. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include structure, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017*** (UTC)
  • Keep. FARC section open for nearly two months with no substantive delist comments. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • What kind of lame bureaucratic rationale is that? I listed, in details, the problems. If nobody refutes my comments, the default should be delist. -Your logic is like saying 'despite one user reporting blatant hoax/vandalism, since nobody else cared to comment, we will keep it'. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Being rude weakens your argument. The unreferenced content was removed or cited. The structure was changed. "Particularly notable" was removed. There is insufficient justification for a delist. DrKay (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I see some of the issues were addressed, through nobody has ever mentioned doing on talk (nor here, obviously). Well, if there will be no other comments, I guess we can put it on backburner for another few years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. The complaints above don't appear to be that bad or are already fixed. "Structure" in particular is a stylistic preference usually; there's lots of way to construct a good article. Referencing is the biggest reason to potentially strike FA status, and it doesn't seem that the article is particularly below par for its references. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired


Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur
  • The Schlieffen Plan section is obsolete.
  • The use of Mustard gas has it that it was fired in the first gas shells, rather than it was fired in gas shells for the first time on 10 July at Nieuport. Operation Strandfest Done
  • Most of the battle sections are too big now that so many more have decent articles.
  • The consequences section lacks nuance.
  • The prose is too bitty in places with paragraphs of inconsistent length.
  • Some of the pics, maps, etc could do with moving to avoid cluttering.

I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses. Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Done
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
G'day, I've tried to tidy it up a little, and added some refs where I could find things in my (sadly limited) home library. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few citation needed tags. These are my edits: [42] I probably can't help much more, sorry. Please feel free to adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thank you. We are indeed trying to find proper sourcing auntieruth (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

While I'm somewhat reluctant to support delisting at this stage, the article falls well short of modern FA standards - it's really a GA. For a modern FA, I'd expect to see thematic discussions of important aspects of this campaign, and not just a high level summary of the fighting. For instance, there should be substantial coverage of the living standards the troops endured and how they were deployed (eg, the rotation of units in and out of the front line), changes in tactics, the impact on civilians, the massive logistical efforts, the post-war remediation of the ruined towns and farmland (which is still continuing, with farmers regularly finding unexplored ordinance) and how the campaign has been commemorated at remembered. There's a vast literature on all of these topics which can be drawn on. This would be a risky choice for an 11 November TFA given it's not really an example of Wikipedia at it's best - it's really Wikipedia at an adequate level at present. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Nick's points seem fair in hindsight (and are in stark contrast to the lack of intellectual rigor put into my own comment below). I still feel that its probably "good enough" that delisting would be too extreme, but can agree that there are other aspects of the topic that would need to be covered were this article to go through an FA review today. (TLDR = I am impaled on fence). Anotherclown (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far; still tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we have the sources to fix referencing, and we'll get someone else to deal with prose. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
ok, @Auntieruth55: and @AustralianRupert: (and whoever else is working on this), I can see some recent activity and am happy to keep open while it's being worked on. Agree it is a broad/important article that'd be good to keep featured if possible. I'll nag again in a fortnight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. It seems basically a good article but the review has been open for nearly six months and there are still far too many 'citations needed's. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    Looks OK now apart from the external links. The fourth one 'Information and multimedia' I get in in an eastern? alphabet. The last one goes to the publication details - presumably it is supposed to go to a page? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    G'day, Dudley, I have simply removed the Information and Multimedia link as I couldn't work out what had happened. I have converted the other link to a Further reading entry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Keep. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just asked (one last time) for help at WT:MIL. I'm not sure what we're going to run on 11 November this year and next; this is the only top-level WWI FA we've got. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dank: G'day, I think I've rectified the remaining "citation needed" tags now. These are my edits: [43]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks again (and again and again), AR. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - article now appears to be appropriately sourced, with all "citation needed" tags addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Keith-264 and Nick-D: Are you satisfied with the changes made, or are there remaining issues to address? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that the technical shortcomings have been resolved but the content leaves much to be desired. I'd fail it on B2. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA