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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.



Super Mario World

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I spent a fair amount of time nurturing this article after its GA status got taken away a few months ago, and now it's here. It was quite shocking to see how much little coverage this game got despite its magnitude and apparent status as the "greatest platform game of all time" (though you will find the original reviews gleefully exclaiming that "Sega does what Nintendon't"). As a result this article has a beefed bibliography (for VG standards) and relies mostly on offline scans—if you need access to one for checking please just ask. After a vigorous copyedit and polishing I think this article is ready to face FAC now. Thankfully I've learned from past mistakes and have corrected my habits for over-complicating things. JAGUAR  21:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64
  • Release dates in infobox should be sourced, if possible.
  • All released dates in the infobox are now sourced. Unfortunately I couldn't the Australian release date, so I removed it. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • it was first released in Japan on 21 November 1990, in North America on 13 August 1991 and in Europe on 11 April 1992 Dates in the lead should usually be generalized, per WP:VG/DATE.
  • Good point—I've compressed this. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • which led to fierce competition between the two companies.[27][19] Refs are out of order.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd expand a bit on the reception of the GBA version. It only says that it was positively received, with no context as to what was praised or criticized.
  • I've added a bit of context from the given reviews although I didn't want to expand on it too much. Also reordered the refs. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • and innovative level design enhanced the overall experience.[45][43] Out of order refs.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The soundtrack and audio effects were also well received by critics.[43][46][44] I'd simplify to just "audio". Also the refs are out of order.
  • Fixed and simplified. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • More of a suggestion, I would make the legacy section separate. It's not really part of the game's reception and is more about its influence on Mario.
  • I've separated the two sections. JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about taking this to GA before you did but I'm sure how I wouldn't have gotten as far as you did. Great work; once my comments are addressed. I'll support promotion. JOEBRO64 21:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: that was quick! Thanks for taking a look at this. I should have hopefully addressed all of your concerns. I can expand the reception of the GBA port further, if you wish? I'll double check everything in the morning anyway. Thanks again. By the way, I was actually thinking of taking Super Mario Bros to GA before you had the same idea! JAGUAR  21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you addressed everything, so giving you my support. Good luck on this; I think you did an amazing job. Keep up the good work! JOEBRO64 22:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Source review
  • NintendoLife --> Nintendo Life in ref 4.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • GamesRadar --> GamesRadar+
  • Per WP:VG/S, website stylisations are almost never used. I've never seen the plus included before... JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 64 is missing publisher's name.
This one? Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Yashthepunisher: oops, completely missed this one. Added website and publisher. JAGUAR  15:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "Cubed3" a RS?
  • Cubed3 has been listed as a situational source per WP:VG/S. Per this discussion it has been determined that for its use is acceptable for Nintendo related content. The author in question is also a developer and worked and worked at Cubed3 for eight years. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Empire should be linked.
  • Linked all publications. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: thanks for taking a look at the sources! I should have clarified all of the above. JAGUAR  14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (It is the first entry in the Super Mario series developed for the SNES), I would recommend linking “Super Mario” to the article on the main series.
  • Linked. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The games Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, and Super Mario Bros. 3 is linked twice in the article.
  • Removed duplinks. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that “Fire Flower” should be linked?
  • Good idea, linked. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For this part (If all lives are lost at any point in the game, the "Game Over" screen will appear,), do you think that “Game Over” should be linked? In this part, do you think that “Continue” should be linked?
  • Sounds good. Linked both. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For this part (Nintendo EAD handled development), I would spell out the EAD part as it is the first time it is brought up in the body of the article.
  • Written out fully. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For these parts (then-upcoming Super Nintendo Entertainment System (known as the Super Famicom in Japan)) and (to the limitations of the Nintendo Entertainment System), do you think it should made clear that these systems are commonly referenced as SNES and NES respectively? You have done so in the lead, but not in the body of the article.
  • Oops, done. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this part (Super Mario World was ported to the Game Boy Advance), do you think that GBA should be added after “Game Boy Advance” in parenthesis?
  • I missed this. Done. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, Aoba47! Much appreciated. I should have addressed all of the above. Writing this article was quite an enjoyable experience. JAGUAR  19:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. This was a very fun and interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing it. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth David

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth David was a woman who had an unlikely effect on British culture in the latter half of the twentieth century: through her first six books and numerous articles and essays, she managed to get the British to actually think about what they were eating. In doing so, she revitalised British home cooking, and her legacy is still preached by cooks today. This article has undergone an extensive rewrite and expansion recently, and a well-attended and very productive PR. – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 10:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Check caption grammar throughout - centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated, captions should end in periods when complete sentences and otherwise not, etc.
    • Full stop added to one caption; one hyphen ditto. I think that's all that was needed. Tim riley talk 16:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Later: no, a second hyphen was needed, and now added. Tim riley talk 16:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Elizabeth-David.jpg: don't use the unique histor ic images tag for this purpose. {{non-free biog-pic}} would be more appropriate.
  • File:Elizabeth_Gwynne_(David)_1923.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Not sure which tag would be appropriate. Can you advise, please? English work, orig publication date not known, painted 1923, artist died 1927. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Do we know when and where this was first published? If the 2000 book was first, that will be a problem as far as US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
        • As I say, orig publication date not known. I was wondering if the fact that the artist died more than 100 years ago (4 January 1927) is relevant? Tim riley talk 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
          • If it were published early on or never published at all, yes. But a 2000 first known publication date is a problem: it falls into the 1978 to 2002 bracket here. That's why the URAA tags generally specify a pre-1978 publication. Do we know of any earlier publication, even if it's not the original? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid not. I think it a racing certainty, especially as the artist was notable (he has a WP article) that a painting of the daughter of a member of the ruling classes would have been reproduced soon after completion, in the fine art press, the society press, the local papers, or all three, but I have no proof at all to back up that supposition. Does that mean the file has to be deleted? Tim riley talk 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
              • Possibly - I'll see if I can find an alternative source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
                • For permission to reproduce the image, Cooper thanks Steve Grey, son of Elizabeth Gwynne's younger sister Diana, who married Christopher Grey (for the relationship, see Papers of Elizabeth David). Perhaps Steve Grey or his family would know something about the image's history. SarahSV (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Norman_Douglas.jpg: Commons history indicates this photo has been edited, which would seem inconsistent with the requirements of the licensing tag?
    • It looks as though they are not requirements but requests, and, as the image is in the public domain, presumably unenforceable. More to the point, perhaps, the one here and the original in the Congress Library look the same to me, and the one here is not "colorized or cropped". What think you? Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I am not sure how strictly the estate would interpret "preserve the integrity", although you are correct that we are legally free to do whatever. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:A_Book_of_Mediterranean_Food_cover.jpg should include a more expansive FUR
  • Expanded the rationale. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Renato_Guttuso_1960.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Looking into this one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The always excellent We hope—who can track down image information better than anyone I've yet seen on WP—has searched for the relevant information and come up with nothing that would allow us to think this is PD in the US. Now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:La_Belle_Limonadière_-_Planche_N°98_de_l'Album_du_Bon_Genre_-_Paris_1827.jpg needs a US PD tag
    • Not sure what to do about this. The Commons image has the PD-old tag on it, which I thought covered all ancient images. Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Added PD-US-1923, which I think should cover it. Please let me know if it's the wrong one. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

While I'm here, I'll also mention that citation formatting needs editing for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Would you like to point out any inconsistencies? I have twice been through the citations and believed I had got them all into shape. (Quandoque dormitat Homerus, of course.) Tim riley talk 16:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Some examples: many of the citations are written freehand, but then some use templates. 162 and 262 both cite WorldCat, but look quite different. 285 and 289 are both online newspapers, but are ordered differently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is down to me, as SchroCat kindly indulged his senescent collaborator and left my mediaeval system of citations intact. I think I have now (third attempt!) got them all into shape. Thank you – as ever – for your eagle-eye and patient help, Nikkimaria. Tim riley talk 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and your most helpful input at PR. Tim riley talk 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Ditto! Many thanks Wehwalt. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "According to an interview with Chaney" It is obviously David speaking, but you should say so.
  • "Tony David proved ineffectual in civilian life, unable to find a suitable job, and ran up debts, partly from a failed business venture." This does not look right to me grammatically.
    • I think I drafted that sentence, and though I think it is grammatically correct, it isn't the most elegant of my writing. Changed ", and" to "; he". Tim riley talk 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "and to put distance between her and her husband" I would say "herself" rather than her.
    • I would prefer not to use the reflexive here, though I wouldn't dismiss it as wholly wrong. I hoped Fowler would have something to say, but for once he's no help. Tim riley talk 19:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1977 David was badly injured in a car accident" I think a sentence giving more information about the accident would be helpful.
    • I've added more about the injuries, rather than the accident, which is the more interesting side of things. - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for these, Dudley. Looking forward to any further thoughts you may have on the piece. Tim riley talk 09:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "There have been many flashings of neon in the postwar food firmament, but there is only one star. Her name is Elizabeth David." I doubt the value of this quote from 1970. One on her role in improving cooking would be good (or even English life as with the Auberon Waugh comment), but not a near 50 year old claim that she is the only star.
  • "Janet Floyd, the professor of American Literature, identifies that David" I find the word "identifies" jarring in this context. "points out" or "argues" would be better.
  • "The message of "real food"," The source does not use the pretentious term "real food".
  • This is a very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Support by Edwininlondon

Very nice piece of work. I had never heard of her, and although initially I found the personal life bits a bit questionable, but gradually I got to see why those bits are there. The prose is of enviable quality. Very few things to question:

  • In the US cooks --> to avoid a garden path I suggest you add a comma
  • realized is American English and ageing is British. I realise that "realized" is in a quote. Does this make it ok?
    • "realized" is old-fashioned BrEng as well as current AmEng. The Oxford University Press still clings to it, and so, in theory, though not always in practice nowadays, does The Times. Mrs David was certainly of the generation that used "–ize". Tim riley talk 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • When David's first book, Mediterranean Food was -> a comma before was?
  • Stein, Slater and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall -> Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall was already linked
  • Others, including Nigel Slater, Gordon Ramsey, Jamie Oliver -> Oliver was already linked
    • Both above unlinked at second mention. Tim riley talk 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • note 28 is in need of a reference

Again, a remarkable effort. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for these suggestions, and for your kind words. Tim riley talk 20:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My thanks also, Edwininlondon. – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

History of the British farthing

Nominator(s): Arwel Parry (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin small in value but still a source of interest today. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I'm sure I'll be supporting the promotion of this article, but a few minor drafting points first.

  • Lead
    • "under license" – I know from dealing with old legal documents in Crown archives when I worked for a living that the noun was often spelt "license" in the nineteenth century and earlier, but it isn't now, and we need "licence" here. "License" is reserved for the verb.
    • "demonitised" – I can find no authority for this spelling, and would have changed it myself to the usual "demonetised" were it not for a lurking worry that it might be a specialist numismatic spelling I (not to mention the Oxford English Dictionary) knew nothing about. (It comes up again in "Victorian farthings" in the main text.)
  • Early issues (1714–1775)
    • "according to numismatic writer Kerry Rodgers" – clunky false title, not becoming in formal BrE. The addition of a definite article will remedy the fault.
    • "King George died, and his son King George II took the throne" – "took" sounds a bit like a coup d'état. Perhaps "came to" or "acceeded to"?
  • Soho and renewed regal issues (1799–1837)
    • Header: if one goes back to the lead one sees mention that Boulton's mint was in Soho, but there's no mention of Soho in the whole of the present section, and so the header looks rather strange.
    • "Boulton was given a license" – as in the lead: the noun should be "licence"
    • "Sir Francis Chantrey" – it looks a bit odd that Sir Isaac Newton has his Sir included in the blue link but poor old Chantrey doesn't.
  • Victorian farthings
    • "the old copper farthing was demonitised …the Mint would still accept them" – singular noun with plural pronoun.
  • Twentieth century and abolition (1902—1956)
    • The dash in the date ranges in the header and the first line of text has gone from en-dash (approved by the MoS) to em-dash (not approved)
    • Titles of monarchs: earlier monarchs are shown as, e.g. King William IV, but from this point, they are shorn of their job title, and are just George V etc. I slightly prefer the latter style, but whichever you choose it should be consistent throughout.
    • "Sir Bertram Mackenna" – another unfortunate knight deprived of his Sir in his piping.
    • "Deputy Master of the Mint Robert Johnson" – could do with a definite article before "Deputy" and a comma after "Mint".
    • "and the farthing was discontinued after 1956." – for clarity, perhaps "and production of the farthing was discontinued after 1956"?

That's my small clutch of comments. I look forward to returning to add my support in due course. – Tim riley talk 13:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for those helpful comments. I have implemented them, though I have chosen to take Sir Isaac's title outside the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Good! I'm glad to add my support here. I wonder how many other of your supporters will ever have owned a farthing, as I did? They were already so rarely seen when I was a little boy in the late 1950s that one held on to those few that came one's way once in a blue moon. I always liked the wren motif. – Tim riley talk 19:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and support ... and I appreciate the firsthand information about the time ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed. Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The 1714, 1719, and 1946 coin images don’t seem to have alt text; it would be nice for consistency if they did. Also, the 1719 template seems irregular and possibly unnecessarily cumbersome when compared with the formatting of the 1714 and 1946 ones; in any case, it seems inconsistent. Moisejp (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources in good order, of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack Crossland

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack Crossland was one of a number of "suspect" bowlers during the late 19th century. His bowling action was generally considered to be a throwing one, rather than a bowling one, and it was this that defined him in history. Had his action been commonly judged as fair, he would probably have played Test cricket for England, but instead he was the subject of continued and growing protests from crowds, administrators and fellow players. In the end, he was thrown out of county cricket for living in the wrong place! An interesting cricketing story that I enjoyed researching. As ever, all criticism is welcome. Harrias talk 10:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:John_Crossland.jpg: does the given source provide credit for this image?
  • No, is that a problem for a fair use tag? Harrias talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No, just wondered about the possibility of tracking down an earlier publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Kennington_oval_1891.jpg: given tag requires that you demonstrate steps taken to try to ascertain author, but it appears an author is named at the source page? Also, when/where was this first published?
  • I've clarified this a little bit on the Commons page. The photographer remains unknown, but the photo was published in 1891 in W. G. Grace's book, "Cricket". I'm pretty awful with image copyright stuff, so let me know what more needs to be done on this. Harrias talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Basically what you have to do to use that UK-unknown tag is explicitly lay out on the image page what steps you've taken to try to identify a photographer. For example, if the original source doesn't credit the image (either in caption or elsewhere in the book), you should say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Ranji_1897_page_231_Lord_Harris.jpg needs a US PD tag and date of death for author
  • Again, "E. Hawkins & Co., Brighton" is a company, so the specific photographer is unknown. Presumably this needs a different tag? Harrias talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • My understanding of UK law is that expiration of copyright for corporate works is still dependent on the life of the actual photographer (see here). If the specific photographer is unknown, you can use the UK-unknown tag as for the above image, and follow its provisions as far as UK copyright. As far as US copyright, with a pre-1923 publication PD-US would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've put some more details on them both, how are they? Harrias talk 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Noting also while I'm here that several of your harvlinks are broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. As I said above, I find the image copyright and tagging a minefield, so any assistance you can give me would be greatly appreciated. Also, was there any specific way you found out the harvlinks were broken, or just by clicking on them? Harrias talk 16:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Ucucha/HarvErrors is a neat script, you could install it to check those. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks. You are, as ever, a star. Harrias talk 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "claiming 112 wickets at an average of just over ten" - per match?
    • Added a wikilink and a note to explain this better. Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Lancashire were recognised by some publications as being champion county, or more commonly as joint champions with Nottinghamshire in 1882" - is this mentioned in the source that they were recognized by different publications as top county?
    • Added a better reference for this. Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Crossland was strong again, and claimed ten wickets in a match on three occasions;[13] first against Oxford University in late May–early June.[48]" - why the semi colon instead of a comma here?
    • I like semi colons! Changed to a comma. Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in "Termination of county cricket career" seems out of place; it seems like it should be under a legacy section
    • Restructured a little bit, how's that? Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "his yorker were described" - do you mean to say was described?
    • Yes, changed. Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

These are generally nitpicks, as the article is in great shape. Well done! ceranthor 14:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks; I've addressed each of your points, most significantly the note to explain bowling averages, and the restructure towards the end, let me know how you think they work. Harrias talk 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on the prose. Good work. ceranthor 17:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm obviously going to review this one! (So I'm recusing as coordinator) A quick glance looks really good; I wonder though do we need a little more on the wider throwing issue? It was a prickly topic after this, pretty much up to the time of Arthur Mold and I wonder do we need that context? For throwing continued after Crossland disappeared, and became an even bigger issue. Sourcing looks good. There is a little bit on this in the Brodribb book on the laws of cricket (it's in the Mold bibliography) so I'll have a look for it and see if there's anything useful there. But from memory, there's not much on Crossland and I think you've got it covered. I'll also look in the Lancashire County History book and see if there's anything there too. I shall delve in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


  • I missed the bit where he moved from Nottinghamshire to work in Lancashire, is there any detail there we could add?
  • "claiming 112 wickets at an average of just over ten." perhaps make that clear, i.e. ten runs (or ten runs per wicket for superclarity). I note the note, so perhaps just "runs".
  • Perhaps use "ten-wicket haul" and link to the Glossary of cricket terms because we actually use the term to really mean "ten or more" in many situations, and since Cricinfo's Statsguru has died (for me, at least), I can't check if that's the situation with Crossland.
  • We have an article on Gentlemen v Players if that helps our readers understand that terminology.
  • You have "Enfield Cricket Club" but have piped "Burnley", not sure why?
  • For that touring Australian team, we could link to Australian cricket team in England in 1882 instead of the national team for "touring Australians".
  • Oh, you link it in the next section... perhaps do it here too?
  • The Arguss should be (Melbourne) not Australia, and perhaps therefore "a Melbourne-based daily newspaper" rather than "an Australian daily newspaper".
  • Link Old Trafford first time round.
  • Consider linking "town crier" as it's not a common term outside our shores.
  • You link coal pit towards the end of the article but not coal miner near the top. Thoughts?
  • " to no ball him." hyphenate per before?
  • Put (MCC) after its initial mention so when you use the abbreviation it's clear.
  • I've recently stumbled on Trove when dusting up the Segrave Trophy, and found this which has a rather quirky anectdote or two about Crossland. Just for interest.

Otherwise it's a good read, seems comprehensive and looks like it's MOS-compliant, nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • CricketArchive, a much-used source, is behind a paywall and needs a (subscription required) template.
  • Refs 48 and 71: other refs to this source contain links, but these don't
  • Publisher location needed for Gordon book.

Otherwise, sources look good and appropriate - an excellently researched effort, if I may say so. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

British hydrogen bomb programme

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the British development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s. I created it in my Sandbox on 13 May 2017, and moved to to the mainspace on 1 June. Since then it has passed DYK, GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Operation_Grapple_May_1957.jpg: source states image is PD not CC BY-SA
    Changed to the correct licence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:TrumanAttleeKing1945.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    Probably back in 1945. The Canadian government asserts that copyright has expired, hence was subject to Crown copyright and was first published more than 50 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but for US status, which rationale from the tag is believed to apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    I believe it is the first one. The image was made available as part of the press kit from the conference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Castle_Bravo_007.jpg: source link is dead.
    Substituted another URL. Replaced with a nicer image I found in the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Nothing much to say here:

  • It would look neat if isbns were in consistent format (see Macmillan)
    Ran the ISBN script over the aricle, but that was the only inconsistent one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • We generally have "Basingstoke, Hampshire", but for Arnold and Smith, just "Basingstoke"
    Changed to "Basingstoke, Hampshire". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Talking of Basdingstoke, the publisher is variously given as "Palgrave", "Palgrave Macmillan" and "Macmillan". Are these three different imprints? If not, choose one format.
    I just copied what it said in the indicia of my copies. According to the Wikipedia: Palgrave Macmillan was created in 2000 when St. Martin's Press Scholarly and Reference in the USA united with Macmillan Publishers in the UK to combine their worldwide academic publishing operations. The company was known as simply Palgrave until 2002, but has since been known as Palgrave Macmillan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the required standard of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 10 November 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) 05:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    I made one tweak. "Boost" has a technical meaning when we are referring to nuclear weapons. When detonating the Castle Bravo device, the Americans made a big mistake. They enriched their lithium to 40% lithium-6 and assumed that the more abundant lithium-7 contributes nothing. However, they discovered the hard way that if lithium-7 is hit with a neutron hard enough, it fissions to produce helium, tritium and a neutron. The tritium fuses; the neutron can cause additional fission. The bomb exploded with a force of 14 Megatons instead of 4 Megatons, to which the scientists could only say: "oops". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Der 100. Psalm

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a monumental composition by Max Reger, a setting of Psalm 100 as a choral symphony. It was featured today in a concert for the Marteen Luther jaar, and I was reminded of the peer review a while ago. Luther wrote the translation to German, and his perhaps most famous chorale is the cantus firmus in the fourth movement, the climax of a double fugue. The most similar article is Requiem (Reger). Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Asking David Levy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I lack this information. Pinging Rettinghaus, the uncropped version's original uploader. —David Levy 07:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. It's just a good image of Reger showing that he was also a performer. We could take another one if needed. I'd try to keep the score page where it is, for those who might actually look at it when reading about the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
All I can say is, that it was a Carte de visite published by Hermann Leiser in Berlin. Not quite shure about the date. --Rettinghaus (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I asked Dumelow about this one and the Konzerthaus, - please check the licenses. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria. I am not an expert on image copyright by any means, just trying to help out. I think I selected the right tags. It is the first time I have come across the second clause of the PD-1996 tag (I had previously thought that all works PD abroad in 1996 by virtue of death of the author +70 years were automatically PD in the US?). I would welcome any clarification on this. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Those two look fine; Reger image still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Der_100._Psalm_Max_Reger.jpg: this gives a publication date of 1909, but infobox suggests the work wasn't published until 1916? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "It was published that year and premiered on 23 February 1910 simultaneously in both Chemnitz, conducted by the composer, and in Breslau, conducted by Georg Dohrn (de)." - simultaneously both is redundant
Thank you. I am on vacation, please excuse that I get to it only now. Dropped "both". --GA
  • "Reger used both, late-Romantic features of harmony and dynamics," - Don't think you need a comma after both
Never sure about commas in English, sorry. Removed. --GA
  • It was first performed in Wiesbaden, where the composer studied, in 2003. - link to this place?
yes --GA
  • The celebration of the Reger Year 2016 led to several performances. - No idea what this means
It's (perhaps too) short for: In 2016, Reger's centenary of death was remembered. There were more performances of his works than normally, even of this monster of a work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Raised Catholic, he was still inspired by Lutheran hymns, writing chorale fantasias such as Zwei Choralphantasien, Op. 40, in 1899." - did he only write them in 1899? the date part of this sentence throws me off; the rest is fine
We can drop the date if it bothers you. --GA
  • " A year later he began the composition.[2]" - don't think it would hurt to add "of Der 100. Psalm", assuming that's what you mean by composition
I thought that was clear, but changed, had to change also the next sentence, or it would be a duplication. --GA
  • "He based the composition on Psalm 100 in the translation by Martin Luther.[1] He composed the work in Leipzig, beginning on 24 April 1908 and working on it until the beginning of July that year. He dedicated it "Der hohen Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Jena zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Jena" (To the high Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Jena for the 350th anniversary of the University).[1] " - redundant sentence structure; need to vary it more
tried, see last point --GA
  • A reviewer wrote in the journal NMZ: - which stands for?
Neue Musik-Zeitung, but not Neue Musikzeitung, - it was new at the time, - will search for a link. --GA
Found this in the German wikisource, but no article, sadly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The rather short psalm calls to rejoice in the Lord, serve him with gladness, come before his countenance with joy, realize that he made us, go enter his gates, because he is friendly" - this seems like a run-on
It it a summary of the topic of the four movements. How would you do it? --GA
  • The call to rejoice leads to music, especially suitable for festive occasions. - Is this original research or backed up by a source?
It's a summary of what follows, Jubilate and festive occasions. --GA
  • arranged it for congregation, organ and orchestra for the coronation of Elizabeth II, becoming ubiquitous at festive occasions in the Anglophone world.[13] - the second half of this sentence doesn't agree with the first half
Can you explain? --GA
  • "organ, and strings" - If you're not going to use the serial comma throughout the article, don't use it here either
see comma comment above, dropped --GA
  • " short instrumental introduction, marked Andante sostenuto" - might be useful to translate this for a general reader
linked to Tempo, - "sustained walking speed" would be awkward --GA
  • "In a middle section the divided voices express, mostly in homophony, gradually more intense: "Er hat uns gemacht und nicht wir selbst zu seinem Volk" (He has made us, and not we ourselves, his people)" - seems like there's a word or two missing here
What do you miss? --GA
  • The movement closes by a reprise of the first topic, this time ending pp. - does this indicate pianissimo? It's not clear
use full word with link, -keep forgetting that musical notation is not everybody's language, sorry. --GA
  • "mysteriously, almost spectrally" music - adverbs don't describe music, which is a noun
You are right, but how to quote the adverbs (from the source) without having to make notes about using adjectives? --GA
I stayed closer to the wording in the source, to keep the grammar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "and noted how these elements also characterize Reger's life." - does this have a citation?
now doubled, still same reviewer speaking as before. --GA
  • the work was performed at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig on 11 May, his day of death in the town. - Day of death in the town? Clunky
How to say that he died in that same town? --GA

More comments after these are addressed. Weak oppose for now based on the prose. ceranthor 03:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I tried what I understood, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Reger structured the text in four movements, as a choral symphony." - No need for the comma after movements, I don't think.
No need, but I thought it's a new and independent thought. Comma dropped. --GA
  • "He moved to Munich in 1901. In 1902 he married Elsa von Bercken, a divorced Protestant. In 1907 Reger was appointed professor at the Royal Conservatory in Leipzig." - How much of this is directly relevant to this article?
Looking at other FAs on pieces, a short introduction is common. His bio is not as well known as that of others. Knowing that worked as a professor is related to his honorary doctor's degree of the other university for movement I, I think, and the Protestant wife a bit for the choice of hymn for movement 4 which is highly unusual for a catholic composer. --GA
  • Keep the serial comma, or the lack of it, consistent throughout the article.
  • "Reger completed the composition of the psalm, by adding three more movements, from May to August 1909." - Don't think the commas are needed here.
done --GA
  • "The psalm has been set many times," - What does this mean, that it's been "set"?
short for "set to music", repeated now --GA
  • "The themes of the first psalm verses are paraphrased in the opening movement of Bach's 1734 Christmas Oratorio, Jauchzet, frohlocket, with a later contrasting section Dienet dem Höchsten mit herrlichen Chören (Serve the Most High with wonderful choirs)." - citation?
I will copy them from the Christmas Oratorio, but not right now. It's this very text, - "Jauchzet", "Dienet", I thought that was enough.
  • "Reger's setting had not been intended for church use; it was written initially for a secular occasion and then for the concert hall." - citation?
Well, - look at all performances. The first in a university celebration, for which it was intended. The premieres in concerts. All performances I know of in concerts. It's way too "big" for liturgical use, too expensive and too long. - More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Reger structured the text of the psalm in four movements, as a choral symphony,[15] in the typical structure of a symphony:" - redundant to say symphony twice in such close proximity
  • "The first movement corresponds to the opening movement of a symphony, which is often in sonata form. The movement sets the first two verses of the psalm, which call for three actions: "jauchzet" (rejoice), "dienet" (serve), and "kommt" (come). The three topics match two contrasting themes of the exposition of the sonata form, and its development. They are followed by a recapitulation of the two themes." - citation?
  • "It is quiet, marked sostenuto and pp" - wouldn't pianissimo suggest even more extreme than just merely being quiet? Wouldn't it be very quiet?
  • "and noted how these elements also characterize Reger's life.[16]" - I understand the sentiment here, but I'd like this better as a separate, complete sentence, rather than as a continuation of a previous sentence. ceranthor 04:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

No expert in the matter, or any music in fact, so all I can offer is a layman's view. Some comments:

  • Reger completed the composition in 1909.[1] -> do we need a reference in the lead? Is this statement controversial?
dropped, was just left over from copying --GA
  • He requests -> why present tense here when rest is past tense?
changed --GA
  • It was first performed in -> which one is "It" referring to?
The organ version just mentioned before, - what else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • After his studies he -> not clear if everything before this sentence only applies to his time as a student.
His first compositions were made when he was a student, yes. --GA
  • in 1898 -> would it not be better to group the 2 references to time together into this sentence. Something along the lines of "In 1898, after completing his studies, "
done --GA
  • still inspired by Lutheran hymns -> a bit of help for the reader would be nice. That "still" might not be obvious to all.
What do you suggest? Perhaps "Although he was raised Catholic, he was inspired by Lutheran hymns? --GA
  • he began the composition. -> I would write "he began composing Der 100. Psalm." but that's just a matter of style.
changed per comments above --GA
  • Die Hörer des Psalms müssen -> I don't think this long quote in German is necessary. I think just rephrasing what he said suffices.
Necessary no, but highly unusual, so why not for those who can read it? I like to listen to what the composer has to say ;) --GA
  • "Noch unter dem Eindruck -> also not necessary
  • the translation by Martin Luther. -> he was already linked
removed --GA
  • the translation by Martin Luther -> from which language?
The psalms were originally in Hebrew, and Luther translated from Hebrew, but what does it add to the understanding of Reger's music? --GA
  • motet needs a link
done --GA
  • verse(s) of the Psalm -> why this capital P
said "Psalm 100" now, because it s this specific one --GA
  • tradition of Johann Sebastian Bach - > already linked before
removed --GA
  • often contrasting theme of the sonata form, often -> two 'often' close together
changed one --GA

More later, but looking good so far.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I'll look, hopefully later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Done now, please look again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All fine. Sorry, just a few small things:

  • invention',[19] -> is there a closing " missing?
  • used for the climaxes." -> where is the opening " ?
  • isbn format inconsistent

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, all good catches, hopefully clarified. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

I'm in a bit over my head here as regards content, but I can offer suggestions related to prose, the Manual of Style, and things a general reader might wonder about.
  • ¶1 "Der 100. Psalm (The 100th Psalm), Op. 106, is a composition in four movements by Max Reger in D major for mixed choir and orchestra, a late Romantic setting of Psalm 100." - A bit too complicated? Since "four movements" is repeated in ¶2, maybe this would be better: "Der 100. Psalm (The 100th Psalm), Op. 106, is Max Reger's late Romantic rendering of Psalm 100, composed in D major for mixed choir and orchestra."
You will have to convince me that mentioning the four movements early is not wise. The usual psalm setting is one movement along the text, a few minutes. This is a monumental symphony of more than half an hour, the most unusual psalm setting I know. How to say that best? ---GA
It's probably best to leave it as is. My knowledge of psalm settings is approximately zero. Finetooth (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "The celebration of the Reger Year 2016 led to several performances." – Readers will probably not know what Reger Year 2016 means until they have read the rest of the article. Suggestion: "The celebration of Reger Year 2016, the centenary of the composer's death, led to several performances.
taken, with minor changes ---GA
  • ¶1 "He dedicated it "Der hohen Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Jena zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Jena" - Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, I would italicize this and most of the other German phrases and expressions in the article except titles and proper nouns like the names of people, cities, buildings, orchestras, and so on).
To my understanding, quotations are not also italicized. The idea of italics is to separate from normal text, which the quote marks do already. ---GA
I wouldn't mind having a third opinion on this one since I rarely encounter many long quotes in languages other than English. I poked around in the MOS some more and found a guideline in MOS:QUOTE in the foreign-language quotations subsection. It says in part, "When editors themselves translate foreign text into English, care must always be taken to include the original text, in italics (except for non-Latin-based writing systems), and to use actual and (if at all possible) common English words in the translation." Finetooth (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
But see my next note down. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 Since this is an English-language encyclopedia, I'd be inclined to put the English translations first and put the German originals in parentheses. Beyond that, I share User:Edwininlondon's concern about some of the long passages in German. Most readers will skip over the German to get to the English. A compromise might be to use English in the main text for the long quotations (not the short ones) and to put the German originals of these long ones in notes at the bottom of the article. They would be there for readers who know German and would not slow the readers who don't.
Food for thought. In a way, I hate to put anything in quotation marks that is translated, because even the best translation changes the meaning. I come from FA Kafka, where his German comes first, then a translation. I'll think about it, and about footnotes. How do you feel of divided blockquotes for the long quotes that makes skipping easier? Tried for one. ---GA
I like it. Set off like that, it is much easier to read, and the italics, imho, would be redundant and cluttery. Finetooth (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I hesitate to treat the other long one the same, because I did the translation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is causing your hesitation. If you mean the quote starting with "Noch unter dem Eindruck des Gehörten...". Citation 4 is the RS for the German text. I don't think you need a separate RS for your translation since any reader who can read both languages well enough to have an opinion can change the translation or, better, discuss it on the talk page. So I think citation 4 can be used for both the original and the translation, just as it does now. All you'd be changing is the layout. Or am I misunderstanding? Finetooth (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you say so, I try. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Works for me. If others raise no objection, I think that will do it. Finetooth (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "the band of the 71. Infanterieregiment Erfurt" – The period here is a bit confusing since it looks at first glance like a terminal period. Could this be recast as "the band of Infanterieregiment 71 from Erfurt". Even better, imho, would be "the band of Infantry Regiment 71 from Erfurt" with no translation since the cognates are so close.
done ---GA
  • ¶1 "Reger demanded many rehearsals from the conductor" – I think "of" would be better than "from" since "from" suggests that he gave them to Reger, which he didn't.
done ---GA
  • ¶1 "So be good and take care for that." – A better translation, judging from the context, would be "So be good and take care of that"; that is, "of" rather than "for".
Can I improve the translation given in the source? Probably only with a note that I changed, which I think is clumsy for such a minor change. ---GA
  • ¶2 "The work was published by Peters in Leipzig, first the vocal score with piano in September 1909, with the piano reduction prepared by Reger himself. The score and the parts appeared in December that year." – Active voice and sentence-splitting might work slightly better. Suggestion: "Peters in Leipzig published the work, starting in September 1909 with the vocal score with piano. Reger prepared the piano reduction. The score and the parts appeared in December that year." Then link piano reduction and parts for clarity.
trying that, with minor change ---GA
  • ¶2 "...wrote in the journal NMZ..." – Spell out, italicize, and abbreviate, as in "...wrote in the journal Neue Musik-Zeitung (NMZ)?
done ---GA
Structure and scoring
*¶Since SATB and four-part choir link to the same SATB article, perhaps on first use something like "SATB (four-part choir)".
removed second link ---GA
  • ¶1 "marked ff" – Maybe "marked ff (fortissimo)" for clarity?
word added, but ff is a dab page ---GA
  • ¶1 "The choir first sings a quart motif..." – I'm not sure what "quart" means in this context. Quart is a unit of volume. Perhaps quarter-note or something similar?
Forgive me, octave (Oktave) works from Latin, but learning now that it's fourth (Quarte), not from Latin ;) - fixed. ---GA
Nothing to forgive. I'm always happy when I catch something. Otherwise I might have to change my user name to Toothless. Finetooth (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 Since pp and pianissimo link to the same pianissimo article, perhaps on first use "pianissimo (pianissimo)"?
done like for ff above ---GA
  • ¶1 "marked ppp" – More clear as "ppp (as soft as possible)"?
trying "extremely soft", or should we say "pianississimo"? I've seen pppp, so it's not the end of softness.
*Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
Will do, forgot for images added later. Tried to solve overlinking mentioned below.
  • No problems with dablinks.
  • No dead URLs.
  • Minor overlinking. "Theme" is linked twice in ¶2 of the Jauchzet section. Others linked more than once in the main text include "Johann Sebastian Bach" and "Lutheran hymns", as well as the "SATB - four-part choir" and "pp - pianissimo" pairs noted above. - Finetooth (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for helpful comments. Please check again. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Reading through again, I have just three more questions or suggestions, as follows:
  • ¶2 "It has been compared to the second, often contrasting of the sonata form typical for first movements of symphonies." – I think this should say "contrasting with" rather than "contrasting of", and I'm not sure what "second" refers to. I think it needs a noun to go with it.
Another good catch, - I think it was a linked "theme", which I meant to copy and delink, and possibly lost. The movement is possibly the most complex thing there was at Reger's time, - it's not you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "In measure 111 the third topic appears..." – What is the second topic? Is it "Dienet"? And is the first "Jauchzet"? I'm not quite clear on this. The Jauchzet section is the hardest for me to follow because of my limited musical background.
I called these topics, from the text: rejoice / serve / come. I tried now to explain the overview before going along the music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It's much more clear to me now. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 I wonder if the long quote, "Expressivität statt Verstehbarkeit..." here would be more readable if set off like the two long ones earlier. -- Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Good idea! - Did you know that I found two more sources, one already inserted, but I could use it for more background, one a contemporary review about a 1923 performance (in my sandbox). I wonder if I should add at this point, or better leave it as it is. I added a second organ version, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The addition about the second organ version looks fine to me. I have no opinion about adding the contemporary review of the 1923 performance. How much is too much? Maybe flip a coin. :-) Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All good. Switching to support on prose with the caveat that someone very familiar with the vocabulary of music might see things that I have missed. Btw, yesterday I listened to the YouTube Reger-Chor International version of this work. Passionate and lovely. Finetooth (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, for support, but even more for making everything clearer by your questions, and yet more for listening. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Brief comment

The lead contains the sentence: "It was first performed in Wiesbaden, where the composer studied, in 2003." Can you clarify what "it" refers to? Hindemith's version, or the organ version? Brianboulton (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was clear but you are the second to ask, will repeat "Organ version" although it was just mentioned before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, you should add "of the complete work" to the final sentence of the lead, otherwise it's not clear what "led to several performances" refers to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't stressing "complete" sound as if there were also performances of parts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I repeated the title, instead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Kate Winslet

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Who hasn't heard of Kate Winslet? She is the ingenue in that big-boat movie. She is the pedophile Nazi in that Holocaust movie. She is the brainwashed Australian who pees on herself. She is the mother who is erotically spoon-fed a peach cobbler by a convict. She is the girl with the blue hair in that "what-really-happened-in-this-movie" movie. Oh, and she's also every Apple customer's dream woman with a hairdo to die for. Will she next be the woman with a big shiny star on Wikipedia? Kind reviewers and collaborators, let's make that happen. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:RMS_Titanic_3.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: added. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I was reverted, saying that it isn't a US work. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: changed to a different image. I'm not well versed in copyright laws, but this seems to include a UK PD tag since the image was taken at the docks of Southampton. Is that apt? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Potentially, but even if so we still need to know its status in the US - Commons requires that images be free in both US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: got it. Changed to one in the US PD. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, when and where was that one first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Per the description page the photograph was taken in Ireland in 1912, but it has a US PD license. I'm really no expert at this, so am I missing something? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Two things: since it's on Commons we need to worry about what its status is in country of origin, and that US PD tag requires us to demonstrate a pre-1923 publication (not simply creation). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Umm...that seemed a bit above my paygrade, so I've removed an image of the Titanic in favour of a DiCaprio shot. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 11: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens. See also 81, 117, 203, 207, 216, 218, perhaps check for others I may have missed.
  • Ref 30: requires page no.
  • Ref 31: "Plays and Players" is the name of the journal, not the title of the article that contains the information you are citing
  • Refs 46 and 52 appear to be the same source, although 52 has the wrong date
  • Ref 61: "Los Angeles Magazine" is the publication. The title of the cited article is "Say Anything"
  • Ref 91: requires page no.
  • Ref 102: The link on "Collider" goes to the wrong article
  • Ref 159: Publisher missing
  • Ref 184: Dead link (Belfast Telegraph)
  • Ref 189: Publisher missing - it's implicit in the title, but should still be given
  • Ref 222: Where does the source text confirm the information cited to it: "Winslet's weight fluctuations over the years have been well documented by the media"? Not on p. 182.

Otherwise, sources seem of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: thank you for the review. All done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
A couple of points still outstanding: Ref. 30 – Itunes is not the publisher of the "Heavenly Creatures" soundtrack. And the link in what is now 101 is still going to the wrong Collider article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: umm... iTunes is the website that I've used to cite the Heavenly Creatures soundtrack. What should the publisher be?
As for the Collider source, it opens the right page for me. Is it not doing so in your browser? That's strange. What is it redirecting to? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can work it out, the soundtrack publisher is BMG Rights Management. iTunes is merely the means of delivery. As to Collider, it's not the link to the source that's the problem, it's the link on the publisher's name. I think the link you want is to this, not to an article about particle acceleration. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: oh, lol. Silly me. Sorry about that. Done now. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments Support from Aoba47

Wonderful work with the article as a whole and I apologize for the large amount of comments. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I enjoyed reading this article and it was nice to learn more about this particular actress. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a positive review, Aoba47. There's no need to apologise at all. I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in giving this such a detailed review. Most of your concerns have been addressed. Awaiting your comments on my responses to the rest of them. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I left the responses to your comments above. Everything appears to be handled, but I have a few additional questions about the Reader and Winslet's work with Woody Allen. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: thank you for the prompt response. Having thought it over, I agree with your comments on The Reader and the Woody Allen bit. I'm intrigued by your professor's reaction on The Reader, as I loved the novel tremendously. Anyway, I've included a sentence or two about both the "controversies". It was quite challenging to summarise these bits given that they may not reflect the entire truth. Do you think it's okay or does it need more work? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses. Just for clarification, I am actually quite interested in both the book and the film adaptation of The Reader as I find it quite a fascinating premise (not to sound trivializing when discussing such a large traumatic historical event), but a lot of my academic writing in graduate school focused on trauma studies that included the perpetrator's point of view so I guess it makes sense then lol. I am very happy with the additions that you made as they are very strong and great ways of dealing with rather difficult subject matters (wonderful choices for the supporting sources too). If the Allen discussion unfolds any further, then that part may be subject to change, which is fine. I fully support this for promotion; a very interesting and informative overview of the actress' career. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Aoba47. It was a pleasure interacting with you. I'll take a look at your FAC later this week. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and it was a pleasure working with you too. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose from Moisejp. I've read the article twice and made a number of small copy-edits throughout. Two minor suggestions that don't affect my support:

  • "Catherine Shoard of The Guardian took note of the "emotional honesty" Winslet brought to her part, but criticised the film." Readers may wonder what about the film Shoard criticised.
  • "The cast rehearsed each act like a play and filmed it in sequence. Winslet collaborated closely with Fassbender, and their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman." It would be nice to know in what way the their off-screen relationship mirrored the dynamic between Jobs and Hoffman. Moisejp (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Moisejp: thank you for the support and for your helpful copy-edits. I really appreciate it. As per your two points, I've elaborated on the prose. I hope the infos are clearer now. Thanks again, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a fictional character who appears in the 23rd James Bond film Skyfall (2012). Even though Sévérine has a relatively minor role in the overall film, the character was prominently featured in promotional materials and discussed during interviews. Media outlets frequently compared Sévérine to past Bond girls; Marlohe said that she looked to Xenia Onatopp as a point of inspiration for her own performance.

Critical response to Bond's treatment of Sévérine has been largely negative; commentators responded negatively to Bond's seduction of the character after discovering that she was a sex slave, and his cold response to her death. The character has also been a topic of racial criticism, receiving comparisons to previous Bond girls Aki, Kissy Suzuki, and Wai Lin.

I had written and expanded this article to the point of GA earlier in the year. I am very proud of the work that I have done for this, and I believe that it meets all of the requirements to be an FA. I am looking forward to everyone’s comments and suggestions. If successful, this would be the first featured article on a character from the James Bond films. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Wondering if we need to have two non-free images here - seems to me the second would be sufficient to illustrate the character and her wardrobe. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for your message. The first image (the infobox one) focuses more so on the character while the second one (the one on the dress) more so focuses on a particular aspect of the character's wardrobe that attracted quite a bit of attention from media outlets. I understand your point though; what would you suggest? Do you think that the dress image should be moved up to the infobox? I just found it helpful to have the dress image next to the information that discusses it. Hope this makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd suggest moving up the dress image and deleting the other. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have moved the dress image up and deleted the other image per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

It looks well written. I'm not experienced with film characters but I wonder if you could balance the lead section because the first one feels too small. Imagine like if you are writing a formal letter and write a premise of her role in the film rather than everything from her arc in the lead. Feel free to ping me. I think it's good FA material. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment. I have worked to try to balance out the different paragraphs more. I also want each paragraph to stand for a different section, with the first being about the character in the film, the second about the production/casting/background, and the third about the reception. Hope the changes help to improve this and thank you again for the input. Aoba47 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources comment

Can you explain your approach towards the inclusion of retrieval dates in your references? You include them in refs 2 and 39, but not otherwise. I can't see why this should be so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your comment. I had forgotten to remove the retrieval dates from those two sources so I apologize for that. I have removed them now. Please let me know if anything else can be improved. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I was rather expecting that you would add retrieval dates to the others, rather than deleting those you had. What's the justification? Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your comment. To the best of my knowledge, retrieval dates are only added and kept if the reference is not archived in some manner. I have been told in previous reviews that the retrieval date is useful when the link dies as it provides a date in which the site was active and lets you go back into a website archive to restore it. I have also been told in previous reviews that adding three dates (the date of the source's publication, retrieval date, and archive date) leads to a lot of unnecessary numbers in the references section. Hope this makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It makes sense, but is it best accepted practice? I see that the current FAC's Kate Winslet, Lady Gaga and The Carpenters all show archive + retrieval dates, as does the recently promoted DJ AM and... well, most of the articles I remember source-reviewing recently. However, I see that with your own Melanie Barnett I accepted your approach without comment. If no one else raises this issue I won't press it, but in future it may be worth your while to adopt what seems to be the most general FA practice. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your comment. I think that it would be best if there was a discussion in the future to establish what the accepted FA practice should be as just going off other articles or doing what one thinks is "the most general FA practice" is too vague and could lead to issues. It would be better to have it put into a Wikipedia policy of some sort instead and have a consensus reached by a larger group of users. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

  • Re: "Waste of good Whiskey", he actually says "it's a waste of good Scotch."
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It isn't clear what "the most realized sequence of the movie" means. The archived link to that article doesn't work for me, by the way; it shows the article then disappears. Also, when using that template, you should add "deadurl=no" if the original link is live, so that the live link is presented first. That produces:
Berlatsky, Noah (November 12, 2012). "James Bond's New, Not-So-Progressive Mommy Complex". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on May 2, 2017. 
SarahSV (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have used the citation that you have provided. I have also revised the portion you found unclear. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for your comments so far. I have addressed both of your points of concern. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Hope you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You changed only one template. The template default is "dead-url=yes", so all the citations with live links need "dead-url=no" to change the display order (that's assuming you want to provide an archive link; it isn't necessary). Compare:
  • Rothman, Lily (November 9, 2012). "New Bond Girl Bérénice Marlohe on Joining the Exclusive Club—and Its Fashion Perks". Time. Archived from the original on May 2, 2017. 
  • Rothman, Lily (November 9, 2012). "New Bond Girl Bérénice Marlohe on Joining the Exclusive Club—and Its Fashion Perks". Time. Archived from the original on May 2, 2017. 
SarahSV (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for pointing this. I am not sure how I missed that so I apologize for that. Please let me know if there are any sources that I missed. Have a great day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Aoba47, there are a few problems with the citations, so please go through them and check for accuracy and consistency. Two examples (these are only examples): current citation 15 (Den of Geek) is displaying as dead but it's live, and citation 16 (Evening Standard) has the wrong article title, and why is George Osborne, the newspaper's editor, added as the publisher in that citation? With newspapers, you only have to add the title of the newspaper. You don't need publisher, editor or anything else, unless perhaps it's an unusual title and people need more details to track it down. SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: Thank you for your comment. I have gone through all of the citations and made corrections where appropriate. I have tagged a few sources as dead as the link no longer works on my end. I have address the issue with publisher. I just wanted to be complete as possible with the citation, but I understand what you mean and will make sure to modify my citation style and approach in the future to adhere to Wikipedia policy and style. I have also made sure that the titles match up. I am glad that I checked as I made quite a few silly mistakes so it definitely improved the article a great deal. I am really proud of my work on this one so I just want to make it as strong as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • One problem with the article is that it repeats a lot of PR interviews, often nothing to do with the character. For example (these are just examples), "Mendes said that Marlohe was 'brilliant' during her second audition" and "Marlohe called the role a 'turning point in [her] career'." There is a lot of quoting, "A said x", rather than summarizing the sources in your own words. SarahSV (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @SlimVirgin: I have cut down several of the quotes. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that it has "nothing to do with the character" as the casting and the actress' point of view are important pieces of background information that would be necessary for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG


  • Portrayed by Bérénice Marlohe - play is more preferable.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • She collaborates with James Bond - might be worth mentioning who plays Bond in Skyfall.
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Media commentators characterized Sévérine as a femme fatale - as femme fatale is French (non-English), it should be in italics.
  • I am not entirely certain about this. In my opinion, the word "femme fatale" has entered into English enough for it to be understood by an English audience so I do not believe that the italics are necessary. However, if you strongly believe otherwise, then I will put it in italics. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It is common enough in English. However, we still italicize it (at least I have seen nee in italics in many articles) and so does the article we have on it on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Critics had a mixed response to Sévérine, comparing her to previous Bond girls. The response to Bond's treatment of Sévérine was largely negative; commentators panned Bond's seduction of the character after discovering that she was a sex slave, and his cold response to her death. - close repetition of "response".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


  • As I intend to watch Skyfall in the future, I am going to skip this section to avoid spoilers.
  • Hope you enjoy the film! Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Casting and influences

  • The others include: Carole Bouquet, Claudine Auger, Sophie Marceau, and Eva Green. - this is better off as a footnote.
  • Good point! I always forget about footnotes on here so thank you for the reminder. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A strong believer in fate, Marlohe stated that she dreamt of acting alongside Javier Bardem six months before her Bond audition - not a fan of dream of, maybe wanted to act alongside?
  • Agreed, "dream of" is a little too cheesy for a Wikipedia article so I have used your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Because that part stood out when I first read it a few months ago, I read up a little further on it. Marlohe literally had a dream where she acted alongside Bardem, it wasn't just a wish to work with him. That's why it ties into the whole fate aspect. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with your point. I have changed it back to include the "dream" verbage as it does more accurately reflect the source. Thank you for bringing this up. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To prepare for the role, she studied the script closely - do we really need this part? Isn't that true of most professional actors?
  • That is true. I just added it as the source made a particular point of it, but I agree with you. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • While preparing for the role, Marlohe also paid close attention to the soundtracks of the earlier films, saying that she focused on "respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies" - while this also works where it currently is, I think it will work better at the second paragraph of Casting and influences, where we discuss her preparation for the role.

More later. FrB.TG (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. I agree with your suggestion that it fits more so more with the second paragraph and I have moved it accordingly. Thank you for your comments so far and I look forward to the rest of your review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


  • explaining that she aimed to imagine the character as more modern and realistic; she explained - two explain's
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • She went to say that she did not - went on to is completely unnecessary here. Just said should suffice, I believe.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


  • The backless evening gown that Sévérine is wearing - present simple should be more preferable. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Critical reception

  • "Marlohe attributed to keeping her a character's storyline a surprise for viewers" - "her character" not "her a character" unless I am missing something.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Ali Gray of referred to the character as a "pale reminder of 007's usual line of gorgeous yet meaningless female companions".[24]" - the source attached to it from a Mikhail Lecaros. Also, why is this source reliable?
  • Good point. I have removed the source as I could not locate any information on their editors on the main website. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Feminist criticism

  • "The critical response to Sévérine's death sequence was primarily negative" - unnecessary definite article.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Racial criticism

  • "Sévérine was characterized as the Asian Other through the black evening gown" - I am not sure here but does Other need to be capitalized?
  • Revised. I have it revised as a reference to the linked concept, but I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That's it from me although it would certainly not bad if a fresh pair of eyes provides another in-depth review. That said, I will support this once why my minor comments are addressed. FrB.TG (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review. I believe that I addressed everything. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article's quality. I hope you have a wonderful day! And since this nomination is still pretty recent, there is plenty of time for more people to review it hopefully. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose. I’m sure it’ll improve more with more reviews, but as it currently stands it makes for an good read. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moise


  • “Critics had a mixed response to Sévérine, comparing her to previous Bond girls.“ I’m not sure what the second half of this sentence means here. Possibly “compared with previous Bond girls” (?) but even then it doesn’t seem like the clearest thing to say.” Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have revised the sentence to read better. What I was trying to communicate was that critics have both positively and negatively compared the character to previous Bond girls in the franchise. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• “The character has also been a topic of racial criticism, receiving comparisons to previous Bond girls Aki, Kissy Suzuki, and Wai Lin.” I would argue that in the lead more important than who she was compared to would be what kind of racial criticisms commentators had mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Makes sense. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Casting and influences:

  • “Mendes praised Marlohe during her second audition.” Doesn’t seem very useful or illuminating as is. Presumably Mendes would have been happy with her audition or he wouldn’t have cast her, so just saying he “praised” her doesn’t do much. I haven’t read the source but I recommend either removing the sentence or add to it to highlight the particular aspects of her audition that impressed Mendes. Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have removed the sentence as it is rather silly. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Marlohe also paid close attention to the soundtracks of the earlier films, saying that she focused on "respecting the spirit of the James Bond movies". " I'm not sure what this sentence means. She listened to the music of the earlier films and that affected her acting decisions?
  • Revised it to hopefully be clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Even with your edit, I’m not sure what this means in concrete terms. I haven’t read the source but, for example, if it said something like that she used the mysteriouness/aggression/sexiness/whatever of the music to help her get into character, that is something I could understand more clearly. Moisejp (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph seems to jump around and has no clear cohesiveness about its overall topic. It talks about her dream she'd get the part, then practicing firearms for the part, then about her listening to music of earlier films, then about how the film led to other career opportunities. I might suggest considering breaking up the para and moving each sentence somewhere more appropriate. Possible ideas:
  • The first sentence of paragraph two could be put at the end of the paragraph one.
  • I have moved to the first paragraph, but I put it before the sentence on the two auditions to hopefully make some sort of flow. Please let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The second sentence, while interesting, may not clearly belong in the Casting and influences section. Maybe it better belongs in the Skyfall main article?
  • Good point, and it is also a pretty minor point that does not really connect with anything. Also, since the character never used firearms on the show, I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The third sentence, if you can get it to work more clearly, could go in the final (currently third) paragraph.
  • Moved to the third paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The fourth sentence could go at the end of the first para. In this way, you would have paragraph 1 about "casting" and paragraph 2 about "influences". Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved to the first paragraph. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


  • “When asked to define the traits of a Bond girl, she perceived the role as "a powerful woman with a kind of male charisma and male power" and a "bit of animality”.” I’d argue “perceived” is a little awkward here because it suggests a longer-lasting verb, whereas “When asked” suggests something prompted at a specific moment in time. Moisejp (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I’m not saying you should necessarily remove it but just saying I found the part a bit pretentious and unconvincing where she says she wanted to portray more than just a Bond girl but a real human being. I found myself thinking, “Don’t all actors normally strive to bring depth to their characterization? Don’t all actors want to feel like their performance is multidimensional? Don’t talk about it, just do the performance and let it speak for itself.” That’s my reaction to that part of the article, which mentions “human being” three times. I feel it would be a little more engaging if that component was reduced even slightly. But if you argue that that’s not a reaction to the article (but rather to what she says), and you’re just reporting what she says, then I’d say ok, don’t change it. Moisejp (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand your point, and I completely agree with your reasoning. I have revised the portion. I have removed the first "human being" quote as it is a rather silly inclusion and I wanted the sentence to focus on her inspiration from the "chimera". I kept the second "human being" quote primarily for how she talks about the "Bond girl" concept, which I find interesting and noteworthy enough for inclusion. Let me know what you think. Hopefully, I made it better. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • “while Yahoo!'s Frank DiGiacomo regarded the character as complicated”. Again, I’m not sure that just “complicated” is very useful or illuminating information for the reader. Moisejp (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with you. I have removed the part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • “Sévérine has a titular instrumental track on the film's soundtrack,[18] which is a "string-drenched" piece playing during her sex scene with Bond.[19] To pass China's censorship laws, references to prostitution were removed from the subtitles. Sévérine's tattoo was changed from a symbol of a Chinese sex trafficking operation to that of a gang.” With more information about the specific character of the track than just “string-drenched”, the first sentence could arguably be considered to be about characterization. But I don’t know that the second sentence belongs here. Maybe it could be moved to a footnote where the tattoo is first mentioned? Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I have moved the tattoo bit to a footnote (I really should use footnotes more in the future). I have removed the sentence on the soundtrack, as I cannot locate the "string-drenched" quote again for some reason and I cannot locate any further information on the soundtrack piece. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Jaguar

Just read through the article. I've arrived late to the FAC and thus can't raise any issues as I couldn't find any. Although I do think it might be a good idea to link Macau in its first mention (for accessibility's sake), but other than that the prose is of an excellent standard and I couldn't find any issues with the sourcing either, so I'll go ahead and support this. If a source review hasn't already been performed I could go ahead and spotcheck the sources? JAGUAR  19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment and your support. I have added the link for Macau as suggested. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Rogožarski IK-3

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a pretty reasonable home-grown Yugoslav fighter aircraft of which only 12 were produced. Their pilots fought bravely against the April 1941 invasion of their country, but most if not all were destroyed in the fighting. The design was used as the basis for the locally built post-war S-49 fighter. This article went through Milhist A-Class review a year or so ago, and has been stable since then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rogozarski_IK-3.jpg: bit confused by the sourcing here - is this own work, or taken from the given site? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Own work by the look of it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

The only thing I can find is that you need to lose "England" from the location of the Green & Swanborough book. Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Black honeyeater

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Another day another bird..this was well-buffed many moons ago by a long-departed user. Have gone over it and have the sources handy, and am confident this is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: @Casliber:: I was BOLD and added an illustration by John and Elizabeth Gould. Feel free to remove if it's excessive, but I think it'd be nice to have when discussing its taxonomic history. Umimmak (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
the illustration is a good addition Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'm still learning the specific of what makes a good FA so I don't want to commit one way or the other, but after reading I have the following questions:

  • "It was subsequently reclassified in its own genus Sugomel." Article text doesn't talk it ever being in Sugomel in the first place. ***Re***classsifying is confusing if you never mention it being classified in Sugomel
I have added a bit - but a little more is coming (to explain why it wasn't used for 80 years) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And if Salomonsen transferred it from Myzomela to Certhionyx in 1967, when did it go back to Myzomela from being in Sugomel as per Mathews 1922?
Aha, this needs explaining. Mathews was an amateur ornithologist who was an extreme splitter - making numerous new genera, species and subspecies, that were not upheld by later authors. However, as they still had valid descriptions, they have priority to be resurrected should future research prove any to be valid...such as Sugomel. I can see this needs a bit of elaboration in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Where are the actual citations to Gould 1828, Mathews 1922, Salomonsen 1967?
I haven't added the ones I can't access and see myself Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do you discuss the etymology of the generic name Myzomela, which has its own article (this genus was named well before this species was named, so it's weird to say it's named because this bird eats nectar...), but not of Sugomel, which this also is the article for as it's monospecific?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And also since this is the article for Sugomel as well (should be bolded in lede), are there any synonyms for the genus? Have any other species been classified in this genus?
yes, not really, no Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What happened to Myzomela nigra ashbyi Mathews 1912? Were there other subspecies? Have they all been synonymized to specific level? Made to be their own species? When were they no longer accepted?
see above. outcome added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Immature birds are not separable from adults at a distance" What does this mean? That humans can't tell one from the other at a distance? Umimmak (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Added 08:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
correct. changed to "distinguishable" to avoid confusion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Umimmak: regarding supporting or opposing, in general when I review I keep going until I can't find anything else specific to complain well as looking at criteria Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

As always, some quick ones first:

  • The first sentence in the lead is kind of odd... Maybe say "in the honeyeater family" instead of "in the family of honeyeaters"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second sentence, "The black honeyeater exhibits sexual dimorphism with the male being black and white while the female is a speckled grey-brown; immature birds look like the female", there should be comma after "dimorphism".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "on the wing", it'd be better to say "in flight", so that there isn't any ambiguity.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "While the population appears to be decreasing, they are sufficiently numerous and widespread to be considered of Least Concern on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Red List of Endangered species", there are a few problems. First off, you shouldn't use "they" so you can be consistent with using singular pronouns like "it". Also, it sounds a bit odd to be considered "of Least Concern". Maybe just say "least concern"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the taxonomy section, you say "IOC Birdlist", but then you later say the organization's name in full. Maybe you could switch this?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to specify what hemisphere you are referring to whenever you say a season (see "Some movements are southwards in spring and summer, moving northwards again in autumn and winter.")
I added before the first ones in that sentence only as I figured it implies it covers the second set as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC) More:

  • It's odd how, in the taxonomy section, you use both single and double quotes to refer to the translations of the foreign terms. Use one or the other. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
changed to double Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Australian amateur ornithologist Gregory Mathews placed the black honeyeater in its own genus Sugomel in 1922, the name derived from the Latin sugo 'I suck', and mel 'honey'" [double quotes in the sentence changed to single quotes], it looks weird to just say "the name derived from". Maybe say "the name being derived from"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do you say that it was transferred from Myzomela to Certhionyx right after you said that Matthews placed it in Sugomel? I'm assuming that it was not generally accepted at the time, or almost certainly not accepted by all at the time, so maybe say that? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
no-one followed Mathews - he made new genera and species everywhere, most of which were not adopted. I need a source which shows this though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: maybe these might be useful, not specifically about Sugomel, tho, so it might be considered improper synthesis: [1]; [2]. If you do find a good ref on him, it might be useful also adding to the article on Mathews himself; I don't know much about the history of ornithological taxonomy to be able to tell which sources are representative. Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
those led me elsewhere - agree they are a bit tangential to this species, but would be good for Mathews article. I am musing on whether a footnote on Mathews would be useful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a bit repetitive to end both of these sentences with "all": "However, in 2004 genetic study of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of honeyeaters found that the three species classified in the genus Certhionyx were not closely related to one another at all. Instead, the black honeyeater was closely related to species within Myzomela after all." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
first one removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's odd how you have this sentence at the end of the first taxonomy paragraph: "A 2017 genetic study using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA indicates that the ancestor of the black honeyeater diverged from that of the scaly-crowned honeyeater (Lichmera lombokia) just under million years ago, and the two have some affinities the genus Myzomela." Before, you talk about how it the black honeyeater was basal to Myzomela. But, just after that, and just before the aforementioned sentence, you talk about what its accepted scientific name today is. So, it would make more sense if that were at the end, and if the sentence about the 2017 study was before it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: do you have any other issues that you think I need to address? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The black honeyeater is a small honeyeater with a long slender down-curved bill, a small rounded head and slender neck set on a plump body, and a short, slightly cleft tail", the second honeyeater should be eliminated, and maybe replaced with "relatively small". Also, having all of those adjectives before bill sounds a bit odd; maybe put commas between them? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"small honeyeater" removed, and commas added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this clause, "It has relatively long, pointed wings compared with other honeyeaters", the latter part sounds off. Maybe say "for a honeyeater" instead of "compared with other honeyeaters"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You say "The black honeyeater is quiet outside the breeding season, but calls before and during nesting, often early in the morning", but you don't specify what exactly "before" nesting is. Do you mean when searching for a nest? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
the source just says before and during the nesting part of the breeding season. I can't infer anything else Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It sounds a bit odd when you say "The calls include a soft metallic "chwit, chwit"; a louder note, a "tieee", with a monotonously even pitch and spacing at intervals of several seconds; and a weak "peeee", usually uttered by breeding males." Specifically, I think that it would make more sense if you said "and spacing, having intervals of several seconds between notes". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • What does "high song flights" mean in this sentence: "In high song flights the males give a double noted 'tieee-tieee'"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure as it was added by the person who brought it to GA. It is not in the source. I suspect it is the same call as "chwit, chwit" in the previous sentence. I have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • When you say "which may be a food call for the young" in the sentence "A soft scolding call is given by both sexes after the young hatch, which may be a food call for the young", do you mean that the young adopt it as a begging call, or do you mean that it is used by the parents to show to the young that they have food? Either way, it needs to be specified. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
It means the latter. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a bit of repetition here: "It is constantly on the move, hovering and hawking when feeding, and constantly chasing intruders at food sources." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
second one removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • After "widespread" and "scattered" there should be a comma in the sentence "The black honeyeater is a bird of the dry inland of Australia, being generally widespread though scattered in western Queenslandand New South Wales to the South Australian border and occasionally recorded in the Victorian Mallee and Wimmera regions." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
comma afrer "border" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of "plant-bird association", shouldn't it be "plant–bird association"? I mean, plant isn't modifying bird, so you should probably use an en dash instead. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Some movements are southwards in the Southern Hemisphere spring and summer, and northwards again in autumn and winter", do you mean "Some move southward"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
yes/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you mean "during" instead of "in": "However favourable conditions may result in it breeding anywhere in an irruption"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the behaviour section, saying "plants in flower" sounds a bit odd; do you mean "plants that are flowering"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
"in flower" carrries a specific connotation that the plant is in its flowering season, not just spotting a few flowers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't "long" have a comma after it in the sentence "The black honeyeater feeds on nectar, probing flowers and foliage with its long fine bill." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • When you say "The black honeyeater hovers briefly around flowers when feeding", do you mean that it flits around from flower to flower, feeding briefly at each one? If so, it would probably be best to instead say "The black honeyeater flies from flower to flower when feeding, briefly hovering to feed at each one." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Your version seems a bit wordy but tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few instances of "they" in the article. It would be nice if they could be corrected. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
changed a couple. The conservation ones refer to multiple species, hence am leaving it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This sentence is redundant: "Like many other honeyeaters, the black honeyeater catches insects in flight." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I've read this through several times and removed it in my head. I don't think I agree. Linking it to other members of the genus anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You should use the present tense instead of the past tense here: "The male, in particular, will rise to a height of 15 metres (50 ft) to seize an insect in mid-air, and then drop to a regularly used perch." Also, saying "15 meters" is oddly specific; do you mean that it rises to a height of up to 15 meters? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
tweaked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this sentence "A study of black honeyeaters at seven sites in Western Australia regularly recorded breeding females eating ash from the campsite fires and often making repeated visits over a brief period of time", you shouldn't use the definite article "the" before "campsite fires", as you have not introduced such fires yet. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
good point. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There should be an indefinite article before "Wheatbelt". Either that or "wandoo" should be plural: "After pecking at the ash, some of the females foraged for insects, sallying from the foliage of nearby Wheatbelt wandoo (Eucalyptus capillosa) before returning for more ash." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
went with plural Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the breeding section, instead of saying "mostly between August and November", it might be better to say "although most breed between August and November". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
that is pretty wordy - there are a lot of "breed"s as is and I don't think there is any ambiguity to clear up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • At the end of this sentence "Black honeyeater populations concentrate for breeding wherever the right plants are in flower and there is an abundance of insects, essential for feeding the young", do you mean that both the plants and flower and the insects help feed the young? If so, say "both" before essential, or otherwise specific with "the latter". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
"both" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Either put a comma after "'song flights'" or replace "which" with "that": "At the beginning of the mating season, males can be seen soaring in 'song flights' which consist of a series of zigzagging movements, high into the air, accompanied by constant calling." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this clause, "Breeding pairs of black honeyeaters nest in groups or loose colonies", I assume you mean small groups/colonies? If so, please specify. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I have tried to clarify. does that make it clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep! I also just added only before "several pairs", because it looks a bit odd otherwise. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you please clear up this clause: "though sometimes fallen timber including a fallen Callitris pine is chosen as the nest site"? Do you mean fallen timber, especially those containing Callitris members? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
the source says this - ultimately I have removed the segment on Callitris as I think fallen logs are fallen logs and can imagine the default is to be nonspecific. I think the source just had it as an example Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming that this a rough number, or does the source specifically say that they are pretty much always that size? This is in relation to this sentence: "The female lays two to three eggs that are 15 millimetres (0.59 in) long, 12 millimetres (0.47 in) wide and have an unusual swollen oval shape." If the source doesn't specify, then you should probably say "about". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
changed to 1 significant figure in the convert template, which was overlooked. The source is in mm only Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that is certainly a good fix, but I was originally referring to the mm measurements anyways. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It should probably be made clear to non-birders that this is nest parasitism in this sentence "Black honeyeater nests are occasionally parasitised by Horsfield's bronze cuckoo (Chrysococcyx basalis)." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow - the sentence says "nests" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the breeding section, "on the wing" should probably be replaced with "in the air" (this does seem to have been addressed earlier in one place, but it seems not here). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • When you say "giving weak calls in an effort to lure the intruder away from the nest", do you mean that it goes away from the nests in an attempt to lure the intruders away, or do you mean that it tries to "scare" predators away? Either way, it needs to be specified. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
the word "lure" means attract something towards you - hence it means the former and not the latter meaning above unambiguously Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the fourth paragraph, you give more information about incubation. Maybe you should put the information about incubation from the third paragraph into the fourth. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I amalgamated the paras as there is no clear point of division Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this sentence, "The black honeyeater may be adversely affected by the loss of the emu bush to grazing and weed control by farmers", it might be better to say "due to" instead of just "to". Also, that sentence might be able to be incorporated somehow before the last sentence and after the sentence on specialization. Really, I think that the IUCN status, which is one of the most important pieces of information, should be put first. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good point. swapped around. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "They added that although nomadic species such as the black honeyeater may have a large distribution" - You said earlier that it isn't nomadic. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I added this as the main point is that there are regular seasonal patterns as well as a degree of nomadism. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That should be all! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • The language of the foreign source should be identified. No other nitpicks. The sources all seem to be of the appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
language added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

  • Highly readable and enjoyable. I made a small number of minor edits as I went; please revert any that seem misguided. Here are a few more, nothing big.
changes look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "In 2004 genetic study...". – This bumps a little. I think either a comma after 2004 or the word "a" before 2004 would help.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "and the two have some affinities the genus Myzomela – Missing word, "with" after "affinities"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 DNA is linked earlier in this section. Unlink this second one?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "has shown honeyeater family" – Missing word "the" before "honeyeater"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "The black honeyeater is a small honeyeater with a long slender down-curved bill,..." – Tighten to avoid repeating "honeyeater"? Suggestion: "The black honeyeater is small, with a long slender down-curved bill,...".
done (see above) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 Move hawking link up one sentence to the first instance in the main text?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat
  • ¶1 "being generally widespread if scattered in western..." – "Though" might work better than "if" in this context.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "with some rare records" — Maybe "rare sightings"? Or does "records" have a special meaning?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "The incubation period is around sixteen days, and the fledging period approximately eighteen days..." – Move the link up from here to ¶2, where the word "fledge" first appears in " by the time the chicks fledge..."?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Conservation status
  • ¶1 Add a brief descriptor such as "biologist" to Claire A. Runge?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem with dabs.
  • No dead URLs.
  • I see a bit of overlinking in the main text. I noted DNA already. Others include incubation, Western Australia, hawking, John Gould, and pied honeyeater.
removed some duplicate links Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Two of the four images have alt text. I don't know if it's possible to add alt text to a taxobox.
  • All looks fine. Support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thx! 02:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz

  • The lead is fairly short - consider adding placement of nest and number of eggs
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


  • "The black honeyeater was first described by English naturalist John Gould in 1838 as Myzomela nigra,". There is no cite for this statement. The original description is Gould, John (1838). Birds of Australia and the adjacent islands. Part II. Plate 8. OCLC 492428597.  but this is very rare and I can't find a scan online. (Gould "suppressed" the series of plates.) You could instead cite: Paynter, Raymond A. Jr, ed. (1986). Check-list of Birds of the World. Volume 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. p. 364. 
The Australian Faunal Directory page is a secondary source that can ref that. But not the meaning of the name. I have an idea where I can get that have added from another source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This section is repetitive - "ornithologist xxx did this". Consider removing the sentence on Tommaso Salvadori as his contribution doesn't seem significant.
am in two minds about this - I find his amusing as he got the location wrong. And I think fallibility is a Good Thing to show from time to time... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1967 ornithologist Finn Salomonsen transferred the species from Myzomela to the genus Certhionyx" - This was in Paynter cited above (Salomonsen in Paynter ed. p.338). Perhaps worth adding a cite to this.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is identified as Sugomel niger by most taxonomic authorities," This is not correct. All four world lists now have Sugomel nigrum - not just the IOC.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


  • "Immature birds are not distinguishable from adults at a distance." Make it clear that you are referring to adult *female* birds.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gould described its flight as "remarkably quick, and performed with zigzag starts".[21]" Better to cite Gould rather than some article behind a pay-wall. The reference is: Gould, John (1848). The Birds of Australia. Volume 4. London: Self-published. Plate 66. 
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


  • "Normally found alone, in pairs or in small flocks," this seems to repeat the sentence at the beginning of the section. Why "Normally"?
Dunno - that was written by the person who took it to GA. Removed repetition (and "normally"). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Like many other honeyeaters, the black honeyeater catches insects" - Perhaps include a mention of insects in the introduction to the paragraph - hawking is presumably important as young fed insects.
not sure where you mean - the lead? Is already mentioned there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I meant the same paragraph beginning "The black honeyeater feeds on nectar " - which I mistakenly interpreted as feeding exclusively on nectar so it came as a slight surprise to discover at the end of the para that they also feed on insects. Perhaps mention nectar and insects at the beginning of the para and then give details but this isn't a deal breaker. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Nearly there. A couple of questions:

  • Are the young fed exclusively on insects or do the parents also regurgitate food?
Higgins just says fed on insects that the parents catch. No mention of regurgitation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Are the young independent of their parents as soon as they leave the nest?
Have added what I can from Higgins. I suspect the young are independent within a few days but the source does not explicitly say that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Although I accept that "Birds in Backyards" passes muster as a RS - I would still prefer to see cites to HANZAB or similar. - no action required

- Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Supported above. Another excellent article. Good work. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Golden jackal

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the golden jackal, which is a Eurasian canine that is similar in appearance to a small gray wolf. The article receives an average of 700 visitors a day with occasional spikes of twice that. It was listed as a WP:GA on 29 November 2016 based on the work of User:Mariomassone, has since been expanded by 30kb, and recently reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. If successful, this will be the only extant wild Canis article at WP:FA level. William Harris • (talk) • 21:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the range map in the article body Now scaled up 300px
  • File:Tibetan_mastiff_(white_background).jpg: source link is dead New link provided. Note: this is a Pinterest link.
  • File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_I).jpg should include publication date and author date of death. Same with other images from that source Dates now provided on all of these images
  • File:MSU_V2P1a_-_Canis_aureus_skull.png: source gives a publication date of 1998 and has a clear copyright notice - the scan was digitized with permission, not seeing support for the given tag Replaced
  • File:Albino_Jackal_2.jpg: source link is dead, on what are we basing the given copyright tag, and what is the status of the work in the US? Pix removed; copyright held by the Iranian Cheetah Society 2015
  • File:Canis_aureus_subspecies_range.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Image now populated with references provided for their distribution found in the "Subspecies" section.
  • File:T2JB005_-_Good_luck_go_with_you,_O_chief_of_the_wolves.JPG needs a US PD tag.Tagged

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Nikkimaria, thanks once again for getting us "outlaws" compliant. My only concern is with the Tibetan mastiff image, and seek your opinion on that one, please. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, did you have a specific question about it? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Only the use of a Pinterest link and if that is sufficient; that pix appears to have been taken from the same site as our pix from China. The Chinese website that the image was derived from has a broken link (as you have found), and has most likely been moved elsewhere. I attempted to track down the artwork to a gallery in China (using English) but the best I could find was text about where it had once been displayed while on tour across a number of galleries. Thanks for your advice. William Harris • (talk) • 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

*Comments taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For starters, I wouldn't say straight off that it looks like something else, and you then mention gray wolves again in the next sentence. I have been bold and rewritten like this, how do you feel about that? I'd add female weight maybe and body length of both sexes.
I started off with a quick description of what it is. Then followed this with some detail (which could appear later in the lead). We appear to have shifted to describing where a thing lives before describing that thing. We need to ask ourselves what is most important for the first sentence - that it looks similar to a small wolf or what its distribution is? I saw a taxidermied one standing beside lupus at the city museum today - it looks like a small wolf. Perhaps there is other wording that comes to mind?
I had deliberately avoided putting too many measurements in the lead - I only wanted to compare the size roughly with the small Arabian wolf, and leave the other measurements to be found in the text.
Agreed/point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I have reinstated Corinne's earlier version of this paragraph; it is currently the best proposal on offer where we share common ground.
The distant ancestor of the golden jackal is believed to be the extinct Arno river dog that lived in Mediterranean Europe 1.9 million years ago. - "distant" is subjective...actually pretty close in paleonotological terms...
Agreed, amended.
Golden jackals are abundant in valleys and beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, and seashores - "beside" strikes me as an odd preposition to use here...I'd go with "alongside" or "near" or somesuch
Amended to alongside - much better word.
Despite its name, the golden jackal is not closely related to the African black-backed or side-striped jackals, being instead more closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf, and Ethiopian wolf. - I'd move this line to the etymology section.
Removed "Despite its name", removing this as a naming issue and focusing on the relationships under Evolution.
Given that we're saying in the lead it has seven subspecies, presumably the results that are discussed in para 2 of Taxonomy section are now accepted. In which case they should be written in past tense rather than present/future tense.
When hunting alone, it will trot around an area and occasionally stop to sniff and listen. Once prey is located, it will conceal itself, quickly approach, then pounce - convert to present (rather than future) tense
In the Cooperation section you're using italics rather than quote marks for jackal sounds. Need to align. Personally I prefer italics but not a hard and fast rule...
In the past, the tiger and the leopard were enemies of the jackal, - err, "enemies" is not a word I'd use here .."competed with" or something

Overall, kudos for taking this article on, and I think it is not too far off FA status. I'll have another read later. Please check you're happy with my changes overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your initial comments. William Harris • (talk) • 11:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Some vertebrate species have binomial names after in brackets, others (such as pallid harrier) don't - they should be aligned. My personal preference is to do so to avoid seas of blue in links but not a hard and fast rule by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials to clearly distinguish who these are and avoid confusion, especially the aureus subspecies. The trees and shrubs have binomials because those were given in the orignal references but I am not sure that Wikipedia's attempts at matching these to article names has been entirely successful - there is some confusion. The diseases and parasites have binomials because these were given in references and I have absolutely no idea on this topic and will leave following what these are to the parasite purists. In summary, I have tried to minimize the use of binomials unless it helps to avoid confusion. There is some inconsistency, however it is also reasonably accurate.
point taken. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
A thought, if GOJAGE is notable is it worth a sentence or two on them in material about conservation?
Excellent proposal, now included. Is the external link still required?
Nope, so I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
muskrats constituted 12.3% of jackal faeces contents - "muskrats constituted 12.3% of jackal faecal contents"...?

I am finding little else to complain about...which is a good thing.. ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree "Doc" - the more you prescribe, the healthier the article becomes. William Harris • (talk) • 07:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ok, support on comprehensiveness and prose. I can't see any other prose glitches standing out, nor any other glaring omissions of information. I am iffy on y'all's preferred version of the lead but accept your rationale for keeping it that way and can see the point. Is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements. I thought the external link might go. Regarding the lead, I expect there may be other proposals before this process has finished. We have yet to hear from "dino-boy" (Funkmonk) - it is only a matter of time :-) William Harris • (talk) • 10:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Just a few minor format points:

  • Page range formats should be consistent. In most cases you use the "full number" format. e.g. "140–41" but on several occasions you use shorter forms . See e.g. refs 9, 29, 32, 83, 91 and possibly others
In accordance with WP:CITET, for a journal article I provide the range of pages the article appeared on in the journal. For a book I provide the specific page that the topic refers to, unless it refers to text that spans multiple pages. Much of Heptner refers to text that spans multiple pages. I could have used here the one reference and covered pages 138-165 but that may have made finding one passage difficult for a reader.
  • You don't generally give publisher locations for book sources, but in ref 23 you do.
Many thanks: (1) I try not to give locations as it is not worth the effort in a world of global publishers, plus (2) I noticed that the link to the page is now broken, so I have removed that link, thanks.
  • Ref 48 has an open page range. Since the book has nearly 400 pages, is it possible to close it?
Ooops! Amended.

Subject to the above, sources are in good order, of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks; I wondered who was going to wade through all of that. I use inline citations and place all of the references neatly under the Reference section to help someone like you conduct an inspection. William Harris • (talk) • 08:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

William Harris While I am flattered you would reinstate my earlier wording with this edit, I have to say that I think Cas Liber's wording was better. It is too early in the article for a somewhat convoluted construction such as "compared with which...". The simple, direct wording of Cas Liber is better. If it is just the inclusion of Eastern Europe as one of the places in which the golden jackal is native, that detail can be fixed. Is there anything besides that you didn't like in Cas Liber's wording?  – Corinne (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I will ping some people for further input as it is an interesting conundrum...@John:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to be very precise with this one because once it gains FA this will then form the "template" by which other wild Canis submissions will follow in the future. If you were a primary school teacher and were to ask your students the question "What is a golden jackal", how might you award marks to the following answers: (a) it is a small wolf (b) it lives in Southwest Europe........
I am inclined to refine the first sentence further to simply "The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small, wolf-like canine". Or even canid. Then we might explore where it lives. Further debate is warranted. William Harris • (talk) • 03:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I much prefer "small wolf-like canine" to "looks like a small wolf" Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
I have provided a new version of the first paragraph, which attempts to capture our viewpoints. "Wolf-like canine" also sets the scene for its cousins to join it on these pages at some time in the future. From here on, I will be guided by the decision of the majority of editors here - over to you folks. William Harris • (talk) • 08:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────William Harris I know a lot of thought has already been given to the lead, but I'd like to make a few suggestions:

1) I would remove "wolf-like" in the first sentence. Two sentences later you have "It resembles a small gray wolf".

2) Upon looking at the first few sentences, I think the sentence beginning "In Europe, it is expanding beyond its current presence" interrupts material that is describing the species. I also think it is a detail that does not need to be so early in the lead.

3) I found a place where that sentence about Europe would fit. It is just before the last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead, which is:

  • In Europe, jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, with the jackal's expansion being attributed to their occupying those areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Both sentences are about expansion of range, so belong together. You could add the information as follows:

(a) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe. Since jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves, this expansion is attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

If you wouldn't mind leaving the fact that jackals will not occupy the same areas as wolves to later in the article, you could make this sentence more concise by leaving it out:

(b) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, with the expansion attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.


(c) In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, the expansion being attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

Then, without the sentence about expansion, the first two sentences of the lead are more cohesive:

  • The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small canine that is native to Southeast Europe, Southwestern Asia, South Asia, and regions of Southeast Asia. It resembles a small gray wolf, but with shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.

 – Corinne (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It is a good proposal, Corinne, and I can see that you have given it much thought. It would be wise to wait a day or so and see if other editors have any comments on it. William Harris • (talk) • 03:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Cas, FunkMonk: because this article may form a "template" by which other wild Canis submissions will follow in the future, do you have any comments on Corinne's proposal for the lead above, please? I believe that we need to keep "is a small, wolf-like canid" in the first sentence, using the word canid and not canine (I have changed my position across all of the wolf-related articles now on the use of canid). This is because it is an evolutionary biology term - the group that you see in the cladogram in the article are the "wolf-like canids" as defined by Wayne 1993, refer Canidae#Phylogenetic relationships point one. These have been widely referred to in the literature by this term since then. How the rest of the lead paragraphs should pan out I am not concerned. William Harris • (talk) • 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
If "wolf-like canid" is a specific term/concept, then I agree that it isn't necessarily redundant when you say it is similar to a grey wolf later on. Other "wolf-like canids" may not be as physically similar to grey wolves as this jackal, the African hunting dog certainly isn't, for example. But perhaps "wolf-like canids" could be in quotation marks or something, to show it isn't just a descriptive term. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I would hyperlink it similar to what I have done with the Dog:
The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris or Canis familiaris) is a member of genus Canis (canines) that forms part of the wolf-like canids.
or words to that effect. We could then begin to link all of the cousins up with this statement and adjust for relative size....
The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a small, wolf-like canid that is..... William Harris • (talk) • 00:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That looks reasonable to me. Is it a widely accepted term? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Based on Google Scholar and Google book it is. I know that Wayne used it in a secondary source which I will track that down later tonight. It is now time for me to further develop that section in the Evolution of the wolf with a ton of secondary sourcing. William Harris • (talk) • 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I have included what we have to date in the lead, which includes Corinne's second point. I am still not sure about her first point: "It resembles a small gray wolf..." William Harris • (talk) • 08:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Corinne, I think I have cracked the puzzle. Please review the first paragraph as it reads now and let me know what you think. I am not sure about using "...the jackal is smaller and possesses...", the word "still" might fit in there either before or after the word "smaller". Else, you may be something else in mind! William Harris • (talk) • 20:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────William Harris The beginning of the lead sounds much better, and I'm glad you moved the expansion-into-Europe sentence to the end of the lead. Two concerns:

1) About the first paragraph of the lead: the first part sounds fine now. I have a concern about this sentence:

  • The heavier male weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf that weighs 20 kg (44 lb).

I believe, by "the heavier male", you mean relative to the female golden jackal, but to the average Wikipedia reader, this may not be clear. This sentence follows a sentence in which you mention three species and do a lot of comparing. Some readers may wonder if this is more of that comparing, and refers to a male of one species being heavier than one of the others and, since three species were mentioned, ends up being confusing. I'm not sure you need at this point to mention that the male golden jackal is heavier than the female. I recommend being very clear and avoiding any possible confusion. Instead of "the heavier male", I would write: "the male golden jackal", or, if you think it is clear enough, "the male jackal".

The other concern is in the last sentence of the lead, which presently reads:

  • In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, the expansion being attributed to their occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

I know you used one of the two versions I suggested, but now, upon re-reading it, I think it would be better to make this sentence more concise:

  • In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast into the Baltic states and Central Europe, occupying areas where wolves are few or non-existent.

You can explain more later.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC) Fixed ping.  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Amended as suggested, thanks Corinne. If you are happy with it, then I am happy with it. I look forward to bringing articles for FAC review as it attracts some very talented editors that see things from different aspects and they add value to the article. It is similar to developing a work of art - it is a work in progress. William Harris • (talk) • 00:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding this sentence in the lead:
  • The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf that weighs 20 kg (44 lb).
I don't know why I didn't see this before, but unless "that weighs 20 kg (44 lb)" is being used to restrict "Arabian wolf" to one type of Arabian wolf, the weight information is non-restrictive (non-limiting, non-identifying, non-essential information), so the clause should begin with "which" and be set off by a comma:
  • The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf, which weighs 20 kg (44 lb).
Another possibility is to change "which weighs..." to a prepositional phrase:
  • The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb).
It's a bit odd to compare the "male jackal" to the "Arabian wolf". Shouldn't it be the "male Arabian wolf"?
  • The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the male Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb). or
  • The male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb) in contrast to the male wolf, which weighs 20 kg (44 lb).  – Corinne (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
William Harris I'm still not happy with the wording of the first paragraph in the lead. I'm going to copy the second and third sentences here:
  • Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest gray wolf (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle. In contrast to the Arabian wolf, at 20 kg (44 lb), the male jackal weighs 6–14 kg (13–31 lb).
The first sentence begins, "Compared with the Arabian wolf". The second sentence begins, "In contrast to the Arabian wolf". Those phrases are too much alike to have both of them in such close proximity. I actually think the second sentence, with the weights, is not necessary in the lead. You've already said the jackal is smaller than the Arabian wolf. You can leave the weight details to later in the article. Also, between the two sentences, you have the word "wolf" three times. If you remove the second sentence, that goes down to two. You might consider changing "which is the smallest gray wolf" to "which is the smallest of the gray wolf species", or "which is the smallest of the gray wolves":
  • Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolf species, (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.
  • Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolves, (Canis lupus), the jackal is smaller and possesses shorter legs, a shorter tail, a more elongated torso, a less-prominent forehead, and a narrower and more pointed muzzle.
 – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Corinne, I concur fully. Although when looking at specimens "compare" usually means "where are these the same?" and "contrast" usually means "where are these different?", your suggestion produces a superior product. Many thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 20:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


Is the article intended to be in British or American English? It currently uses both which isn't allowed. --John (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello John, the article was developed by two editors that write in British English but we are aware that we write largely for a North American audience on Wikipedia, even though there are no jackals in NA. Please feel free to make edits where you find it necessary. William Harris • (talk) • 09:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
That isn't a good answer. Due diligence would have been to take care of this prior to the nom. It appears (tentatively) to have been written in American English per this old revision. Therefore per MOS:RETAIN it should still be. --John (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure you can make that assumption based on a 300 word article. To the best of my ability, this is American English. On what basis do you believe that it is not? William Harris • (talk) • 12:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Please reread what I wrote above. It cannot have both as it has now, and it certainly can't pass FAC with mixed spelling. --John (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Do you have an example? That would be a basis. William Harris • (talk) • 12:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Right there in the lead. "Gray" is American, "colour" is British. --John (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(butting in) given it's an Old World preference would be British...but not strongly fussed. William Harris, it's a Thing that we just choose one regional spelling and go with it. If US is easier go with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC) easiest is to make it US, have changed the "colour"s and "odour" "-ise" I think we're US-ified now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou both for your edits that have improved the article. I was initially considering which flag to put this article under and was not aware of MOS:RETAIN. Given that if it were to be placed under British English then there would later follow a battery of unknowing changes from mobile phones across North America and endless reverts, which gets us all nowhere, I went for US spelling as best I could. (Note to self: when creating a new article, badge it under Australian English to begin with, unless similar to my Dire wolf and Beringian wolf FAs they have a North American association.) William Harris • (talk) • 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Strewth cobber! We better do dingo in strine when we make it bonzer! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I have slowly been redeveloping dingo over the last year, a bit at a time, as there are a number of competing "interests" at play in that article. One day she may make it to these pages and she is clearly badged under the Southern Cross. But Crikey!, that does not stop some of our western hemisphere cousins from trying to place a "z" where an "s" should be.  :-) William Harris • (talk) • 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, some preliminary comments here. I ran the citation bot on the article some days ago[3], and it highlighted some issues. Maybe they have been fixed since. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "|journal=Boll. Mus. Civ. St. Nat. Venezia" Better to spell out journal name.
I missed that one; amended.
  • "Mammals of the Holy Land" has an incomplete pages field: "pages=142–". It actually has two page fields, also "|page=142".
The dash is completed. There are two page 142s because 142-145 is the reference, and the other 142 is the page delivered when clicking on the google books link.
  • it is probably best to merge the etymology section nto the taxonomy section. The MOS discourages single-sentence (or single-paragraph) sections.[4] They disrupt the flow and simply look bad...
Agreed, amended.
  • The last paragraph under "In folklore, mythology and literature" needs a citation.
Reference cited. The 1920 US publication was the earliest available in Google Books that offered clear page numbers; a 2016 version by Macmillan - the publisher of the original 1894 version - did not. William Harris • (talk) • 03:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "(Canis aureus, "golden dog") I don't think this should be hidden away in a parenthesis, and we could know what language it is in.
  • "Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) passes along the maternal line and can date back thousands of years.[8] Therefore, phylogenetic analysis of mDNA sequences within a species provides a history of maternal lineages that can be represented as a phylogenetic tree" This seems a bit much for an article that is not about DNA analysis, I think it could be made much shorter, if it's even needed.
Disagree. Have a quick look at the latest at Talk:Coyote regarding the simple term "basal" - please don't underestimate what "basics" some editors might challenge in the future. I do not want to have to be drawn back to this article in the future and have to search for citations and explain basic concepts to a disagreeing editor. We have it both explained and well-cited; if people find it a bit much then they can press on and ignore it.
  • You don't link various species when they are first mentioned in the article, such as coyote, wolf, black-backed jackal, and African golden wolf. Check throughout.
  • You could also give their scientific names in parenthesis, but that is of course optional (though I think it helps), and I see you do it in some cases, so it should be consistent.
Please refer to my reply to Cas Liber commencing: "Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials..."
  • I'm not very impressed by the photo selection, we have no close up of the head (could be nice in the description section), and no good photo of the entire animal. I think even the taxobox image is dull, since most of the legs are obscured, and there is out of focus grass in the foreground (even the animal itself is unsharp). Surely there must be something better on Commons or Flickr, where dozens of photos can be found.
Hello Mario, I understand that you have artistic interests and can differentiate a picture of a jackal from a wolf, would you like to select from Flickr] and Commons where appropriate, please?
Flickr has too many copyrighted pix or those not meeting Commons requirements. Commons has provided some pix now added to the article. The taxobox image has been replaced by one showing the complete animal.
  • "Results from two recent studies of mDNA from golden jackals indicate that those specimens from Africa are genetically closer to the gray wolf than are the specimens from Eurasia." But are the African jackals more closely related to the wolves than to the Eurasian jackals?
Expanded on.
  • "The word "jackal" appeared in the English language around 1600. It derives from the Turkish word çakal, which originates from the Persian word šagāl." What does this have to do with evolution? looks like it belongs in the former section.
Ooops, amended.
  • I think you could define what a jackal even is, and state if they are not a "natural" taxonomic group.
Addressed after much searching, a major improvement to this article and will be to other related articles.
  • "An unusual fossil found in Azokh Cave" Why unusual?
  • Looks like the range map could need a source for the information shown in it on Commons. And on this note, you have a better map fully sourced under distribution that could take its place, I don't see why we need both images, the one with the subspecies makes the one without redundant. Also frees up space for better photos in the distribution section.
  • "A haplotype is a group of genes found in an organism that is inherited from one of its parents.[23][24] A haplogroup is a group of similar haplotypes that share a single mutation inherited from their common ancestor." Also seems a bit too detailed.
Similar for mitochondrial DNA above.
  • "Three golden jackal–dog hybrids from Croatia" I don't think that vertically long image looks very good here. There is already clutter in that area between the cladoigrram and other images, and it doesn't really tell of much of this animal as a species. If any photo of a hybid should be used, it would be better of a live animal.
Such a photo does not exist. Galov 2015 is the only record where we have specimens, photos, and a DNA analysis confirming that these are hybrids. The only option now would be to remove the pix, and given that it already exists following the link to Jackal–dog hybrid then I shall do that. Relocated phylotree to section "Evolution" - clutter removed.
  • "Outside of India, golden jackals in the Caucasus and Turkey indicate the next highest genetic diversity,[25] while those in Europe indicate low genetic diversity,[27][28] which confirms their more recent expansion into Europe" Doesn't this contradict what you said about the lack of fossils in the Caucasus earlier?
No contradiction - the fossil record for every ancient lineage is sparse. We do not know when they first took up residence in the Caucasus, but based on DNA it was after they expanded out of India and well before they arrived in Europe.
  • "may represent two ancient populations that have survived into modern times" What does "ancient" mean here?
We did mention 6,000 year-old fossils from Greece 2 paragraphs above, however this new amendment spells it out.
  • "It is regarded by some authors as not a separate subspecies but is C. a. moreoticus" As?
Reworded sentence.
  • "All species within the wolf-like canids" Among? Also, the term could maybe be defined.
I have added some further detail.
  • "One of the largest in the world" Largest what? Jackals? Golden jackals?
  • Just a thought, but many of the subspecies articles are very short and have redundant info, I'd personally just merge them here.
The consolidation of some of those articles into here is a good one, however given that their creator was also the editor that brought this article up to GA standard and we do not know what his future plans for these articles are, plus it is outside of my scope here, I believe that it is best left for now.
I think that covers it and the article has greatly benefited from it, thanks. William Harris • (talk) • 03:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Changes look good, I'll review the rest of the article soon. You could perhaps experiment with image alignment, staggered placement, so they don't all form a wall on the right side. And as a general "rule", the subject of an image should face the text, not away from it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I did some further layout edits. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adults may howl to accompany the ringing of church bells, with their young responding to sirens or the whistles of steam engines and boats." If they react to such, what about howls by other canids?
I could find a study within species but not exposure to the howls of different canids.
  • I still see various species mentioned throughout which are not followed by their scientific names, also, all species linked in the intro should be linked at their first occurrence in the article body.
Regarding links, refer to MOS:DUPLINK - what is your assessment of its application to the article?
As mentioned to Cas Liber above: Those members of genus Canis have binomials or trinomials to clearly distinguish who these are and avoid confusion, especially the aureus subspecies. The trees and shrubs have binomials because those were given in the original references but I am not sure that Wikipedia's attempts at matching these to article names has been entirely successful - there is some confusion. The diseases and parasites have binomials because these were given in references and I have absolutely no idea on this topic and will leave following what these are to the parasite purists. In summary, I have tried to minimize the use of binomials unless it helps to avoid confusion. There is some inconsistency, however it is also reasonably accurate.
  • "3–8 pups, Tajikistan 3–7 pups, Uzbekistan 2–8 pups, and Bulgaria 4–7 pups; in India the average is four pups" Why do you only spell out a number at the end?
In accord with MOS:NUMERAL, "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Ranges are currently a subject of discussion here. My preference is to always use numbers - that is why we invented them. However, that is not the MOS approach.
  • it seems that there is quite some overlap in scope between the foraging and diet sections to the point where they might be better off merged into a "foraging and diet" section. What is the rationale behind separating the two? Messes a bit with the flow when related info is divided by several sections.
A good point looking at the text, now restructured. Foraging describes a behaviour, diet describes items that are eaten. There is also an overlap between "diet" and "livestock, game, and crop predation", however I regard these as "stand-alone" summaries.


The table in this article doesn't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (Please {{ping}} me if you have any questions; I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing, I did not know that MOS:DTT even existed. How does it look to you now? William Harris • (talk) • 06:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but that looks correct to me. Thank you. (I think that a lot of people don't know about MOS:DTT.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

A few points

  • 1. Redundancy. The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a wolf-like canid that is native to -> The golden jackal (Canis aureus) is a wolf-like canid native to
  • 2. Redundancy. Compared with the Arabian wolf, which is the smallest of the gray wolves -> Compared with the Arabian wolf, the smallest of the gray wolves
  • 3. Redundancy. It is described as being a small, jackal-like canine -> It is described as a small, jackal-like canine
  • 4. Redundancy. The oldest golden jackal fossil is 20,000 years old and was found at the Ksar Akil rock shelter near Beirut, Lebanon -> The oldest golden jackal fossil is 20,000 years old, found at the Ksar Akil rock shelter near Beirut, Lebanon
  • 5. Poor structuring
    • 5.1 You have: "There are seven subspecies of the golden jackal. The golden jackal is not closely related to the African black-backed or side-striped jackals, being instead more closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf, and Ethiopian wolf."
    • 5.2 Try: "There are seven subspecies of the golden jackal, all closely related to the gray wolf, coyote, African golden wolf and Ethiopian wolf, but only distantly related to African black-backed or side-striped jackals"
  • 6. Possible improvement. Golden jackals are abundant in valleys and beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, and seashores. They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and they avoid waterless deserts and snow areas -> Golden jackals are abundant beside rivers and their tributaries, canals, lakes, seashores, and in valleys. They are rare in foothills and low mountains, and avoid waterless deserts and snow areas
  • 7. Redundancy. a breeding pair and any young offspring -> a breeding pair and (young) offspring
  • 8. Style. with the ability to exploit food -> and able to exploit food
  • 9. Redundancy. and the raccoon in the Caucasus -> the raccoon in the Caucasus
  • 10. Style. RE: "In Europe, the jackal is expanding beyond its current presence in the southeast". This doesn't work. If the jackal's presence has expanded to beyond the southeast, then the southeast is obviously no longer its "current presence". Re-write along the lines of:
    • 10.1. In recent times the jackal's habitat has expanded to include areas / territories in .....
    • 10.2. Evidence obtained since [enter date] indicates that the jackal now exists (thrives?) not only in southeastern Europe but also ...
    • 10.3. While the jackal was traditionally found only in the southeast of Europe, it has in more recent times adapted to environments in ...

The above points cover your lead paragraphs. Bangkok / Nov 19. (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Lady Gaga

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk), IndianBio and SNUGGUMS 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Lady Gaga, an American singer, who is known for her outlandish style and provocative work. She was arguably the world's biggest pop star around 2010. We have been working on this for a while now; it has been through two peer reviews, one in 2016 (which hardly went anywhere) and the other recently in September. Many thanks for everyone who turned up at PR which include @Mymis, Wehwalt, John, Ceranthor, and ArturSik:. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk about taking the plunge! Let's hope for the best. Don't be surprised if I make other edits during this FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
We have been planning this since 2015; it's time we did this. Let's be prepared. :-) FrB.TG (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Good luck with this one guys, I really hope it gets promoted. I watched it evolve and it's a deserving FAC. ArturSik (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Feel free to comment on any other aspects of the article if you'd like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Support on the prose per 1a. I helped copyedit this article during the peer review, and the nominators addressed a great number of my concerns with aplomb. Great work! ceranthor 21:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333

I don't know anything about Lady Gaga whatsoever, except just about everybody else on this planet does, and this is an absolutely worthy article to take to FAC - so now is an ideal opportunity for me to learn something about her. I'm not sure how much time I'll have, but I'll see what I can do

  • I've copyedited the lead a bit, feel free to revert to taste
  • "A popular contemporary recording artist" - Do we need this here? It's kind of stating the obvious; I generally prefer quantifiable facts such as chart positions and sales figures, which can't be quibbled with.
  • The third paragraph in the lead is a bit too "In 2011, Gaga did this. In 2012, she did that. In 2013 she did the other." I know when you're just trying to produce a basic set of major accomplishments, the prose can get a bit "list-y", but see if you can reorganise or trim things down. Something like "Her follow-up albums, Artpop, and the jazz-oriented Cheek to Cheek also topped the charts".
  • Trying to think of good ways to do so without scrapping the important bits like genres and song achievements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

More later.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Eagerly awaiting further input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The very first section of the biography cites 5 sources in quick succession. On the one hand, dropping inline citations in every few words distracts the reader; on the other, putting them all at the end would involve five citations. I'm not sure of a solution other than picking an alternative source that cites all of it (which may not actually exist).
  • I would use fewer citations if there were any that contained all of these details, but have bundled some to help reduce such distraction Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not too au fait on the suitability of US newspaper sources on BLPs - about what level is the New York Daily News? It's not highbrow broadsheet, but it's not celebrity trash either. As the facts cited are pretty innocuous, I don't see this as being a major issue.
  • While certainly not as high as The New York Times, it's overall a decent publication and certainly fine for non-contentious claims Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't remember the guidelines for WP:LASTNAME, should we not be using "Germanotta" up to the point she started being known as "Lady Gaga"? Also, do we know why she chose the name?
  • Not sure about usage prior to adapting the name. As for choosing that name, I'm pretty sure it came from the Queen song "Radio Gaga", which either way is probably better for the next section when she started using it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "She began experimenting and taking drugs soon after" - unless I missed it, I can't see where in either source it says that Gaga was taking drugs.
While Gaga talks about drugs in the source, she does not imply she also took them. Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Herbert signed Gaga to his label Streamline Records, an imprint of Interscope Records, established in 2007" - when exactly was Gaga signed?
  • "At Interscope, singer-songwriter Akon recognized her vocal abilities when she sang a reference vocal for one of his tracks in studio." - lose one of the "vocal"s and what does "recognized her vocal abilities" mean here exactly?
Revised. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "On YouTube, the video for "Bad Romance" gained the most views ever, and Gaga became the first person with more than one billion combined views." - lose one of the "views"
Revised. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The inspiration behind the album came from her longtime friendship with Bennett" - this is in 2014, but the first mention of Tony Bennett is in 2011 - not really a "longtime friendship"
  • Removed "longtime", which wasn't really needed anyway Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "In February 2015, Gaga became engaged to Taylor Kinney" - who is he? If he's not directly involved in her professional career, then perhaps this (plus the break up a year later) would be better off in a "personal life" section?
  • See the 2011–2014 section; they got together after he appeared in one of her music videos. Personal life section is asking for trouble as I'm absolutely certain it would become a magnet for trivia, fancruft, and gossip additions. Besides, there's not much to add for such a section anyway when the only relationships she's had that are him and Rob Fusari. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The singer played a witch named Scathach in American Horror Story: Roanoke, the series' sixth iteration" - shouldn't that simply be "the sixth series"?
  • Another user changed it to "sixth season" Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Her role in the fifth season of the show ultimately influenced her fifth studio album" - how exactly? And why was it called Joanne?
  • It apparently inspired her to include "the art of darkness", which I've added even if that sounds vague. As for the album itself, that was named after her deceased aunt Joanne Germanotta (and is also one of Gaga's middle names). Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To add to SNUGGUMS, I changed a bit to show that it was inspired by her aunt and influenced the music of this album. After that we move to the sales stats and all. —IB [ Poke ] 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The show attracted 117.5 million viewers based on American television ratings, exceeding the game's total of 113.3 million viewers." - I don't understand what this means.
  • Changed to "viewers in the United States" Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The performance resulted in 150,000 digital album sales for Gaga" - was the performance sold commercially (selling 150,000 copies) or was the increase in album sales a by-product of the Super Bowl performance?
  • Super Bowl performance prompted the sales surge, and I've replaced this with song sales as the previous ref didn't give a 150k figure Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "During her first set, the singer released the standalone-single, "The Cure"" - I realise you can do pretty instant things with downloads, but did she really release a single halfway through a gig?
  • Yes; it was a two-day event and she released it in between shows Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
But that's not what the prose says - it says "during her first set". What I understand by "first set" is something like a Grateful Dead concert (of which there are thousands available to listen to online), most of which consist of the band playing about 1-2 hours (first set), then a break, then the same again (second set). What Gaga's doing, however, is two back to back gigs, so it should say something like "between the two shows". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

A general comment - this is not a criticism as such but most of the sources I've looked at have been contemporary news reports, that have skirted towards (but not quite reached) tabloid journalism. Normally wouldn't complain but this is FAC, and I've got to consider criteria 1c. In mitigation, I think this is because unlike many articles I have worked on, Lada Gaga's notability entirely lies in the internet era, her career is in popular culture so that's where we're going to find the most information about her, all relevant facts about her are available online (via the Wayback machine if nowhere else), and a critically acclaimed biography of her life has not been written yet.

Well, that is true of most articles of contemporary artists. It is really an uphill task to write about them with the lack of literature and scholarly sources. I guess we just have to write from whatever we find. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

More later .... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I look forward to it. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Any particular we have a Glass Spider era Bowie picture? Is Gaga more a Ziggy / Thin White Duke / Let's Dance / Tin Machine (delete as applicable) fan or does she just like Bowie generally?
The image was randomly chosen. In one source, she does say that she listened to Aladdin Sane when "finding her voice", but I wouldn't interpret it that she likes only that album. She is a fan of him in general.
  • "her debut album The Fame (2008) discusses the lust for stardom; ...." - why can't we just say The Fame at this point, if the user gets this far, they'll know what we're talking about, and if they've forgotten, it should be obvious from context. Same for other mentions of albums in this paragraph.
  • The impression I get from the "Musical Style and Themes" sections is that critical response to Cheek to Cheek was mixed. Is the Guardian source here truly representative of what people thought?
This is not a representative review (since many sources praised Gaga's singing abilities); also I am not sure we need reviews there since there are already two of them for C2C in biography section.
  • The section on "Videos and stage" is lacking a bit after 2011. Given we've just talked about Gaga reinventing herself all the time, we probably want to discuss later tours here as well.
This one is rather tricky. The performances or reinventions worth noting are Cheek to Cheek and her performance at the 2015 Oscars, both of which are already discussed in biography section. I am not sure if it is helpful to repeat them there.
  • "Certain media members have compared her fashion choices to those of Christina Aguilera" - what do you mean by "certain media members"?
  • Is there really a Guinness World Record for Largest Gathering of Lady Gaga Impersonators?
Yes, believe me.
  • "After all, Gaga, born Stefani Germanotta" - although this is part of the quotation, I don't see how it's relevant to the reader's understanding of Gaga's public image - I'd suggest trimming this bit out with a "..."
  • Gaga wore the raw beef outfit - Although there is a link, I have absolutely no idea what a "raw beef outfit" is - can you explain?
  • Partly awarded in recognition of the dress, Vogue named her one of the Best Dressed people of 2010 and Time named the dress the Fashion Statement of 2010 - lose one of the 2010s
  • it was also criticized by the animal rights organization PETA - why?
  • In July 2012, Gaga also co-founded the social networking service, devoted to her fans - there is a easter egg link to Stan (fan), which needs explanation to non-enthusiasts
I have simply de-linked it; fan is a common word.
  • Gaga is an outspoken activist for LGBT rights worldwide - is "outspoken" the right word to use?
  • Halfway through the "LGBT advocacy" section, we announce, completely out of the blue, that Gaga is bisexual. If we had the "Personal life" section (see above), this could go here. Did Gaga come out at some point, or was she never "in" in the first place? Obviously, we don't want to go in to excessive detail here, but I don't think you have to be gay / bi / trans etc to support LGBT rights, so her support for this is a separate entity from her own sexuality. (For example, I'm not transgender, but one of my friends is and switching genders seems to have brought comfort and happiness into her life, so good for her).
  • I don't think she at any point tried to keep her bisexuality a secret, and do believe it prompted her advocacy for the community. Perhaps starting the section with something like "Gaga is bisexual, and *insert description on LGBT advocacy*" would work better. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we briefly explain what "don't ask, don't tell" without the reader having to look at another article to get an explanation?
  • While we're talking about LGBT rights, we should mention Gaga's criticism of Trump's military transgender ban. Come to think of it, Gaga has spent quite a bit of time this year Trump-bashing ([5], [6], [7]) (not that I have a hidden agenda against putting as much criticism of Trump in as many articles as possible or anything ;-)
  • On a related note, we should mention (with a suitable source, of course) Gaga's support for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

... and that's about it - I think once all the above issues are resolved, we'll be there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thank you so much for such a thorough review. I have done most of the things above except where I have noted otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Cool, in which case it's a Support from me. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ritchie333 for everything! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Support I weighed in at the first peer review, here and it's had the benefit of additional reviewers since. Looks like it's to FA standard.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Wehwalt! Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ritchie and Wehwalt. Thank you Ceranthor also. —IB [ Poke ] 13:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 4: dead link
It was a wrong link. Corrected. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 34: The source is a website – yet no link?
The official video is not available online, I don't think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 42: Link not working. I get the message "The address wasn't understood"
The iTunes link works fine, except that it is for the US. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 46: needs a page reference
I don't have access to the source, but have replaced it with a Forbes source. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 55: Who/what is "AXS" and why is this a reliable source?
  • It is a ticket-oriented website that focuses on concerts as well as music-related news in general. It seems fine for non-contentious details (which in this case is release timeframe and single count from parent album). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 67: Retrieval date missing. This is also the case with 117, 139, 148, 159, 197, 206 and 275, possibly others I've missed
Added, not sure how I missed these. Thanks for noticing them. FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 115 and 116: "Top 40 lista" is not the publisher, which appears to be "slágerlisták" though as I don't speak Hungarian I can't be sure.
  • Both fixed; thanks for the catch Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 184: There's a red message that needs attending to.
Fixed - the archive URL contains odd characters that generate an error message on the URL, so I've taken it out. I don't know if that's what the nominators want though, so feel free to revert and fix properly if I've just made things worse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
It's totally fine; don't worry. The important thing is how the link actually works. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 239 and 299: WP has a policy on tweets as reliable sources. See WP:RSSELF, which says: "self-published media are largely not acceptable. Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums are all examples of self-published media." Can you say why these tweets should be regarded as reliable sources?
  • That policy says that tweets are fine for non-contentious claims without any reasonable doubt of being true, which I can safely say applies to the former as it is the Guinness World Records announcing an achievement Gaga made in its records, but I've removed the latter as Ariana Grande doesn't quite say or even suggest that Gaga inspired her (contrary to what article text previously implied). Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, the sources seem of appropriate quality and reliability, and are tidily presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

As a fan of Gaga since her first album (makes me feel super old realizing it has been over nine years since The Fame was released), I would try to help out with this. My comments focus specifically on prose:

  • For this sentence (The same year, she played an unsuspecting diner customer for MTV's Boiling Points, a prank reality television show.), link “MTV”.
  • In this sentence (At Interscope, singer-songwriter Akon was impressed with her singing abilities when she sang a reference vocal for one of his tracks in studio.), there are few instances of the word “sing” in some capacity. I would change “sang” to something else to avoid repetition.
  • In this sentence (Despite her secure record deal, she said that some radio stations found her music too "racy", "dance-oriented", and "underground" for the mainstream market.), I am not sure about the phrase “her secure record deal”. What do you mean by this? Do you mean “Despite securing a record deal”? I think it can be revised to read better.
  • I am confused by the context in which the quote from the following sentence (The singer concluded: "My name is Lady Gaga, I've been on the music scene for years, and I'm telling you, this is what's next.”) was delivered. Where did she say this? Who did she say this to?
  • I would revise (the latter becoming the world's best-selling single in 2009) to avoid the misreading that it make the best-selling single of all time in 2009. I think “of 2009” would be more appropriate than “in 2009”.
  • Do you think that the Hitmixes should be mentioned?
  • I am not certain about this part ("The Edge of Glory", initially a commercial success in digital outlets, was later released as a single). “The Edge of Glory” was released as a promotional single and then upgraded to an official single so this part (was later released as a single) is a little misleading.
  • I also not certain about this part (accompanied by a music video that strayed from the "dramatic style" of her past efforts). The (the "dramatic style" of her past efforts) is rather vague and I am not sure if an unfamiliar reader would understand what it means. Also, it seems to an odd shortening of the history behind the video’s development (a more dramatic video was scheduled and then canceled and replaced with the one that we know). I think that this information could be presented better.
  • I would clarify that Eau de Gaga was released in 2014 as it is separate from the rest of the 2012 stuff.
  • Do you think that it is notable to include a part on the controversy surrounding the “Do What U Want” video, specifically her collaboration with Terry Richardson? It may be more appropriate to keep that information only in the article on the song, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
I also think it should be mentioned, but I'd like the opinions of @SNUGGUMS and IndianBio: on this.
In many cases, I feel such details are better for song article, but will have to give some thought to this one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I am honestly fine either way; this comment was more to bring it up to your attention. I understand and agree that some information is better kept in the article on the relevant song. Just thought it may be helpful to explain why the song never received a video and the promotion for the album kind of stalled after that. I am happy with any choice you make on this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The chronology of the paragraphs involving Artpop seem a little odd. I do not understand why the information about “Aura” and its music video is included after information on “G.U.Y.”, ArtRave: The Artpop Ball, and the split from her manager as those all took place after the “Aura” music video.
I have included the music video for "Aura" there because it was released to promote Machete Kills, which released after these events. I added it also because I thought it would flow better this way.
  • I am still not entirely convinced about this though. Machete Kills was released on October 11, 2013 in the United States; "G.U.Y." was released as a single in March 28, 2014, the ArtRave: The Artpop Ball started on May 4, 2014 and ended on November 24, 2014 and she joined Artist Nation in June 2014. All of this happened in 2014, which was after the release of Machete Kills, the SNL performance, and the broadcast of Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday Spectacular. I would also put the Christina Aguilera remix of Do What U Want closer to the other sentence about the song. I am just not a fan of the chronology/timeline of these two paragraphs (i.e. the 2013 and 2014 activity) as it is unclear in my opinion. Also, Aguilera is now linked twice in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The same comment as above applies to the placement of the sentence on her appearance on SNL to promote Artpop. I just think that the timeline gets a little too murky here.
  • For the part on Cheek to Cheek, I think that you should mention that two singles were released as part of the project.
  • Do you think it would be relevant to include a sentence on the reception of Gaga’s Sound of Music performance (i.e. from the media or from Julie Andrews herself) or information on her preparation for it?
  • For this sentence (Hotel is the fifth season of the horror show), I would change “horror show” to “anthology horror series” as the inclusion of the word “anthology” makes it clearer that each season is distinct from one another.
  • Do you think that it would be more appropriate to move this sentence (Her role in the fifth season of the show ultimately influenced her future music, prompting her to feature "the art of darkness”.) closer to the rest of the sentences on that particular season? Having the sentence right after one on a separate season and character is a little confusing.
  • Do you think that the music video for “John Wayne” should be mentioned?
  • Not unless it wins some major award and/or is prominently featured in something that isn't just for the Joanne album (which I doubt will happen) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that the commercial performance or critical reception of “The Cure” should be mentioned?
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that it is worth mentioning the comparisons made between Aguilera and Gaga in terms of their music? I remember a lot of media attention around Aguilera’s album Bionic and if it was chasing Gaga’s sound, and that Gaga had even addressed it during an interview.
There was a sentence on "Not Myself Tonight" and its comparison to the video of "Bad Romance" in public image section, but I removed it as it belongs more in Aguilera's article more than here.
  • Makes sense, just wanted to bring this up to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that Gaga’s duet with Aguilera on The Voice for Do What U Want should be included?
  • Do you think that information about Gaga’s performance during the hurricane relief concert and the image of her with the five former presidents should be mentioned?
  • ”Techno” is linked twice.
  • Do you think that a link for “feminism” would be beneficial?
  • For this part (After declining an invitation to appear on the single "We Are the World 25" to benefit victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake,), did she offer a reason for declining the invitation?
  • For this sentence (Stylistically, Gaga has been compared to Leigh Bowery, Isabella Blow, and Cher), the references need to be put in the right order. The same comment applies to this sentence: (Gaga was inspired by her mother to be interested in fashion, which she now says is a major influence and integrated with her music.) and (She considers Donatella Versace her muse and the English fashion designer Alexander McQueen as an inspiration.).
  • The “disco” link could be moved up to this part (perky ABBA disco).

Wonderful work with the article as a whole. I enjoyed reading this and learning more about Gaga. Please let me know if any of my comments require further clarification. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments on my current FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sévérine/archive1? Either way, I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If we're doing the "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", I've got Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Carpenters/archive4 on the go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I can definitely review that FAC as well. I will wait until my comments here are addressed first as I want to make sure that this is complete. I will try to get to your FAC by the end of this week or the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for providing these suggestions, most of which I have used except where I have noted otherwise. I will take a look at both of your nominations after finishing my review here. (I intended to post comments at the Carpenters FAC in a few days before this message). FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my points. Once my concerns about the Artpop section is addressed, then I will support this. Great work with this again! I would imagine doing work on an article about such a well-known figure would be difficult so hats off to all of you for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Aoba47 and FrB.TG, let me take up the issue with the Artpop section. Aoba has a valid point regarding the chronology of the section and there's a bit of proseline effect I wanna eliminate. —IB [ Poke ] 19:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response! Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Just wanted to add one more comment. I am not sure about this part, "As a bisexual", as it feels incomplete. I have never "bisexual" used as a noun so do you mean something along the lines of "As a bisexual woman"? Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I've added that accordingly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Aoba and IB, I have rearranged the Artpop section a bit. Let me know what you think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing this. It looks much better now. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You have my gratitude, Aoba47 (and I'm sure FrB.TG as well as IndianBio feel the same way). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I am just glad that I could help in any way. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I made some further small corrections, but I have to say FrB.TG, you did a much better job than I had imagined. Thank you Aoba47 for your comments and support. —IB [ Poke ] 05:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ArturSik

  • I think her recent $1m donation to huricane victims etc should also be mentioned. ArturSik (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Her philanthropy section does not need to be a cornucopia of every donation she makes. —IB [ Poke ] 04:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm conscious that this could probably be promoted now. However, it is certain to attract a lot of attention, particularly if it is ever TFA. With that in mind, and to allow other interested parties to comment if they wish, I will leave it open for a day or two more. I wonder if John or Mike Christie would care to have a look too? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps let John finish his review at Johansson FAC before pinging for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talkcontribs) 04:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Happy to take a look here as I am almost finished over there. My router blew up on Friday though, so bear with me as I'm on a slow connection most of the time until the new one arrives. --John (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Reading through now; please revert my copyedits if necessary.

  • What does it mean to say that a performance "was a lo-fi tribute to 1970s variety acts"? The lo-fi article only talks about audio quality.
  • I wasn't sure what was meant by "reference vocal"; could this be linked to scratch vocal, assuming that's the intention?
  • The singer responded: "My name is Lady Gaga: There doesn't appear to be any comment she's responding to, except her own in the previous sentence. Who is she talking to in this quote?
  • Suggest adding the date the lawsuits were dismissed to footnote b.
    The lawsuit was filed and dismissed in 2010, so I have cut "March" from the sentence.
  • She yearned to make audiences have "a really good time" with Artpop, crafting the album to mirror "a night at the club". Saying she wanted audiences to have a good time seems like fluff; can we cut that phrase and combine the rest of the sentence with the previous one?
  • After spending much of her early life desiring to be an actress, Gaga starred in American Horror Story: Hotel. I think a sentence that makes a more direct connection between its two halves might be better. How about "Gaga had spent much of her early life wanting to be an actress, and achieved her goal when she starred in American Horror Story: Hotel?
  • Gaga performed live at several events in 2016: Doesn't really give us any information; I'd suggest cutting this completely and tweaking the following sentence as needed -- probably just "She sang the...", and changing to past tense throughout that sentence.

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Your copyedits were fine, except a minor grammatical error you introduced, which I fixed here. I believe I have addressed all of your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Struck all but one above, and thanks for catching that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


  • She has changed her vocal style regularly, similar to Madonna and Gwen Stefani: I don't see references to Madonna or Stefani in the sources cited, and in any case I think you could just cut the comparison -- without some more detail it doesn't tell the reader much.
  • Suggest "then-president" rather than "politician" for Obama.
  • a pledge of solidarity and activation: surely this should be "activism" or something similar?
  • ...making her one of the best-selling music artists. Some of her singles are among the best-selling worldwide. It's not clear what distinction is being drawn here.
  • ...Gaga is acknowledged as one of the few artists for propelling the rise in the popularity of synthpop: something's not right here. Probably should be either "one of the few artists responsible for" or "one of the few artist who propelled"; I think the former is a bit more natural.

Overall this seems in pretty good shape. The prose is clean; I wouldn't say it's remarkably engaging, but for an article like this is very difficult to get away from a sense of one achievement or event being listed after another, and I don't see any obvious improvements to be made. I expect to support once these minor points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have used all of your suggestions here. FrB.TG (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. Just the "reference vocal" question left; I won't withhold support over that. Good work on a high-profile article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mike Christie for that! Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Mike. —IB [ Poke ] 17:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Tommy Phillips

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my inaugural Hockey Hall of Fame inductees, and probably my last as its getting difficult to find enough material to create FA-quality articles (and length; this one is a little over 1600 words). It passed GA recently, and I found some more things to add to it and get it more comprehensive. Unfortunately there is hardly anything on Phillips after his retirement from hockey, except for his sudden death. Otherwise I think it should be alright. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg, File:KenoraThistles1907January.jpg. Note that since these are on Commons, if they were first published in Canada we also need to account for their Canadian status, not just US.
  • File:KenoraThistles19051906.jpg: BackCheck link is dead, and if author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I updated the information regarding KenoraThistles19051906.jpg; the link to Library and Archives Canada states its copyright is expired. I sent emails to the physical owners of the Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg and KenoraThistles1907January.jpg images (TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg is a derivative of the latter, so unless I'm mistaken it is under the same status?) I will continue to confirm when they were first published, though they were promotional images that would have been reproduced in newspapers across Canada; I just don't have access to a newspaper archive to prove this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I've since gotten an email response regarding Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg from the owner of the image (the Lake of the Museum), confirming that it is in the public domain. What would be the most appropriate way to edit the image to reflect this then? (Still waiting on the Hockey Hall of Fame, who owns the KenoraThistles1907January.jpg copy, to reply, though I suspect it will be similar). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
What exactly did they say? Did they specify where and why the image was PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately it was nothing more than a confirmation that the image is in the public domain. I sent a follow-up in hopes of more detail, though I'm not sure that will happen. Any update I'll note here, of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Follow-up email only noted that the image is roughly from 1901–1902, and nothing else more. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've been in contact with the LOTW Museum, and they have said that the two images in question are both in the public domain, and while they can't confirm an initial publication date, they have been reproduced enough that there is no longer any concerns about their status. So I'm wondering what would be the best way to note their license on Wikimedia in that regard? Kaiser matias (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
What is the earliest publication we can find for each of these images, and would Canadian copyright have applied to all of them? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
(outdent) As noted, it is going to be a challenge to find that, without combing through some local newspaper archive in northern Ontario (and I'm about as far away from there as possible). However I have the relevant information from the museum, and have updated the license to reflect that even if they may be copyrighted (which they are almost certainly not), the museum is the current owner of them and has their reference number provided, and allows them to be freely used and distributed. I hope this will satisfy any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand it will be challenging to find the first publication - my question for the moment is, what is the earliest publication we do know of? Depending on when that was, it might be possible to sidestep the issue, if we can safely assume that first publication was Canadian. However, as newspaper photos, it's unlikely that the museums holding them are the copyright owners if copyright subsists. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The earliest I can reliably say without much trouble would be the Coleman book used as a reference in the article, The Trail of the Stanley Cup, which was published in 1964. That is obviously too late to confirm its public domain status, though there would be earlier publications, I just don't have the actual publication at the time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, is there a copyright notice in that book, or any credit information for the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing more than credit to the Hockey Hall of Fame. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Note 33: Harvard error
  • References: There appears to be no citation to "Hockey Hall of Fame"

Subject to these points, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed both of these. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

  • ¶2 His younger brother, Russell, also played for the Thistles and was a member of the team when they won the Stanley Cup." – Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any mention of Russell Phillips in the main text.
Added something.
Early life
  • ¶1 "...James took up a job in Western Ontario..." – I think you can safely delete "up" or change "took up" to the more formal "accepted".
  • ¶2 "...championship of the Manitoba and Northwest Hockey Association..." – Should this be the Manitoba and Northwestern Hockey Association? If so, link Manitoba and Northwestern Hockey Association (MNWHA) and abbreviate here on first use in the main text.
  • ¶2 A further problem with the MNWHA here and in the "Career statistics" section is that the date (1903) in the MNWHA article and the dates (1899–1902) given in this article don't match. It might be a junior, intermediate, senior complication. Can you clarify?
That is the problem for the above note too. I initially thought they were the same league, but it was not unusual for league's to use either identical or nearly identical names at the time. As the article only notes the 1903–04 season (and unfortunately the link is deadd), I'm inclined to believe it is different, and thus don't want to link it. It would certainly be better to have a linked article for the respective league here, but that just isn't possible at the time.
But you have already linked it in the "Career statistics" section, where it creates the same confusion for readers who click through to read about the league. Suggestion: Delete the MNWHA link (which is not dead) from "Career statistics" but add a note explaining that early hockey leagues sometimes used overlapping names (or whatever is the case). You'll need to cite a reliable source or sources for this note, which will head off the possibility that without the note other editors will later add the misleading link to the MNWHA article. I think you could put the note between a pair of ref tags inserted after MNWHA the first time it appears in the article in the "Early life" section. Does that make sense? Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "By 1899–00 Phillips had joined the senior Thistles team, and would be named captain the following season, when they won the senior league championship." – The dates don't match here either. The MNWHA article (which may be incorrect) says the Thistles played for only one year, when it lost the championship to Ottawa in 1903.
Removed the link in the stats section, and added a note to the reference for the league within the text.
See above. As Phillips had already moved to Montreal by 1903, he definitely was not around for that championship series, which is corroborated by various sources.
Kenora and Ottawa
  • ¶1 "Rat Portage changed its name from to Kenora in 1905." – Unclear. Does this mean the city or the team or both?
  • ¶1 "one of the best players in Canada, compared to Frank McGee of the Senators" – I think this is the first time in the article that "Senators" appears. For clarity, explain here or above that it refers to the Ottawa team.
Added some details and context to it, and reworded that whole section slightly. It should be clearer now.
Western Canada and later life
  • ¶1 "played with Edmonton" – Link the Edmonton team here on first use?
  • ¶1 "met their team in Winnipeg" – Link to the city of Winnipeg article here?
Career statistics
  • Since all the abbreviations but GP are linked to explanations, link GP to Games played as well?
  • Concise alt text would be nice even though not required.
Added some alt text, though should probably be looked over as I'm not great at it.
Thanks. I fiddled with them a bit, mostly compressing to make them more concise, and I repaired the alt parameter (alt= rather than alt_image=) in the infobox. Please tweak further if you think any of my changes are unhelpful. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem with dead URLs.
  • No problem with disambiguation links.
  • No problem with overlinks.
Addressed everything here. Would appreciate a look at the alt text, it's not a strength of mine. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
All looks fine except the MNWHA confusion, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Think I have that addressed now in a decent manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. All looks good. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Alex Owumi

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a professional basketball player best known for his unique experience playing basketball for Muammar Gaddafi shortly before the outbreak of the Libyan Civil War in 2011. Originally from Nigeria, Owumi played basketball with a number of community colleges before joining Alcorn State. Before Libya, his career spanned both Europe and North America. It took a wrong turn when Owumi signed with Lirija in Macedonia, where he endured poor facilities, racism, and occasional violence at games. In a search for a new team, he took a lucrative offer in Libya with Al-Nasr, a team he later realized was owned and funded by Gaddafi's family. One day, when violence from the budding war finally broke out, Owumi found himself trapped in Mutassim Gaddafi's apartment and witnessing horrors in the streets below. He stayed in the building for weeks, struggling to survive. Eventually, he would escape to Egypt with a teammate and was held under harsh conditions at a refugee camp, before winning a championship with a team in Alexandria. For the last many years, Owumi has been playing with teams in the British Basketball League (BBL) and has been suffering from PTSD.

I believe this article should be considered for featured article status because it is comprehensive, including as much relevant information as possible. It also took extensive efforts to get this article where it is, and it was very recently promoted to GA. If it is featured, many more people will know what in my opinion is a fascinating story. If there are any issues you have with parts of the article, feel free to state them below. TempleM (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Brief general comment

Thanks for your work on this article, and well done in bringing it to its present standard. I get a little worried, however, when an article is nominated here one day after its promotion to GA. The standard required for FA is significantly higher, particularly in terms of prose and sourcing, and it is generally wise to spend a little time considering what needs to be done to scale this extra height.

  • Although I haven't carried out a detailed review, I found the prose in places problematic: rather choppy, not flowing well, and with some slightly odd formulations, e.g. "His parents and siblings were chiefs of his village, located just outside Lagos, and he was a prince"; "Owumi joined Monroe Community College in Rochester, New York, driven there by head coach Jerry Burns..." – "driven" in what sense? You sometimes adopt sports journalese, for example when you say he "grabbed" eight rebounds, or confuse readers with sentences such as "The team eventually defeated the Quebec Kebs, behind 13 points and five rebounds..." – what does "behind" indicate here? There are various ambiguities in the prose, and a tendency to overuse cliché phrases such as "due to". I've quoted just a few examples of prose issues; what I feel the article needs is a very thorough copyedit, bearing in mind that the FA criteria require the prose to be of a professional standard.
  • There are other issues relating to sources, which I will raise in a separate review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: True, the choppy prose has been an issue in my previous basketball biographies that were promoted to FA as well. Would you suggest anyone to help copyedit the article? And about the sources, I assume one of your concerns is that I rely on Owumi's book for a lot of information. Would that raise any problems? TempleM (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest you leave a request for a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. You could also enquire among editors who've worked on previous basketball biographies. The extent to which you've used Owumi's book as a source could be one of the concerns I'll raise when I do a sources review in a day or two, but I haven't looked at this issue yet. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments – I was asked by the nominator to have a look at the article and perform copy-edits. While I was able to make a few positive changes to the lead, I didn't make it much farther yet. However, I have some general thoughts based on what I've seen so far.

  • The bit about him being a prince is fascinating, and I wonder if more can be said about it. Maybe adding some detail would help fix the prose issue that Brian mentioned above.
  • The "driven there by head coach Jerry Burns and his staff" part is confusing to read, for the same reason Brian mentioned. It's unclear whether it means that they physically drove him there, or if they just pushed for him to enroll. Unfortunately, I can't really fix this one since it's sourced to the book.
  • Speaking of the book, I highly recommend that you add page numbers to your book cites, since Brian will ask for them anyway. Might as well get it out of the way now. The book is heavily used with almost 40 cites to it, but I haven't analyzed its usage too much, as I figure Brian will do so in his source review.
  • I won't do a full source review as one has already been promised, but you should go ahead and replace the Daily Express (ref 61) now, as that is a highly unreliable source. It's considered even less reliable than the Daily Mail, which had its usage strongly discouraged in an RFC earlier this year.
  • As for the writing, the main issue I see later in the article is proseline. There are a ton of sentences that start "In XXXX" or similar, and a bunch starting with "He". More than anything else, fixing a bunch of these sentences will make the prose seem more professional. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I have added more information about him being a prince and I have fixed the Jerry Burns part. I have also deleted the sentences that cite the Daily Express, as they are not overly significant. By the way, you can see a large majority of the book online so that you can check for accuracy. For the writing, would you be able to fix those sentences or do you want someone else to do that? And how exactly do you cite page numbers to the book citations? Do I add all the page numbers on the original citation? TempleM (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All right, I've finished running through the article. I'm not the world's greatest copy-editor, but managed to clean up some of the issues affecting the article. I fixed a few of the sentence beginnings, but not all of them; just moving words around does more good than one might think. While editing, I became confused by the second sentence cited to ref 81. Is this a reader review? If so, I can't see a scenario where it would be significant enough to include, not to mention that the source wouldn't be considered sufficiently high-quality to use in this context. If there are no reviews from reliable sources available, don't feel compelled to use a weak source; in that case, just mentioning that he wrote the book would be good enough. As for the book cites, the typical method is to place the full book cite in its own section (Bibliography and Sources are usual section titles), and use short cites in-text. One common format for this is Author last name(s) (year), p. xx. (pp. for multi-page cites). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): GamerPro64 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Described as a "shoot-and-lift-up puzzle" game, Meteos is a Nintendo DS game produced by Tetsuya Mizuguchi, who also produced Space Channel 5 and Rez and had the former Kirby series director Masahiro Sakurai as its game designer. With inspiration from properties such as The Matrix and Missile Command, along with many different game modes including a story mode with branching paths, the game was released with praise from game critics, with some calling it one of the best games for the system.

Before ever working on it, its previous state didn't even have anything in its Development section. But after going off and on working at it for two years (with the majority being in December 2016), the article was expanded with the different sources used throughout and fleshed out sections to make it more presentable. And after passing its Good Article Candidacy and receiving a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, I believe that it ready for an FAC. GamerPro64 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

  • Footnote the Japanese name unless it's crucial to understanding the game.
  • More of a suggestion than anything major, but I don't think that "and plot" needs to be in the title of the gameplay section. Plots are typically part of the gameplay itself.
    • If anyone else has problems with the section titles I'll change it. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto for "Sequels and".
    • See above. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Isn't the reception section a bit short for a game that got as many reviews as it did? I don't see many opinions as to whether its graphics were praised, or specifically what about the gameplay was praised as well.
    • Expanded the receptin section. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Unlink Platinum Egg in legacy, since it doesn't have its own page.

Good work on this. Once my comments have been addressed, I will support promotion. JOEBRO64 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @TheJoebro64: Answered your comments. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Happy to support this now. I think you did an amazing job on this article. Good luck. Also, would you mind leaving comments at my current FAC? JOEBRO64 11:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • The infobox image requires ALT text.
  • Is this entire phrase necessary (the Nintendo DS portable gaming system) as opposed to (the Nintendo DS)? I have never personally seen it identified with the “portable gaming system” part, and it seems like an odd clarification as it could be read as implying that the DS has another type of system as well.
    • Removed. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, I would add the year in which the Matrix was released. This same comment applies to Missile Control, Tetris, and Lumines. Add the years for all of these in the body of the article as well.
  • I would add the years in which Space Channel 5, Rez, Tetris Attack, and Space Invaders were released.
  • I am a little confused by this phrasing (Its stylus was criticized) as it seems to imply that “Its” is referencing the game and/or the game developers. Is this a criticism of the system’s stylus or the use of the stylus in the gameplay? It is not made entirely clear here.
    • Changed the sentence to "Its stylus driven control scheme was criticized by GameSpy's Phil Theobald, who considered it the game's chief flaw." GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The topic sentence of the second paragraph of the “Reception” section is somewhat misleading. It says that the gameplay was “generally praised”, yet a majority of the paragraph includes criticism about the use of the stylus. I would revise the topic sentence to better reflect the content of the paragraph.
    • Fixed up. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph seems a little unstructured. While a majority of it relates to the critical response of the soundtrack, the opening sentence mentioning the criticism of the plot seems a little out-of-place. I would see if there was a way to more seamlessly integrate the plot criticism into this section.
    • Fixed up. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Moved it to be the last sentence of the section. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this list (Disney characters Mickey Mouse, Jack Sparrow and Winnie the Pooh), there is a comma missing after “Jack Sparrow”. The article appears to using the Oxford comma rather consistently so it should be added here as well.
  • Is there any more information on the reception of Meteos: Disney Magic, specifically why it received more mixed feedback?
    • Added a review of the game in the article. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I interpret this part (was also planned for release on SoftBank cell phones) as meaning that the release for these phones did not occur. Is that a correct assumption on my part?
    • Yes I believe so. Cannot find proof it was released for the cell phones. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In this sentence (Chinese developer ShangDiHui released Mini Meteors, described as a Meteos clone, in 2011), who described it as a Meteos clone? Was it the developer, game commentators, fans of Meteos? I would clarify this if possible.
    • Answered. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my points so far. Let me know once you have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 06:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I have responded to all of your posts. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing all of my points. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • The game was critically acclaimed, and topped Chart-Track in its first week. - What does this indicate? A short amount of context for Chart-Track or maybe for what a significant accomplishment this is would help.
    • Chart-Track is a UK market research company that keeps track of sales for things like video games in the UK. It's like Media Create for Japan or The NPD Group for the US. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Could you clarify this briefly within the article both times it appears? ceranthor 10:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay. Done. GamerPro64 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Versions were released for mobile phones and the Xbox Live Arcade in 2006 and 2008 - This should be "2008, respectively", so you clarify which date corresponds to which version
  • After three meteos fused and launched themselves and other meteos into space, civilizations on other planets plan a counterattack against Meteo. - watch tense in second half
    • Added "the" between "space," and "civilizations". I think that makes it better in terms of tense, unless I'm wrong. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Meteos was developed by Q Entertainment and released by Bandai and Nintendo, with Nintendo releasing it in the United States - where did Bandai release it - everywhere else? clarify
    • Bandai published in Japan. Added that information into the article.
  • Make sure you stay consistent with using the serial comma throughout the entire article. I notice one missing in Development and release for example
  • "The game begins with a CG video explaining its backstory. In a Famitsu interview, Sakurai said that the video provided a sense of the game's world.[12] The game was demonstrated at Nintendo's booth at E3 2005.[22]" - this is a bit choppy; try to vary the sentence structure a bit more in this paragraph overall
    • Re-worked it. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The game debuted at number one by Chart-Track for the week of September 24, 2005, " - same note as for the lead
    • Explained in my first point. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The game was compared to other puzzle games, such as Tetris and Lumines - Are you trying to say that its sales were comparable? Or just plainly stating that they were compared by critics? If it's the latter, clarify that
    • Clarified it as the latter. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Although it was originally planned for an October 2008 release, it was delayed until December 10.[72][73] - Does the source explain why?
    • No they do not. Destructoid joking explained the delay was "because Microsoft likes to make your lives miserable." GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Prose looks pretty tight, though I still think certain parts are a bit choppy. ceranthor 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The Simple mode allows quick play, - What does this mean?
    • I expanded the sentence to explain more of the Simple mode. Think it makes more sense now. GamerPro64 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The game was demonstrated at Nintendo's booth at E3 2005.[23] - might make sense to use this to start the following paragraph, instead of leaving it at the end of the current one

Otherwise, support. I think the prose is great. ceranthor 14:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

I made a couple of minor changes - in two minds about some of the quotes but can see reasons for leaving them there. Overall I can't see anything missing or needing rewording. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Some passing comments

  • The Reception more or less follows an "X said Y" formula and could use some extra variation (some advice at Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections)
    • Did some things for it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "equated it to using the C-stick on the GameCube controller for Super Smash Bros. Melee (2001)" this would be trivia unless the allusion is explained
    • Removed it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Meteos' gameplay was generally well received," generalizations like these need direct citations, as the only immediate cite is IGN, which does not make this claim for the whole of the game's reception (it is different to say "multiple reviewers praised the gameplay" with multiple refs to follow)
    • Used your suggestion. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's hard to follow the barrage of reviewer names—I'd consider them unnecessary; many of their statements can be made with simply the publication's name or even no affiliation at all (when there is no opinion involved)
    • Reworked it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"
  • Footnote for the Japanese title is not needed when the game is primarily known by an English-language/Latin-character title, not even as a footnote (WP:VGG#Lead, which has other general advice for Reception and other sections as well)
    • Works for me. Removing then. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

czar 01:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Fleshed out the second image's rationale. Is ALT Text required now? GamerPro64 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not as far as I know, but since they are image related I do by default comment on them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

John Tyndall (politician)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent fascists in British history, a man who went from an involvement in various Neo-Nazi militia groups in the 1960s to becoming leader of the National Front in the 1970s and the founder of the British National Party in the 1980s. Although Tyndall is dead and the parties that he was involved with now drift around in political obscurity, he remains a central figure in the history of the British far-right, ranking alongside Oswald Mosley and Nick Griffin. The article is particularly topical given the recent media interest in fascist and Neo-Nazi groups in both Britain (particularly National Action) and the United States. It has been a GA for some time and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg should use {{non-free biog-pic}} not the historic images tag, and FUR should be expanded
  • File:Mein_Kampf_dust_jacket.jpeg: based on publication date PD-US would not apply
  • I have removed said tag from the article licensing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:George_Lincoln_Rockwell.jpg: not-renewed tag is not needed, Navy tag suffices. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 221: I'm not too happy about having to accept an avowedly racist publication as a reliable source. I suppose that as it's only used to cite the date of Valerie Tyndall's death it's OK, but I'm uneasy
  • This is an issue I also grappled with when working on this article. However, it seems that Valerie Tyndall's death was only covered on far-right websites; she was insufficiently notable for the mainstream press to take attention. Thus, we are left with either using such a source, or having no source at all. I'm happy to follow the consensus on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 222–224 require publisher information
  • In Sources, "BBC News" should not be italicised
  • In both cases, BBC News is listed as "website" and therefore italicises automatically. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "BBC News" is an organisation that publishes a website, not a website in itself. You can use the "publisher" field in the template, to eliminate the italics. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • But is the website itself not also called BBC News? No matter, I've switched "website" to "publisher" anyway, so the italicisation has now gone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The missing isbn for Taylor 1982 is 978-0-333-27741-6
  • On isbns generally, the 13-digit form is preferred, and can be obtained by using this converter.
  • Ah, you've shown me that link before - I will try and remember to use it before nominating articles at FAC in future! I've formatted all the ISBNs to the 13-digit form in this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Subject to the above, all sources appear of appropriate quality and are in consistent format. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

General comments from Brianboulton

I'm working through the prose – I've done the "Life" sections, "Policies and views" to come. Many of the comments are nitpicks; I've made a few unimportant edits to the article itself. Here are my comments to date:

  • Overall, I think the lead is somewhat overdetailed and therefore too long. I've drafted a shorter version for you to consider, here - losing about 25% of the wordcount.
  • I don't personally find the lede to be excessively lengthy; it is already at least two or three lines shorter than the more important political biographies that I have brought to FAC in the past (Lenin, Mandela, Biko etc). I'm worried that some of the proposed removals are too important to lose; for example, his creation of Spearhead, likely the first Neo-Nazi terror group in the UK, would be lost from the lede. However, I have tried trimming down the prose at various points in the lede to shorten it (scrapping "newly established" etc) and have acted on some of the proposed changes (removing the name of the NF factions etc). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "in 1957 he co-founded the National Labour Party (NLP) with John Bean; an explicitly "National Socialist" (Nazi) group". The semicolon isn't quite right here. A slight rephrasing: "in 1957, with John Bean, he co-founded the National Labour Party, an explicitly "National Socialist" (Nazi) group" – eliminates the semicolon
  • Describing Tyndall's O-level results as "fairly moderate" is surely over-generous. I'd say "substandard" (and that's still generous)
  • Copsey, who we cite here, refers to "a moderate three O-levels". This is a difficult issue to resolve. We could be rid of "fairly moderate" altogether, but then readers may not be familiar with how impressive (or unimpressive) three O-levels were. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "A member of the Royal Horse Artillery, during the service he rose to the position of lance bombardier." Lance-bombadier is a rank, not a position, and it needs a hyphen. Also, "rose to" suggests attaining some promotional height; in fact it's a one step promotion of no special achievement. The words "during the service" are unnecessary. I'd simplify to "Serving with Royal Horse Artillery, he achieved the rank of lance-bombardier."
  • Thanks for clarifying these points (as you can probably tell, my knowledge of military matters is zilch). I've gone with your proposed wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Does Hitler need the description "the late Nazi leader"? Universally understood, I'd say.
  • I'd have thought so, but you never know. Is Hitler as well known in, say, Indonesia or Zimbabwe as he is in the West? And will he be as well known to readers in thirty or fifty years time as he is to us today? I find it best to cover our bases in a case like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The National Labour Party and the first British National Party
  • "the secondary school teacher Colin Jordan" sounds as though he was The One. I'd prefer the formulation you used with John Bean, which would be "Colin Jordan, a secondary school teacher".
  • "Tyndall briefly left the NLP" – any reason given for this?
  • No great detail is given in the sources, but I think that it was mostly just interpersonal differences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "In April 1961, Tyndall published a pamphlet that he had written..." – you could lose the last four words
  • "Both Bean and another senior member, Andrew Fountaine, were concerned..." You need to insert "BNP" after "senior", to clarify that Bean and Fountaine wwere not members of Spearhead.

The National Socialist Movement and Greater Britain Movement
  • "20 April 1962" was the anniversary of Hitler's birthday.
  • In the sentence "The police then raided the group's London headquarters, with its leading members brought to trial at the Old Bailey..." the word "with" is not an appropriate connector, dubious grammatically. It should be something like "The police then raided the group's London headquarters, after which its leading members were brought to trial at the Old Bailey..."
  • For what it's worth, Jordan's WP article deals with the Dior marriage rather differntly: "In October 1963, while John Tyndall was still in prison, Jordan, who had just been released, married Tyndall's fiancée, Françoise Dior". Not cited, and probably wrong, but I thought I'd mention it.
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I followed the citations for this article, so I'm not really sure what the Dior article was using as its basis, but if in future I find any RS offering a different explanation of these events then I shall make sure to amend this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "arguing that he "still had a lot to learn" – probably needs "then" after "that"
The National Front 1967–80
  • "This proved more successful, for the LEL..." Without a comparison, "more" is redundant. And "for" would be better as "as"
  • Some dodgy capitalisation, e.g. "Vice Chairman", "Chairman", "Directorate", none of them justified in my opinion. There may be other examples in the article which I haven't picked up.
  • I've gone through the article and changed these to lower-case spellings. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "This NNF" – "The NNF"
Establishing the British National Party
  • No issues
Growth of the British National Party
  • I'm not sure how inviting William Pierce to speak was a counter to the influence of Combat 18
  • As I understand it, it was an attempt to prove the BNP's 'militant' credentials by having such a speaker, thus trying to undermine C18's claims to being the truly militant group, as opposed to the 'softy' BNP. Should I make this clearer in the actual prose? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tyndall stood as the BNP's candidate for Bow and Poplar, there gaining 3% of the vote." – some unnecessary verbiage there: "Tyndall stood in Bow and Poplar, gaining 3% of the vote" will do. Likewise, in "Tyndall stood as the party's candidate in the East London constituency of Poplar and Canning Town", you can lose "as the party's candidate".
  • Numbers expressing quantities require a comma after the "thousand" digit, e.g. 2,500 not 2000. I've dealt with a couple of earlier ones.
  • "used instead by Tyndall for personal uses" is awkward. Perhaps "expenses" in place of "used"?
Final years 1999–2005
  • No issues

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

My remaining points:
Policies and views
  • "openly approve strongly" – do we need the second adverb? It reads clumsily.
  • Third para, first sentence: "or not" is redundant
Race and nationalism
  • The words "biologically racist" should not be duplicated in the first line. Thus: "Tyndall had "deeply entrenched" biologically racist views,[175] close to those of Hitler and Leese".
  • The word "for" that begins the quotation should be deleted as it interrupts the prose flow.
Views on governance
  • "This Prime Minister could be dismissed from office in a further election that could be called if Parliament produced a vote of no confidence in them". I think "passed" rather than "produced". Also, the use of "them" as a gender-free singular pronoun is questionable grammatically. Nothing would be lost by deleting the last two words.
  • I have made the alterations as per your suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "He believed that the apartheid system of racial segregation utilised by these countries should be retained forever" – "these countries" being South Africa and Rhodesia. Although both countries practised racially discriminatory policies, I don't think that the Rhodesian system amounted to "apartheid" in the South African sense, in which black Africans were not considered as part of the nation but as citizens of so-called "homelands". Deleting "apartheid" from the sentence, and pluralising "systems", would resolve the problem.
  • Yes, Rhodesia's system was different from South Africa's apartheid in certain respects. I will make amendments as per your suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Social views
  • I just wonder why the use of single quote marks in line 2?
  • No idea, perhaps an error on my part. I will change this to double quote marks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Conversely, the quote-within-a-quote in the penultimate para ("what's he on about?") does require single quotes.

Overall, this is an excellent article, a fine model for political biographies despite the repellant nature of the subject. I'm happy to support when the above points have been answered. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Support now added. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Support from Vanamonde

I reviewed this in detail at GAN, and am comfortable with the changes made since then. FWIW I am not to familiar with British politics, but have worked on articles on a number of controversial political figures. This is a fine article on a difficult topic. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

An interesting read. Here's the first tranche, to the end of the biographical section.

  • "His paternal family were British Unionists living in County Waterford, Ireland.[4] and had a long line of service in the Royal Irish Constabulary.[5]" Some issue with a sentence fragment here. If you're cutting the full stop after "Ireland", or replacing it with a comma, I might change "and" to "who"
  • "as the anniversary of Hitler's birthday" I might simply say "as Hitler's birthday". The reader will know Hitler was dead.
  • I added "anniversary" in response to one of the comments above; I think it does help keep things clearer, lest some readers know nothing about Hitler or Nazism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "The new NF initially excluded Tyndall and his GBM from joining, concerned that he may seek to mould it in a specifically Neo-Nazi direction," shouldn't "may" be "might"? As I see another instance later in the article, it may be an ENGVAR thing.
  • I can switch "may" to "might", no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "the former GBM soon rose to become the most influential faction within the NF, with many of its members rapidly rising to positions of influence." the "rose/rising" is a bit of a clash. I might change "rose to become" to "became".
  • "and Tyndall again met with Jordan in Coventry in 1972, there inviting him to join the NF." I'm not sure the "there" is really needed.
  • (Interjection) Personally, I'd replace "there inviting" with "and invited", as being unquestionably correct. Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "in the East London town of Millwall" Is Millwall a town?
  • Probably not the best term with which to describe it; switching to "neighbourhood". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a couple more:
  • "as a way of hoping to appeal to the masses." I understand the authorial voice doesn't want to get to close to the point of view, but "seeking to appeal to the masses"or similar is certainly easier on the eye without getting hands dirty.
  • I've gone with something altogether different: "in its public appeals". I'm not really sure that reference to "the masses" really was necessary here, so we can be rid of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "He argued that Britain should establish a White Commonwealth bloc, calling for a better relationship with South Africa and Rhodesia.[207] He believed that the systems of racial segregation utilised by these two countries should be retained forever.[208] He claimed etc, There;s a but if a drumbeat in the he argued he believed etc that I'm not sure I like. I'd try to break it up a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I've made a few alterations to this wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Wehwalt. I have acted on all of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Support A better article than the subject deserves.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment of the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Diverging from its predecessors, which were highly linked to one another, FD3 was written from the beginning as a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realizes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about how they're all going to die.

I got the article to GA-status in spring and tried getting it to FA-status a few months ago but due to personal reasons was unable to continue with the review. Since then I've made a few minor edits, mostly focused on the sources, replacing them with more reliable ones. I hope people enjoy reading the article and become interested enough to watch the movie as well. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47

Wonderful work with this article. I will leave my comments/suggestions for improvement below and good luck with it this go-around:

  • In the lead’s first paragraph, would it be helpful to add in the release year for the first film (i.e. 2000). It could be placed in parenthesis at the end of the sentence.
  • Revised.
  • I was a little confused by the note. You do not specify where the “six years ago” line came from. I am assuming that it was in the beginning of this film, but I believe you should fully explain the context by adding that to the note.
  • I added a little bit more context as to when and where this happens.
  • For the lead, please add the year in which the second film was released.
  • Done.
  • I think you can cut “who was” after you talk about Jeffrey Reddick for conciseness.
  • Done.
  • I would revise the following two sentences, “Final Destination 3 received mixed reviews. Negative reviews stated that the film was formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise.“, to avoid ending one sentence with “reviews” and starting another with the same word. In the third sentence you also use “reviews” in “positive reviews”. I would cut down on the use of the word in such close proximity.
  • Revised though I'm not sure if replacing "negative reviews" with "negative ones" is that much better.
  • I have done some revision here. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert. Once I hear your feedback on this part, I will support this as you have addressed everything else. Aoba47 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh damn, I didn't even think of that. It is better that way, thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Make sure to link Final Destination 3 and Final Destination 2 when you first reference them in the body of the article. I would also add the release years too.
  • Half-done. I need to link the third film to itself?
  • Oops, you are right. I had brain fart here. Sorry about that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • XD
  • Link James Wong when you first mention him in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • In the “Casting” subsection, you do not need to link the characters as they are all linked in the “Plot” section above. The actors were already linked too so you do not need to link them again.
  • Doesn't that fall under the same instance with Wong's name that people should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the main body?
  • I would move the screenshot of the tanning bed death down to the section where it is discussed.
  • I did think about doing that as while their death scene is the source of analysis.. but at the same time it was also pretty notable in reviews, being regarded as (one of) the best death(s) in the film / franchise. I guess it has notability in both sections.
  • I will leave it up to further reviewers. It was more of a suggestion, as I do not have a major problem with the placement. It is a good screenshot for the section so it was a wise addition to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this. My comments pertain just to the prose, as I will leave anything about source use and reliability to the source review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, great job with this and I will support this once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will wait to support this until the issue addressed below about the "Reception" section is more resolved as there are some sticky areas with prose there that I agree need to be further revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I did make some changes in the "Critical response" section. Unfortunately Slightly mad wasn't satisfied with them. I did make some further changes based on his comments. Are there any further changes you'd like for me to make? PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have made the following modifications to the reception section: edits. Feel free to revert them if you do not like the changes. Just trying to help out to improve that part. I will support this. I am not sure if the first paragraph of the reception section is entirely necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Aoba. I really appreciate the help. As for the first paragraph, I think it should stay as it includes professional consesus sites that immediately give the reader a general overview of the film's reception. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could offer at least some assistance as I know that you have worked a lot on this. And your reasoning makes sense to me. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Slightlymad

  • Kindly read my reply above in case you're wondering why I opposed the nomination outright. One final thought: while it's not for me to decide who should review the sources, I recommend pinging the editor who had opposed the source review from the previous FA for assurance that their issue has been resolved. Thank you for your effort. Slightlymad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Slightlymad: I've made a few further changes in the reception section with the help of two other editors. It definately looks better now. Is there anything else that you'd like for me to change; hopefuly change your mind along the way? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources review from Brianboulton
  • There are several italicization issues in the footnotes. Publication details should only be italicized if the source originates from a print medium – newspaper, journal, magazine etc. This is not the case with ref 18 (604 Now), 33 (DVD Active), 40 (Netflix life), 57 (Den of Geek), 60 (DVD Reviews) and possibly others I've missed.
  • OK I get that. But if that's the case then how come when using "|website=" in the template it automatically converts in to italics?
  • @Brianboulton: I checked through them and I'm pretty sure every website's title is non-italicized in the references. Ad for Den of Geek, since it's a publication of a magazine company I believe it should be italicized. Additionally, I checked the manual of style in regard to writing and apparently with specific websites that are neither part of a print publication, nor do they have a page at Wikipedia, the matter of whether they should be in italics or not is a case to case basis. Now if you wish for them to remain unitalicized I have no problem with that but I'd prefer if DVD Reviews was in italics, otherwise it looks like, well, dvd reviews.
  • Ref 20: Scoring Sessions – what makes this a reliable source?
  • Well, the creator of the website, Dan Goldwasser, was editor-in-chief of for more that ten years. Moreover, the article does contain images, include those of the "gore-o-meter", to ensure the information presented there is verifiable.
  • Ref 33: DVD Active – what makes this a reliable source? Also, where does the source support the statement cited to it in the article?
  • Removed and replaced with the Dread Central reference which refers to the extended police-station scene.
  • Ref 36: – what makes this a reliable source?
  • Removed.
  • Ref 74: What's the difference between "AOL Moviefone" here, and "Moviefone" in ref 10? In any event, AOL Moviefone should not be italicized.
  • Fixed it. Don't know how I missed that; I think the "AOL Moviefone" reference was there before I started workinng on the article. I checked and both of them are just Moviefone. I assume the former reference had AOL written in is because they own Moviefone.

Otherwise, the sources seem reliable and appropriate to the subject. Brianboulton (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: So, are the sources good? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

Comments from Jaguar
  • I think we should link Death in the plot section too.
  • Added the little guy in.
  • "On Winstead, he said that "[she brought] a kind of soulfulness to her role as Wendy" and Wendy "is deeply affected by the accident, but she's strong, and fights to maintain control"" - repetition of 'Wendy' how about replacing the unquoted Wendy with her character?
  • Done.
  • "During read-throughs, he often asked Morgan about Ian's facts; to help him, Morgan wrote Lemche notes and gave him URLs to research the information Ian gives out."" - stray quote mark at the end
  • Thanks for picking that out. Removed it.
  • "who appeared in the television films It (1990) and Carrie (2002)" - wasn't It a miniseries for television? Not quite sure on this, feel free to ignore
  • You are correct about It; I could jut remove the phrase "the television films".
  • "Custom-designed coaster cars were created and customized" - repetition of 'custom'. How about removed customized so the sentence reads like Custom-designed coaster cars were created based on events in the script?
  • Switched customized to modified. Hope that reads well.
  • All images are properly licensed under their fair use rationales, as is the non-free use cover image. I couldn't find any issues with the images, so all is well here

This article has improved by leaps and bounds since its last review. I realised during reading this that I've actually seen this film before! I was going to do a source review but was beaten to it—my late arrival to this FAC explains the scarce amount of comments but I'm confident this is meeting the FA criteria. Will support once all of the above are clarified. JAGUAR  10:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I changed everything except That (sorry, lame joke) part cause I want your imput first. And to some extend about the coaster cars as well. BTW, did you enjoy the movie? PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I did enjoy it. I was reminded by reading "premonitions" in the plot section and then I thought, "oh yes, this was the film". I don't know why this received mixed reviews, but I suppose critics have their own different opinions. Anyway, I've read through the article one more time and couldn't find any glaring issues, so I'll be happy to lend my support. Good work with this! JAGUAR  11:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Jaguar. :) PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from J Milburn

I supported last time around after spending a while with the article, and I would like to see this promoted. Have all of the problems identified last time around by Ealdgyth been resolved? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Since the last nomination I have made some changes based on Ealdgyth's comments, like removing the stock picture websites, DVD Talk and fixing the CinemaScore link. If you are suggesting that I ping her to take a look at the sources... I'd rather not. Looking at her comments, it's pretty clear that she's not very familiar with film (and more specifically, horror) related websites and publishers. Nor does she consider RT-approved critics to be good enough. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

2006 Bank of America 500

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 Bank of America 500, a NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race held in Concord, North Carolina at Lowe's Motor Speedway on October 14, 2006. It was the 31st race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the midway point in the season-ending Chase for the Nextel Cup. It was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne, his sixth victory of the season. This is the third time the article has been nominated at FAC; the previous two were failed because of a lack of interest. Since then, I have made adjustments to the prose to make it more understandable and clearer to read. I will be going for the Four Award. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • There are inconsistencies in the ways some references are formatted. For instance, in ref 1 you give "work" (Jaysticks) and "publisher" (ESPN), which is fine. But in ref 6 you only give the work, no publisher. In ref 11 you give the work and a location, no publisher. In ref 14, ESPN is given as the work. These are examples – there are similar cases elsewhere in the list. None of these is an error as such, but you need to be consistent in how the information is presented.
  • Another oddity is in your use of locations. Why is "Charlotte, North Carolina" given as the location of the Houston Chronicle (ref 18) and The Spokesman-Review (38)? And why is "Concord, North Carolina" given as the location of the Sporting News (ref 22), USA Today (28), the Amarillo Globe-News (31), the Motor Racing Network (32), the New York Times (!) (33) and NASCAR (36)? These locations seem to bear no relation to the publications or the publishers.
  • Ref 2: The publisher is given as USA Today Media Sports Group, but the site says " is part of the NASCAR Digital Media Network."

Other than these issues, sources are OK. Brianboulton (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your comments. I have made the necessary changes. MWright96 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
To comment on the Ref 2 issue: R-R was previously part of the USA Today Sports Media Group. I'm not sure when they moved under NASCAR's media umbrella - it was probably within the last two years - but there's good odds at the time that reference was originally placed in the article, they were USA Today-affiliated. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

HMS Neptune (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Neptune was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships. Before the First World War, she served as the flagship of the Home Fleet and as a testbed for an experimental gunnery director. Like the rest of the British dreadnoughts, she had an uneventful war, only firing her guns during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Considered obsolescent, she was scrapped after the war. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. The article had a MilHist ACR earlier this year and I've recently made a few tweaks to add some extra links and clarify a few things so I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done, although I don't want to extend it the full width of the page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Neptune(1909)_main_weapon.svg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Own work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, but based on what? What is the source of the relative placements shown? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Ummm, photos and drawings, I expect. Including the plan from Brassey's given above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "(47 mm (1.9 in))": ))
    • I'm a little puzzled by this; don't you like the doubled parentheses?
      • Thanks ... MOS doesn't mention this any more, so I have no objection. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "subsequently": The word is commonly used with at least 8 different meanings on Wikipedia; please pick a different word. (But "Subsequent" is probably fine.)
    • Here's the only subsequently in the article: sold for scrap in 1922 and subsequently broken up I don't think that subsequent will work here.
      • I meant that the one appearance of "Subsequent" later in the article isn't ambiguous, as far as I know. - Dank (push to talk) 01:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Would "sold for scrap in 1922 and broken up" change the meaning? If so, what's the meaning of "subsequently"? I'm asking because I'm trying to come up with a complete list of all the things the word is used to mean. I'm hoping that when people see the full list, they'll agree that it's not reasonable to expect readers to know which meaning is intended. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
        • In this context I think the meaning is sufficiently obvious. I see only one possible meaning - that the vessel was broken up after it was sold for scrap. What other meaning could it have? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
          • Okay, so it means the same thing as "sold for scrap in 1922 and broken up", right? Wrong? - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 30 October 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) 01:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking this over, Dank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from Indy beetle

  • You display the BS abbreviation for Battle Squadron in the lede. I'd suggest removing the clarification from the lede and adding it the first time "Battle Squadron" shows up in the body under the "Construction and career" section.
  • "Neptune became a private ship on 10 March 1914". It might help to wikilink private ship, as unsatisfactory as that page is.
  • "The Royal Navy's Room 40 had intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic". Piping "intercepted and decrypted German radio traffic" to signals intelligence seems to push WP:EGG.
    • How would you suggest that it be handled?
I'd either remove the link all together or at least take "German radio traffic" out of it.
I'm going to change "traffic" to "signals" or "broadcast" to get rid of some jargon, but the link needs to stand to clarify what "intercepting a radio signal" means as I believe that not many readers are going to be puzzled by the concept of intercepting a signal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should wikilink the Action of 19 August 1916 somewhere in the "Subsequent activity" subsection.
    • I don't think that this article is long enough to warrant duplicating links between the lede and the main body, so those missing links that you noted are in the lede.
  • "The ship was present at Rosyth when the German fleet surrendered on 21 November and Neptune was reduced to reserve on 1 February 1919 at Rosyth." It might be better to say "Neptune was present at Rosyth when the German fleet surrendered on 21 November and was reduced to reserve there on 1 February 1919."
    • That is a better way of expressing things.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
--Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 15: source is a wiki. How does this meet the FA criterion of quality and reliability?
  • Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality and in consistent format. Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • One of the founders is a published naval historian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you give a little more information? For example, how is editorial control exercised? As this is a wiki, what are the rules for editing the content – can anyone who logs in do this? Has the site been acknowledged or approved by a an institution such as a university or learned society? Brianboulton (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Editors must be approved by the editors-in-chief, who include two academic historians and the grandson of Earl Jellicoe, who published a book on the Battle of Jutland last year to commemorate its centennial. See for yourself [12]--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ranger Steve

As you’re aware there’s a general consensus that FA ship articles should have a bit of context in them. This is doubly true here as there’s no class article to turn to for any details about the background and context of the ship’s design. As a result, after the lede the article opens fairly confusingly, with reference to a Naval Programme that isn’t explained. There should be some background to the naval arms race here; after all, before Neptune was even completed, the 1909 Naval crisis had occurred. Something on the evolving design of Dreadnoughts as context for Neptune’s innovations wouldn’t be out of place. I’d expect to see more substantial content here.

  • Added a para on the budget issues and a little more about the design. See if that's satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Much better. I've added a reference to the wider arms race to clarify why the German programme had accelerated. Ranger Steve Talk 13:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, although I've always thought that attributing the arms race as early to 1906 with Dreadnought's completion has seemed a bit of stretch to me considering that the Germans didn't respond with their own ships until a couple of years later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

“These guns were installed in unshielded single mounts in the superstructure. Neptune was the first British dreadnought with this arrangement as resupply of ammunition in combat was very difficult, the guns could not be centrally controlled, and the exposed turret-roof installations used in the previous dreadnoughts were difficult to work when the main armament was in action.” I’m confused by this; did the unshielded mounts solve this problem? If so, how?

  • No, the problem with the older arrangement was their location, not being unshielded. I've rewritten most of the paragraph to explain things better. See if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's much better, nice one. Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The 4th image appears to show torpedo nets that are absent in the first picture, but this defence isn’t mentioned anywhwere.

  • Reflects their coverage in the sources. Not even mentioned in Brown or Parkes; Burt only records the date of their removal and Friedman only mentions that they were ineffectual in protecting HMS Triumph in 1915. But I've added a link to the caption where they're visible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Great, Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

“The ship was commissioned on 19 January 1911 for trials with an experimental gunnery director designed by Vice-Admiral Sir Percy Scott.” Is this the same one mentioned in the Fire Control section? Some clarification is needed as to this fact in either this or the Fire Control section. Also, it appears that she was commissioned purely for these trials from the current wording.

  • All this has been reworded to clarify things. It's not entirely clear if the ship was taken out of commission between 11 and 25 March. Burt just say "commissioned as flagship" in his entry for 25 March.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

More context is also required in the career history as well. Her refit is mentioned and the changes are detailed in the preceeding section, but at the moment the sentence “the ship began a refit on 11 December.” stands out as unexplained. Why were the changes made, especially so soon after the outbreak of war? Additionally, when did the refit finish? Without a closing date I was unsure whether Neptune was present on the 23rd January in the following paragraph on first reading.

  • There are neither explanations nor dates for the refit in available sources. It might have been to add the additional turret rangefinders mentioned in the fire-control section, but that's strictly a supposition on my part. Jellicoe didn't mention that she was still in refit on 23 January, so I can only presume that Neptune was there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. No problem if there's nothing in sources to clarify dates of the end of the refit, but I'm not happy with the supposition that just because Jellicoe doesn't say Neptune wasn't there, that she therefore was. That's a synthesis from two different sources that neither supports. I think you should probably remove the events in which it is not categorically stated that Neptune was present. At the very least, reword it to say something like "although the fleet sortied on the 23rd, the next event Neptune is recorded as being present in was...". While we're here, you might want to look at the page numbers in ref 26. 21 to 12?Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Good catch on the typo in the page numbers. There's no synthesis here because I was pretty careful not to specify that Neptune participated in all of these patrols of the Grand Fleet until she is specifically mentioned; although a reader could infer that she did, which is exactly the implication that Jellicoe himself encourages in his book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
That's clearly misleading. There's no evidence that Neptune was there so why mention it? Because it implies it - and you even admit a reader would infer that. Maybe not synth then, but the same problem applies; you're implying "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". That fails WP:NOR. Are you saying that there's no evidence that Neptune participated in numerous other Grand Fleet sorties mentioned in this article? Ranger Steve Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Jellicoe rarely enumerates which ship participated in the manoeuvers and training exercises unless something out of the norm occurs. All I can do is cross reference his account with Burt to eliminate those which conflict with the refit dates, as incomplete as they are; so, yes, I'm saying that there's generally nothing explicitly mentioning which ships of the Grand Fleet participated in any specific exercise or sortie. Annoyingly, the wonderful logbook site only posts the logbooks for Temeraire and most of the QE-class ships, so there's nothing out there that I've been able to find to positively says that she didn't spend the bulk of the early war swinging at her moorings. I've done the best that can be done to describe the ship's activities in the early war period without accessing her logbook and I don't think that what I've done falls under WP:NOR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

“Neptune was unsuccessfully attacked by the German submarine SM U-29” As U-29 was sunk herself on this occasion by Dreadnought, I think some more information on this event is warranted here.

“The Grand Fleet conducted sweeps into the central North Sea on 17–19 May and 29–31 May without encountering any German vessels. During 11–14 June the fleet conducted gunnery practice and battle exercises west of the Shetlands, and the Grand Fleet conducted training off the Shetlands beginning three days later. On 2–5 September, the fleet went on another cruise in the northern end of the North Sea and conducted gunnery drills. For the rest of the month, the Grand Fleet conducted numerous training exercises. The ship, together with the majority of the Grand Fleet, conducted another sweep into the North Sea from 13 to 15 October.” Is the unnamed fleet at the start of the second sentence the Grand Fleet? If so I’d suggest rewording this to avoid repetition and to clarify that the Grand Fleet was the subject of both events in the second sentence. I’d also hack out some other mentions of Grand Fleet in the rest of the paragraph as it appears four times.

  • <puzzled>Since no other fleet is mentioned anywhere else since the mention of the reorganization of the Home Fleet into the Grand Fleet, what other fleet could possibly be meant? Rereading the paragraph, the too-frequent usage of Grand Fleet are apparent, but the biggest offender, to my mind is "conducted". Consolidated a few sentences and tweaked the wording. See how it reads to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
It's better now, although there seems to be a typo with the word beginning? The issue was that grammatically, by referring to the fleet at the start of the sentence ("the fleet conducted..."), then saying "and the Grand Fleet.." introduces a second subject and implies that the first fleet referred to is not the same as the second. But it's fixed now, except that typo. Ranger Steve Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Admiralty is linked in the second to last paragraph, which is the second time they appear in the article. Given that they ordered the vessel I’d expect to see them mentioned somewhere previously.

The ship’s obsolescence is mentioned in the lede but not in the main body and is therefore unreferenced. Was she made obsolescent by age or improved technology?

Image captions: Two of these are a bit light given their assertions. In the lede image, why is Neptune at anchor and why is it before 1915? Similarly why is the 4th picture before 1913 (IWM says pre 1914 or 1911)? I’m guessing it’s because of an absence of later modifications, but that should be explained or referenced.

  • For the first photo, even though no anchor chain is visible, she lacks a bow wave in a calm sea and her funnel smoke shows that the wind is blowing from behind her. Ergo, she's stationary or moving very, very slowly, with the odds being that she's anchored. The photo uses the dating of the original source, although it's probably while she's on sea trials in late 1910-11 as her gunnery director is missing as are most of her torpedo booms and her superstructure and funnels appear to be in their original configuration. But I'm not going to go through all that as I'm not an expert on the ship.
  • The IWM dating was confusing as the pre-1914 probably refers to their category of photos taken before the start of the war. I changed the date to 1911, as per the other date on the IWM website, as the ship appears to be still in her original configuration.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, I think there's a touch of synthesis here. The source image caption for the first image doesn't mention being at anchor, and although I understand the points you're making about the bow wave and smoke, it's worth observing that there's no difference in those elements of the 1911 image, and there she's described as underway. Unless there's clear evidence that Neptune is at anchor, that suggestion should be removed. I'd say that it's fine to say something like "Neptune, before her 1914 refit" or something like that. Ranger Steve Talk 10:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
How can it be synthesis if I'm using a process of deduction available to anyone with eyes to determine that the ship was mostly likely at anchor? And in the fourth photos, there is more of a bow wave visible, the funnel smoke is mostly vertical and the flags are mostly limp, but not entirely so. Ergo moving at a slow speed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Because you are assuming, even when you say yourself above she could be moving. And I see no difference in the bow wave in either picture. If it was blindingly obvious it wouldn't be a problem, but I see no evidence that Neptune is at anchor and there's no reliable reference for it either. Therefore the caption is original research and misleading. Ranger Steve Talk 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, Ranger Steve Talk 17:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty picayune, but whatever. Deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

  • The first sentence in Background should probably be split.
  • I tried, but could only shorten it a little. See how it reads now. If you have any suggestions on phrasing, I'll happily take them under advisement.
  • "was that if the girders were damaged during combat, they could fall onto the turrets, immobilising them." Does "they" mean the girders or the boats?
  • Girders is the immediately prior noun.
  • "Notably, the exposed guns were difficult to work when the main armament was in action as was replenishing their ammunition. Furthermore, the guns could not be centrally controlled to coordinate fire at the most dangerous targets" does this refer to Neptune or to earlier ships?
  • Earlier ones, as is spelled out in the prior sentence.
  • "In the vicinity of the boiler rooms, the compartments between them were used as coal bunkers." Why not say "The compartments between the boiler rooms were used as coal bunkers."?
  • Much better.
  • "Two weeks later, Neptune relieved Dreadnought as the flagship of the Home Fleet and of the 1st Division on 25 March" I would cut the "Two weeks later,"
  • It is rather redundant, isn't it?
A good read.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Knuckles' Chaotix

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC), TarkusABtalk 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nipples the Enchilada! Totally not Sonic! Three other pointless characters! The dynamic duo of TarkusAB and TheJoebro64 present: Sonic On the 32X Without Sonic! Anyway, after Tarkus and I completely re-wrote this article from scratch, correcting many long-time inaccuracies and giving it a smooth prose, we successfully brought it to GA-status. It previously appeared on the main page in the DYK column, and has just undergone a copyedit. I believe it can stand among our best articles now, as it's the internet's most complete resource on this game. It's an obscure game so it wasn't easy finding sources but we pulled it off in the end. Enjoy! JOEBRO64 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: I've added myself as co-nominator after JoeBro's approval since I helped bring this article to GA and will help with the FAC. I will add that I believe we found every piece of information on this game covered by RSs. Since it has never been re-released, and was on a 1990s console that was a commercial/critical failure, it remains relatively obscure and was hard to find information for. TarkusABtalk 23:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing images
  • File:Knuckles' Chaotix Coverart.png: License, (boilerplate) rationale and use seem OK to me.
  • File:32X Chaotix.png: The use rationale seems questionable to me: We already have the cover to identify the game, and the rationale needs to be clearer about what is being illustrated.
  • Improved the purpose rationale.
  • File:Sonic Crackers shot.png: Not sure that this needs an image to illustrate. Maybe it needs a better explanation how the understanding of the article topic would be harmed by its absence.
  • I'd argue that this image is justified because the fact that it was originally Sonic Crackers and that it had Sonic and Tails is a really important part of the game's development. I've updated the purpose of use to reflect this.
ALT text everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone and improved the purpose rationales and responded above. Thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 11:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • In this sentence (The game featured Sonic and Tails, and experimented with the ring force bond physics), I would add “developers” in front of the verb “experimented” as I am not sure that the verbiage really matches up with the present noun “The game”.
    • Reworded a bit; I think it looks better now.
  • Do you need to clarify that that the 32X is an add-on for the Sega Genesis to avoid a potential misreading of the 32X as its own platform or entity.
    • Yeah, I've clarified it.
  • For this sentence (Some characters and concepts introduced in Knuckles' Chaotix later featured in other Sonic games and media), I think that you need “were” in front of the phrase “later featured”.
    • Done.
  • In this phrase (game that shares the same basic gameplay elements that defined earlier entries in the Sonic series), I would add a link to the main article on the Sonic series/franchise as this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article.
    • Done,
  • In this phrase (due to their slow and destructive nature), I would substitute “and” with “or”.
    • Done.
  • Could “Chaos Rings” be linked with Chaos Emeralds? This is more of a clarification question, but the two ideas seems pretty closely intertwined with one another.
    • The Chaos Rings are basically Chaos Emeralds in this game, so I've link to them.
  • In this sentence (Power-ups are placed throughout the attractions providing players with rings, shields, and speed shows, among other boons.), do you think that a link for the word “Power-ups” would be beneficial?
    • Yep. Done.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but what is meant by this part (each level changes to a specific time of day)? Do you mean a day-night system, or that it changes to different types during the day (i.e. morning, noon, etc.)? I think some clarification here would be helpful if possible.
    • It changes to a different type of day; I've hopefully clarified this.
  • In this sentence (Before entering an attraction, the player begins in the Attraction Information Center, which acts as a hub world. Here, the player can choose a partner and an attraction to enter, and see which attractions they have already completed.), there is quite a bit of repetition of the word “attraction”, and I would advise trying to avoid that.
    • I've removed the first and last uses of attraction.
  • I think that the following sentence (In the bonus levels, the player is free falling and can pick up power-ups as they fall.) can be revised to read better. The repetition of the word falling seems a little weird to me.
    • Changed last "fall" to "proceed".
  • In this phrase (in the original Sonic the Hedgehog's scrapped sound test option), I would include the year in which the original game was released.
    • Done.
  • I am not sure about the phrase “as did the 32X platform”. Is an add-on considered a platform?
    • Technically, yes, it's considered separate as it had its own library.
  • For this sentence (The game's presentation was met with divided opinions.), the references need to be put in the correct order.
    • Done.
  • I do not think that IGN should be in italics.
    • I always italicize IGN per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Major works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized."
      • Makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47(talk) 21:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Responded above. I hope I've clarified everything. JOEBRO64 22:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Passing comment: I was enjoying the flow of the Reception section until my eyes hit "" ...doubtful reliability—I'd strike it (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Czar: Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed it. Looking at the site, I think their only claim to reliability would be that they're a sister site of RPGfan -- other than that, the staff didn't look to good to me. JOEBRO64 10:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think that Template:Video game reviews, used in this article, complies with WP:DTT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Can you explain how it doesn't comply? The use of the template appears in line with standard use in WP:VG. TarkusABtalk 12:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth I don't see anything wrong with the template either. JAGUAR  20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I think a lot of people are unfamiliar with this part of the MOS, but FAs are supposed to comply with every page of it, so I thought you'd like to know about it.
To make an accessible table, when there's a header cell that tells you want to expect in the first column, then that header cell should be marked as scope="col". AFAICT, the template isn't doing that at all. I assume that the template is older than the guideline, but, still, it should probably be brought up to date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
OK well it sounds like you have an issue with the template programming. That's out of our control. I looked at the table and believe the headers for the columns are properly "scoped" for accessibility. Maybe bring this up at Template talk:Video game reviews, I don't think a FAC is the right place for this. TarkusABtalk 05:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
  • It would be nice if the infobox image had a caption. Is it North American cover art for example?
    • Added a caption.
  • "but rather another internal development team at Sega. Development on the game can be traced back to a 1994 internal prototype" - repetition of internal. I think you can safely lose the second instance as "1994 prototype" sounds just fine on its own
    • Done.
  • " the game itself has not been re-released except for a brief period through GameTap in the 2000s" - '2000s' sounds quite vague here, try late 2000s perhaps?
    • Changed to "mid-2000s".
  • "However, a reviewer for Next Generation" - I'd change this to However, a reviewer from Next Generation
    • Done.
  • "IGN called the level design simplistic, calling it bland and seemingly unfinished" - repetition
    • Changed the first "called" to "considered".
  • Ref 19 (CVG) and ref 30 (GamePro) are missing publishers
    • Added CVG and GameFan publishers. GamePro already had its publisher; I think you meant GameFan. JOEBRO64 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The prose is polished and I was impressed with the flow of the reception section, though I'm still unsure about personifying publications. Good work with this, once all of my minor quibbles are dealt with I'll be happy to support. JAGUAR  21:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Thank you for your comments! I hope I've resolved them. JOEBRO64 21:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them. I'll be happy to lend my support now! This article is well written and quite comprehensive for its subject matter. I couldn't find many issues with it. JAGUAR  21:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Saguaro National Park

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a two-district national park near Tucson, Arizona, that preserves large stands of giant saguaro cacti and other desert vegetation, much of it barbed, and a wide variety of animals that run like javelinas, crawl like zebra-tailed lizards, fly like whiskered screech owls, or hang out near water like lowland leopard frogs. The taller of the park's two mountain ranges used to be under the shorter one, but it has since moved 20 or so miles east and become a sky island that says, "so there" to the short one. Finetooth (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look....

  • Not thrilled about the first sentence. I'd say something like "Saguaro National Park is a National Park in southern Arizona in the southwestern United States." or something similar
Recast. Added Pima County and a different national park link. Finetooth (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd add the surface area somewhere in the lead.
Done. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If Tucson is the nearest big city, I'd put its distance and direction from it, both in body and possibly in lead.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • within easy reach by car from Tucson - err....sounds like a real estate advert..distance should suffice. Could also add travel time if keen...
Recast. Not keen on adding travel time. Finetooth (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There's alotta precipitation in para 3 of Geography and climate - can we just use "rain/rainfall" a bit...?
Yes. Added variety. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Listing (at minimum) some of the woody plant species (shrubs, trees) that make up the dominant plants in the scrub and woodland would be good.
I moved the brief reference to shrubs from the Climate section into the Plants and fungi subsection and added two examples of low-elevation shrubs. I'll add examples of vegetation from the other zones, but this will take me a while. There are thousands to choose from, and quite a few are found in multiple zones. Finetooth (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added four examples of trees commonly found at the highest elevations. I'm not sure how far to go with this; I don't want to make the article too listy. What else, if anything, do you think we need here? Finetooth (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
That's fine - just a few noteworthy plants is good - i.e anything really rare or unusual or otherwise a common/dominant plant. Anyway, am satisfied with comprehensiveness and prose now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the helpful advice and support. Finetooth (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "crustal stretching associated with the Basin and Range displaced rocks". "associated with the Basin and Range" sounds vague. I would delete as not needed in the lead.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "established the original park". You have not said where the original park was - presumably RMD but the explanation could be clearer.
Clarified. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Finetooth (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Geology. I think it would be clearer if you kept to chronological order and moved the first two sentences to the last paragraph.
Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Volcanic rocks exposed in and near the TMD in the 21st century are remnants of these events." I think "in the 21st century" is superfluous.
Deleted. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Not all of the molten granite reached the surface of the Tucson Mountains; instead, it cooled and crystallized far below." I think "some cooled" would be better.
Agreed and done. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • When did volcanism cease?
About 30 to 15 million years ago, according to Bezy. I've added this information to the Geology section. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 'After 1920' As in my comment above, you do not explain what area the original park covered.
Added. Finetooth (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Were homesteaders and mines expelled from the park? If so, were they compensated in money or offered alterntive land?
Not kicked out. The homesteaders lost interest, and so did the miners, both groups for the same reason. It was too hard to make a buck doing either of these things. I added some specifics about the hard-rock mines, and I added some specifics about the ranchers, some of whom did not want to stop running cattle in the park. They were compensated by buy-outs. To add more specifics, which unfolded over several decades, would add unnecessary detail, imho. Finetooth (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • How long do saguaros live?
Up to 200 years. Added. Finetooth (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "entire biological communities may gradually re-locate in response to long-term changes in climate, such as those that occurred during the most recent Ice Age." I cannot see this in the source cited, although I may have missed it.
I can't find it either, and its inclusion might have been an unwitting violation of WP:SYNTH on my part. I removed the claim and moved the Ice Age link down to what is now its first mention in the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a good article, but the recreation section is too detailed for an encyclopedia article, and reads more like a park guidebook. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. This seemed to be the opinion of the GA reviewer as well. Aiming for the sweet spot between too much and not enough, I trimmed this section by about 3,600 words. Finetooth (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles I think I've responded to all of your suggestion and questions. Finetooth (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The only issue I can see now is that your edits have forced all the references into the first column. I suggest moving the maps up and shrinking the second one, which is far too large. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "up", but I reduced the sizes so that the text is no longer squashed. Is that better? Finetooth (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful suggestions and support. Finetooth (talk) 16:57, 11 November 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) 04:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your copyedits, all good, and for your support. Finetooth (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Patrick Henry

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... A man who may not have quite the repute he did when I took U.S. history forty years ago. But still, his name lives on, even if, regrettably, people have forgotten what it was he did. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Washington and Currier images, and amending caption grammar on the former
I've cropped the first. I think the second is OK. Not sure what you mean with the grammar.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Patrick_Henry_Signature.svg: source link is broken. Same with File:Parson's_Cause_by_Cooke.jpg, File:Patrick_Henry_Rothermel.jpg
  • Parson's cause one done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Rothermel too.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
On the signature, I've emailed Connormah, who traced it. If necessary, I'll substitute another, but he put work into the tracing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I've consulted with Connormah and worked around the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Washington_Henry_and_Pendleton_going_to_the_First_Congress.jpeg: when/where was this first published?
Linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Patrick_Henry_broadside.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Patrick_Henry_estate_marker_Henry_County_Virginia_1922.JPG should include an explicit copyright tag for the marker
  • File:Red_Hill_Charlotte_County_Virginia_1907.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Red Hill done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Everything is now done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Moise

  • Early life and struggles: Fifth paragraph's first two sentences begin with "Among". Would be nice to avoid the repetition if possible. Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Stamp act: "and both recalled that Henry did not waver, "If this be treason, make the most of it!". " I think this means Henry said, "If this be treason..." but the transition into the quotation seems unclear. Also, I don't believe the final period is needed since there is already an exclamation mark. Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Comma changed to colon, I'd rather not add any text here. I've deleted the comma.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
(butting in): I think you mean, above, that you've deleted the period, but in my view you should retain it. The exclamation mark is part of a quotation within the sentence. The sentence needs to be independently ended by its own period. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've adjusted that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Lawyer and landowner: "Jefferson later complained that Henry was lazy and ignorant in the practice of the law, with his sole talent practice before juries": Is there a missing or extra or mistaken word in the second part of this sentence ("with his sole talent practice before juries")? I'm not sure how to parse it.
Legalese. I've tweaked it.
  • "Henry invested some of his earnings in western lands, in what is now the western part of Virginia, as well as in West Virginia and Kentucky." To avoid too much repetition, would you consider removing the first "western", unless you feel this is an important point? From one point of view, maybe it's enough that the reader know the locations of the lands, without having it specified that these were "west" of where Henry currently was.
Changed the first western to "frontier".
  • "Henry was a slaveholder from the time of his marriage at age 18, when he was given land and slaves." This has already been mentioned earlier in the article. Even if you want a reminder here, maybe at least remove "when he was given land and slaves"? Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, all very good points. See my notes to the first three, and the fourth I've done as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress: Many of these comments are quite minor, and here are a couple more: "This was a sensitive matter especially because of the recent Gaspee affair in Rhode Island, in which the British sought to capture and transport overseas for trial those who had burned a British ship. The Burgesses sought to rebuke Dunmore for his actions..." Two sentences in a row with "sought". Could be good to replace one of them.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Undeterred, the former legislators met at the Raleigh Tavern": The Raleigh was mentioned a few sentences earlier. Maybe change this later instance to "the same tavern" or just "the tavern". Moisejp (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I feel it may be too far apart for that. My thought is as well is that it should be spelled out. The significance of the Raleigh Tavern was not that they served alcohol (though no doubt they refreshed themselves) it was the largest meeting place in Williamsburg that was not controlled by the government. So it seems to me the full name should be used here.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, fair enough.
  • Liberty or Death: "There was debate on whether to adopt a petition by the planters of the Colony of Jamaica, complaining of British actions, but admitting the King could veto colonial legislation, and urging reconciliation." I'm afraid I got lost in the second half of this sentence. If you see any possibility that other readers may not follow the sentence, is there any way to rewrite it to be clearer?
I've rewritten the passage, hopefully with enough clarity.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Gunpowder incident: "He returned to take command of the county's militia and, on May 2, march on Williamsburg, with, Dunmore wrote, "all the Appearances of actual War"." There are an awful lot of commas in this sentence. Would you consider trying to rework it to reduce the number of these? Moisejp (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Second period as governor: "During this time, Henry and his family lived at "Salisbury", in Chesterfield County, about 13 miles (21 km) from Richmond". Are the quotation marks around "Salisbury" necessary? I'm not sure what their purpose is here. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. I have finished reviewing and am very happy with the state of the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I thought that this was a fascinating read in peer review, and met the criteria of an FA. My opinion is unchanged. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your very helpful comments, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Ref 136: should be p. not pp
  • Ref 160: can you clarify the page range rendered as "1–6—1–8"?
  • Ref 170: should be pp. not p.
  • There should be consistency in presentation of state names in publisher locations, e.g. "CT" but "Philadelphia".

Otherwise, all sources appropriate and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've done those things. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

General comments from Brianboulton

I'm about halfway through my picky prose review (I've also done a few very minor edits myself). Here are my comments thus far:

  • Refreshingly concise, but one nitpick. The box describes Henry as the "1st & 6th Governor of Virginia", but then records his two stints in reverse chronological order. Can this be changed, or is there some inviolable Law of the Boxes?
  • "his famous speech to the convention" – clarify what convention.
  • Personally, I'd be inclined to drop the "not only ... but" formulation and reword: "...of Virginia, through his famous speech to the convention in 1775, and by marching troops..."
  • "the capital of Williamsburg" is ambiguous. Suggest "the state capital, Williamsburg"
  • "The failures of the national government..." seems a bit prescriptive, without any indication as to what these failures were. Would "weakness" be more apt? In any event, you need a comma after "strong federal government".
Early life and struggles
  • "At the age of 15, Henry..." Pronoun better
  • To save forcing readers to use the link, I'd say "The religious revival known as The Great Awakening... And you don't need "young" Henry as you say he was a child.
Revolutionary lawyer and politician
  • "Henry was engaged by Maury's parish vestry to defend..." I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure "defend" is right, here. As I understand it, this was not a prosecution but a hearing to assess damages, so "to represent them" might be better.
It's possible a different term was used in colonial days, so I've changed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "due to" and "thanks to" in the same sentence reads a little clumsily and could perhaps be tweaked. Incidentally, "due to", one of my least favourite prose clichés, occurs six times in the article and could be replaced in a few of these.
  • "influential committee members" – you don't say what committee.
  • "In 1765, William Johnson, the brother of Thomas Johnson, who had been one of Henry's clients in the Parson's Cause..." As punctuated, it's unclear whether William or Thomas had beeen Henry's client. Drop the third comma?
  • I think you should add something to explain what the House of Burgesses was. I thought it was the state legislature, but later you refer to the General Assembly. Our WP articles state respectively "that "From 1619 to 1776, the representative branch of the legislature of Virginia was the House of Burgesses..." but also "The Virginia General Assembly is the legislative body of the Commonwealth of Virginia..." so I'm slightly confused.
It is mentioned in the first paragraph of Parson's Cause.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • " Having seemingly called for the death of King George III, there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber..." Not grammatically sound as it stands – who "seemingly called" etc? I asssume it was Henry, thus: "Henry in his speeech having seemingly called for the death of King George III, there were cries of "Treason!" in the chamber..." or some such
  • The passing of the five resolutions is stated twice, in the 3rd and 5th paras of the section.
Lawyer and landowner
  • There's a reference to "his Louisa County property", with no indication as to how he had acquired this, so early in his career.
  • "and citing earlier historians" → "and cited earlier historians", to be consistent with the sentence's grammar.
  • Probably best to be consistent as between "the age of 10" (Early life) and "age 18" here.
  • "for he did not believe colonization schemes were realistic" – I'm not clear what is meant by "colonization schemes".
  • "They assumed that in so doing, they fought slavery..." → revise to "...they were fighting slavery"?
Renewed involvement and First Continental Congress
  • "was inevitable" → "were inevitable" (two things)
  • "after there was time" → "after giving time"
  • Link Virginia Conventions (para 3). Perhaps begin: "In all, five Virginia Conventions..."
  • "There was intense interest in the Virginians" - intense interest among whom?
  • "Kukla" needs an introduction on first mention
"Liberty or Death"
  • "The convention debated whether Virginia should adopt a petition by the planters of the Colony of Jamaica" - I take this to mean adopt the wording of the Jamaican petition, in preparing one of their own?
  • "only one tried" → "only one person tried"
Gunpowder incident
  • "leave off" sounds a bit informal. "halt"?
Halt is ambiguous, I'm inclined to let it stand. It doesn't read as informal to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "would never again hold office outside its borders". I'm not clear what offices he had held outside Virginia.
Well, he was a delegate in Congress, requiring him to serve in Philadelphia. I gather you are quibbling that it was not an office. I'm open to some simple change in language.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • He seems to have had two colonel appointments: of the 1st Virginia Regiment, and "in charge of all of Virginia's forces". To avoid possible confusion, maybe the last line of para 3 could be simplified to "commissioned Henry as commander of all of Virginia's forces".
  • "would no longer be" → "was no longer the" (avoiding two "woulds")

The rest will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get to these as soon as I can, but it may be a day or two due to travel.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm up to date. I've varied from your suggestions in several cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My remaining points:

Independence and first time as governor
  • "used by Jefferson in writing the Declaration". Non-US redaers won't instinctively realise that this refers to the US Declaration of Independence, especially as the last Declaration mentioned is Mason's Declaration of Rights. So I'd clarify here.
  • In "great offender", does "great" refer to the offence or the perpetrator?
  • "The plan of government..." → "The form of government"?
  • "June 29" – we could do with the year being mentioned
  • What was the cause of the rapid depreciation of Virginia's currency?
The strains placed on the economy by the war, basically. Remember, tobacco to Britain was the big revenue source and there was an embargo. I'm not sure it's fruitful to interrupt the narrative for a digression into economics.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Leatherwood and the House of Delegates
  • "once he left Richmond" closely followed by "Once he returned home..."
  • I'd be inclined to preface Benedict Arnold with "the renegade" or some such description. He's not that well known over here.
  • Para 2 line 3 "as the war" should be "so that the war". Cornwallis's entry caused the war to be played out in Virginia, not the other way round.
  • "There is a story..." etc. If it's just a story, with no historical evidence, should it be mentioned here?
It's mentioned by most biographers. If nothing else, it is illustrative of the high regard in which Henry was held by the common folk of Virginia. Some versions have the woman unimpressed by Randolph being there, but then she learns Henry is there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Second period as governor
  • The legal term "nonfeasance" is too arcane for the general reader. There could be a pipelink to the somewhat mistitled article Misfeasance. Or you could reword as "apparent negligence"?
Opponent of the Constitution
  • Needs "Henry", not "he", in first line.
  • "One legend..." – see my comment above re "There is a story"
We don't know if he said it or not, but again, it is mentioned by most biographers. Historical record only goes so far, as the final section shows.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was set for June 1788" –clarify "it".
Rather than change the "it", I've strengthened the reference in the earlier part of the sentence.
  • "proposed a fiery diatribe" – can a diatribe be "proposed"? Perhaps "intended"?
Later years
  • "...while Henry argued much of the case in court. Henry argued the case for three days..." – there seems to be some excess verbiage here.
  • Who is the "future chief justice" referred to at end of para 2?
Monuments and memorials
  • No issues
Legacy and historical view
  • None here either.

Support: The outstanding issues are relatively trivial and are not grounds for withholding support. The article bears many of the hallmarks of Wehwalt's American history articles – thorough research, readability, neutrality of tone – and will be a fine addition to the FA ouevre. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, much obliged for the review, support and kind words. I've taken care of the remaining points except as noted, though sometimes in my own words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "He was elected to the House of Burgesses" For information I suggest "He was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses"
Given the number of times the word "Virginia" appears in the first two paragraphs, I doubt it is needed, but I've added it.
  • "Henry gained further popularity" You do not need to repeat "Henry". "He" would be better.
  • "A slaveholder through his adult life" I think "throughout" would be more correct, but is this AmerEng?
  • "The Burgesses instructed the body's agent in London" Why not "their agent"?
  • Oppose. The bibliography is very short for an article on such a major figure. The one in Tate's ANB article describes several sources as important which are not used, such as the second volume of Meade's biography and the Morgans' account of the Stamp Act crisis. I do not think it meets criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." In view of this, I have stopped my review for the present, although I am willing to reconsider if other editors disagree. Perhaps Ian Rose or Sarastro1 could comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Meade's bio is a half century old. Henry has had several recent biographers; those are more important (and are too late to be covered by the ANB, which is pre-2000). Of course they use the books you mention as sources. I've used Meade's bios of other figures, such as Judah Benjamin, they are wordy and a bit old-fashioned. I've downloaded the Morgans book, they really don't say that much more than anyone else, just a seven-page discussion of the "Treason" speech and the resolves (part of which is quoted text, i.e., the resolves) and a bit in the "Conclusion" but I'll add a few items.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Again, note that the bios used postdate the ANB. I've also addressed your prose points.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Dudley's comment with regard to criterion 1c raises an interesting point: How can a survey of relevant literature be both "thorough" and "representative", since they are mutually exclusive alternatives? 1c as worded is clearly impossible to meet. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Brian makes a good point, and Wehwalt also makes a good point that the ANB bibliog is dated. But the bibliog in this article does seem thin compared, for example, with another article I am reviewing, Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
By number of books cited, arguably, but by material on Henry, not. Buckingham doesn't have five 21st century biographers, one in 2017. The nominators had to pull a little bit on him from here and another little bit on him from there. I won't say that every word in Henry's biographies is about Henry--the material on him is thin enough that there's quite a bit of text about "his times"--but the total amount on Henry in the books cited probably exceeds the total amount on Buckingham. And we are a tertiary source, the biographies, especially the modern ones, are the state of play on what the significant things in Henry's life are.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I've opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria for a general discussion about the meaning and wording of criterion 1c. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Brian. That is helpful. Wehwalt, I am now inclined to strike my oppose in view of your explanation, but would ask whether general histories might give a view of Henry which may be more impartial and puts him in a wider context than provided by a biographer. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a fair point, although of course there may be individual variations. To that end, I've gotten a copy of Michael A. McDonnell's The Politics of War: Race, Class and Conflict in Revolutionary Virginia (2012) which seems focused and by a highly reputable historian. I'll add from it to the article within the next day or so. (Wehwalt)--20:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Ping me when you have finished and I will complete my review. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, want to take another look?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Further comments.
  • "and by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg after the Gunpowder Incident until the munitions taken by the royal government were paid for." This is a bit vague. How about "and because he forced the royal government to pay for munitions which they had seized by marching troops towards the colonial capital of Williamsburg." Also in the main text, who owned the gunpowder? And you have not spelled out Henry's original purpose. According to the Gunpowder Incident article (in the lead but not in the main text) it was to force the governmor to return the munitions, and if so this should be spelled out here.
The gunpowder was technically paid for privately, by a note signed by a member of the governor's council so I'm hesitant to put it the way you propose. I've changed "taken" to "seized". I think the reader has what they need for lede purposes, and there's a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • " a characterization that Henry's biographers have found to be unfair." What do they say his position was?
  • You have a heading 'Revolutionary lawyer', but you have not stated that he became one in the text, and jump straight from working in a bar to counsel in Maury's case and adding 164 new clients. When and how did he become a lawyer? Was he trained?
  • "The fifth was the most provocative, as it named the Virginia legislature, the General Assembly, as the representatives of Virginia empowered to tax." This is unclear. Did the resolution state that the power to tax lay solely with the General Assembly, and deny the right of the British parliament? (I see below that a resolution stating this was not passed, so why was the fifth resolution controversial? It seems to follow from the first four.)
The resolves really weren't that different from the petition the Burgesses had sent the prior year, but why they were controversial doesn't have a simple or a single answer, depending on who you ask. Some combination of being too explicit and Henry being a new boy.
  • "In 1773, Henry came into conflict with the royal governor, John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore". As a previous governor has been mentioned, perhaps "had been appointed royal governor in 1771".
  • "The first met in Williamsburg" "They first met in Williamsburg"?
No, the first convention. I've added the word.
  • "and something of a political rival of Henry's" This sounds colloquial. I would delete "something of"
  • "next-important committee" What does this mean - next most important?
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm up to date
  • "The gunpowder belonged to the government" I am confused. The gunpowder belonged to the government, but the colonists demanded compensation for it? If that is because a colonist had paid for it, that needs to be explained.
Dunmore took the position that it belonged to the Crown, Henry that it belonged to the colonists, i.e. the General Assembly I will add something brief on it.
  • "As popular support for independence grew, opponents either joined in, or remained silent." Opponents changed sides? Also presumably became rather than remained silent.
  • "and he took it up later that month" I would say "and he took the appointment up later that month"
  • " publick [sic]" I do not think the sic is needed. "publick" is given by OED as an archaic spelling.
  • "the resolution instructed the state's delegates in Congress to press for American independence, which they would, with Lee introducing the motion". Inserting "which they would" in the middle seems the wrong place to say that they supported independence.
I think it's a good place, the article is switching from the general to the specific, where the actions would naturally be recounted.
  • "the convention, by 60 votes to 45 for Thomas Nelson Jr., elected him as Virginia's first post-independence governor" This confused me at first. Maybe "the convention elected him as Virginia's first post-independence governor, with 60 votes to 45 for Thomas Nelson Jr.,"
  • "Jefferson and others wanted to reopen contracts that had been already settled, but in depreciated currency;" Presumably Jefferson thought that the contractors had been unfairly underpaid, but this should be clarified. It is also not clear why Henry thought fair payment unjust.
Who says what is fair? The debtors had paid according to the laws at the time. The money could not go to Britain due to the embargo, accordingly the Virginians paid according to the law. Henry took the side of his constituents both here and later on when he was involved in the 1790s litigation. I think that the article makes clear the key point: the creditors had been "paid" in a way that benefitted the debtors. That's sufficient for the reader of an article on Henry.
  • "He is especially attractive to Christian conservatives, who cite his deep religious beliefs, as well as his writings and speeches in favor of Christian virtue" You have not covered this aspect, so far as I remember.
No, but neither does the ANB :) ... I've added a paragraph.
  • "You say that Christian conservatives admire his writings "in defense of religious liberty" But the only example you quote on his views on religion I can remember (I may have missed others) is that "Henry believed that taxpayers who were Christians should be assessed for the maintenance of the Protestant church of their choice". The compulsion and exclusion of non-Protestants seems to favour Christian conservatism but not religious liberty.
I've added a couple of key quotes, see prior comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Nevertheless, Jefferson's negative assessments of Henry have sullied the latter's historical reputation." "sullied" is POV and "his" would be better than "the latter's"
  • This is a good acount of Henry's career, but it gives the impression of being biassed in his favour, reflecting the main reliance on biographers, most of whom are open partisans, as shown in the titles of their books. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I don't entirely agree that a biographer is a partisan. Obviously the biographer is trying to present his subject as worth writing about, but I'm not convinced his 21st century biographers, to mention some, are partisan or even overtly favorable to him. We don't live in an era where a Parson Weems view of someone like Henry gets you far. I am comfortable that the article reflects the state of play on Henry, and includes the histories mentioned above, which cover the key moments in Henry's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging with my comments. I certainly do not now oppose, but I will try to have another look in a few days, and maybe see what other reviewers think on the last point. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bat (play)

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The comedy, mystery, and shocking twist ending of The Bat made it one of the most successful plays of the 1920s; it ran on Broadway for over two years at a time when only big hits ran more than a few months. It was the bellwether of a genre of "old dark house" thrillers that were popular through the end of the decade. In the years since, imitation and parody have turned its thrills into clichés, but it has another legacy: a movie version of its masked villain provided inspiration for a masked hero, Batman. Thanks in advance for your feedback; I hope the surprise ending of this nomination is promotion to FA. RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Mary_Roberts_Rinehart_1920.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Effie_Ellsler_with_hat_(cropped).jpg, File:Claude_Rains_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Claude_Rains_(cropped).jpg is an extract from File:Claude_Rains.jpg, which was printed and distributed to theaters in Australia in 1912.
  • File:Effie_Ellsler_with_hat_(cropped).jpg is extracted from File:Effie_Ellsler_autographed_with_hat.jpg, which is an autographed print from the New York-based Burr McIntosh Studio in 1903.
  • File:Mary_Roberts_Rinehart_1920.jpg is a news service photo, so I assume it would have been distributed, but although dozens of photos of her were published from 1920-22, I have not spotted this one. So I've swapped in File:Author_photo_from_The_Works_of_Mary_Roberts_Rinehart_(1918).jpg, which was published in a 1918 book.
Let me know if you have further concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Well-written, well-illustrated, and entertaining. I have a few questions and suggestions, and I made a few minor proofing changes. Please revert any you think are misguided.
  • ¶2 "Rinehart and Hopwood made a number of changes to prepare it for Broadway..." – Delete "a number of" since it is too nonspecific to be useful? Suggestion: "Rinehart and Hopwood altered the story to prepare it for Broadway...".
  • ¶2 Link antagonist?
  • ¶3 "several road companies brought the show to other areas" - Maybe "took" rather than "brought" since the road companies were probably based outside those other areas?
  • ¶1 "Dale arrives for a visit with Dr. Wells, the local coroner and an old friend of Fleming's." – Confusing since it's easy to think from this sentence alone that Dr. Wells was already at the mansion. Suggestion: "Dale and Dr. Wells, the local coroner and an old friend of Fleming's, arrive for a visit."
  • ¶1 "When she shows Anderson to his room, Dale warns Brooks...". – It seems doubtful that Dale and Brooks would accompany Cornelia and Anderson to look at his room. Suggestion: substitute "while" for "when"; that is, "While Cornelia shows Anderson to his room, Dale warns Brooks (who is actually Jack Bailey, and Dale's fiancé) that Anderson is a detective."
  • ¶3 "the unknown man apprehends him and reveals that he is the real Detective Anderson" – I would add, "the unknown man" after "he" since at first glance it might be seen to refer to "him"; that is, "the unknown man apprehends him and reveals that he, the unknown man, is the real Detective Anderson".
  • ¶1 "the elderly spinster heroine" – Link spinster?
  • ¶1 "Alexander Woollcott described the play as entertaining and well-acted in his New York Times review." – Probably better if the end phrase is moved to the front; i.e. "In his New York Times review, Alexander Woollcott...".
Adaptations and legacy
  • Alt text looks fine.
  • No problem with dabs.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No overlinking.
  • This is the first time I've seen a Kindle citation in a Wikipedia article. Way cool!
@Finetooth: All reasonable suggestions, so all done. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All good. Happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and impeccably presented. A couple of tiny nitpicks:

  • Ref 24 is behind a paywall, so it would be helpful to add the (subscription required) template.
  • isbns should ideally be in uniform 13-digit format. There are currently several 10-digit versions, which can be converted by [this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. For Ref 24, the little red padlock is supposed to indicate the subscription requirement; it's what appears when the |url-access=subscription parameter is used. For ISBNs, I use the form that is presented in the book; for editions that pre-date ISBN-13, this will necessarily be ISBN-10 (or for really old editions, no ISBN at all). This matches the advice given at WP:ISBN#Types. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the advice given: "Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work" is accompanied by various converters, and has generally been interpreted at FAC as a preference for displaying the 13-digit form. But I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

  • "The play originated as an adaptation of Rinehart's 1908 mystery novel, The Circular Staircase." Perhaps remove the comma? If it's her only 1908 mystery novel, it's not wrong, but I wouldn't include it.
  • Is the film worth a link?
  • "with the publication of her 1908 novel, The Circular Staircase" As above!
  • I think the name "A Thief in the Night" belongs in the lead; and is it worth mentioning the locations of the previews there? (And for the article body, do we know the particular theatres in these towns? That would be worth including.)
  • Added the title to the lead. I added the theater for the Washington preview, but have not found a source that states the theater for the Atlantic City preview. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have links (redlinks if appropriate!) for Majestic Theatre or National Theatre?
  • "whose nickname became the play's title" Is nickname the right word? Handle, perhaps? (Or would that be anachronistic?)
  • Handle would not be anachronistic, but it seems a bit informal to me; I went with pseudonym. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think mentions of both genres (comedy and mystery) belong in the first paragraph of the lead
  • "the detective supposedly investigating the case" The putative detective- he's not actually a detective. How about "a character who is supposedly a detective investigating the case" or something?
  • "Although similar endings had been used in earlier stage mysteries" Some examples would be great, if your source mentions any!
  • I'm pretty sure it does, but it's a print source that I don't have with me today, so I will need a couple of days on this one. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "the second-longest-running Broadway production in history at the end of its initial stint" Perhaps you could mention the longer-running play?
  • Added a footnote about it. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Spanish Love worth a link? The Monster?
  • Spanish Love was already linked; added a redlink for The Monster. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "a 1925 adaptation of The Monster" Your links are off here; in the sentence, The Monster refers to the play but the wikilink is to the film. Unless you're going to reword, the wikilink needs to be on "a 1925 adaptation"
  • "Rinehart sold the film rights to The Circular Staircase to film producer William Selig's Selig Polyscope Company in 1915, and he released a film version" The he presumably refers to Selig, but, as written, it reads like it refers to Rinehart (whether or not she is a he!)
  • "Wagenhals and Kemper filed suit to block Selig's use of the title" Were they successful?
  • Unfortunately I have not found a source that states what the result was. --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Conditional support. I really enjoyed reading this; my support is conditional on the light fixes above being made, as well as a successful source- and image review. I leave it to the delegates to work out whether to count this as a support, as there is every chance that I won't have time to check in to this review as often as I might like! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks for your review. I've updated based on your suggestions and only inserted replies above where there is something to say other than "done". --RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Great; I'm happy with that, and capable editors have OKed the sourcing/images. Full support! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Washington Redskins name controversy

Nominator(s): WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the ongoing controversy regarding the name and logo of the Washington NFL team. The article has been a GA for more that two years and been remarkably stable. The only issue may be that it pushes the boundary with regard to length. WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments

I was drawn to the article by its title – it looks interesting. I've only had time for a fairly cursory glance at the article; whether I'll have time to enlarge later, I don't know, but I'm sure my esteemed colleague Wehwalt will have things to say. Anyway, thus far:

  • There are several paragraphs that end with uncited statements:
  • "Controversy" section, para 4
  • "Native American advocates..." section, paras 1 and 3
  • "Alternative Native American opinion..." section, para 3
  • "Other teams that use the name..." section, paras 2 and 3
  • There are MoS capitalization issues in the section title "Alternative Native American Opinion In Support of Redskins Name". O, I, S and N should be in lower case
  • Hatnotes should be placed at head, not tail, of a section.

I'll keep an eye open. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I will, once I finish up my other commitments.Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed the bullet-point items above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

The "Responses to the controversy" preamble still ends without a citation. I think the answer is to shift citations 121, 122 and 123 to the end of the sentence. Also, the hatnote in this section is still misplaced. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I have moved the last hatnote, although I disagree with the strict application of the guideline on hatnote placement. Not all links to related articles expand directly upon the topic of a section, falling neither into "Main" nor "Further Information" categories. Placing a "See also" links at the end of a section indicates to me that the article is only distantly related to the section topic. "Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation" (OAF) is such an article, which was created as a separate article by an American University class project, over my objection that the OAF was not sufficiently noteworthy to be more that a subsection in the main article. It was a "response to the controversy" by the team owner, but placing it at the top of any section gives it undue weight.
I am not aware of a guideline that paragraphs must end with a citation. The sentence is amply cited, three refs being place proximate to the information being supported, the opinions of individual commentators. Moving the citations to the end of the sentence removes this visual connection.
--WriterArtistDC (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It is arguable whether inserting multiple citations within a sentence is helpful or detrimental; mostly, citations are placed at sentence ends. I'm sure, also, you'll find that even without specific guidelines, it's been invariable FAC practice for some time to require that paragraphs end with a citation. I can't recall a recent promotion where this wasn't the case, and whatever you think personally I think you'd be wise to accept general FAC norms. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I have rewritten the sentence, splitting it into two and placing the citations at the end of each. These statements of conservative opinion bear a lot of weight in balancing the article, so I am more interested in avoiding bias and OR than placement of citations. I had thought that placement of refs immediately after the name of each author emphasized the individual attribution of the content, but perhaps this is to subtle for WP.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
In the list of "Individual Native Americans who are or have been actively opposed to the Redskins' name" you provide citations for all of them except Dr. Adrienne Keene - possibly an oversight? Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed Dr. Keene, since she is the least notable and sources for her are for general opposition to cultural appropriation rather than specifically about the Redskins.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources comments

A fair number of the sources links are displaying "page not found" or equivalent messages. Please visit refs 44, 53, 67, 83, 85, 96, 98, 102, 103, 109, 116, 162, 172, and 181. You should also look at 180, which doesn't provide an obvious route to the article in question. I'll leave the general sources review until you've dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately an edit I made above changed these ref numbers.
However, I have found and fixed a number of dead links.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Further sources comments
  • A large number of references are lacking publisher details, e.g. 11, 13, 14, 19, 29, and many more
  • Likewise numerous retrieval dates are missing, e.g. 5,10, 11, 12, 16 and lots more.
  • Inappropriate capitalizations in 5 and 23. It's not WP practice, even though a website uses capitals in this way
  • Ref 30: The link appears dead. It produces the message "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below"
  • Inconsistent italicization, e.g. with ESPN

These are a few points picked up from a very partial review of the sources. The section clearly needs a lot of further attention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments by Finetooth

  • ¶1 "...a National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area." – Delete "located"?
  • ¶1 "...but it receives more public attention due to the name itself being defined as derogatory or insulting in modern dictionaries, and the prominence of the team representing the nation's capital." – The "due to ... -ing" construction is a bit awkward. Suggestion: "but it receives more public attention because modern dictionaries define the name as derogatory or insulting and because the team represents the nation's capital."
  • ¶2 "...counts the total enrollment of its membership as 1.2 million individuals." – Tighten by seven words? Suggestion: "...has 1.2 million members."
  • ¶2 "...again voted to cancel the Redskins federal trademark..." – Delete "again" or say when they voted before 2014?
  • ¶2 Link Supreme Court of the United States.
  • Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
  • The dab checker finds no dab problems.
  • The link checker finds four dead URLs as of November 4, 2017.
Update: Citation 182 is dead as of November 7. Finetooth (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Other link checkers find no overlinking problems.
Finetooth (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The count of 1.2 million cited in the Amicus brief of the NCAI in the trademark case was not for direct membership in the organization, but is a count of the total enrolled membership in the tribes which are themselves represented by the NCAI. Thus it would be inaccurate to state that the NCAI has that many individual members.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I had to temporarily stop reviewing before reading the "Native American advocates of change" subsection, where the situation is made more clear. I think using "member tribes" instead of "membership" in the lead would make it more clear there too. Finetooth (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The latter is now "..counts the enrollment of its member tribes as totaling 1.2 million individuals". The other minor edits have been made.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

More comments by Finetooth

my notes in blue--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • ¶1 "than to honor coach William Henry "Lone Star" Dietz" – I'd add the reason why it might honor him; otherwise it will not be apparent to readers unless they click through to the Dietz article. Done
Origin and meaning
  • ¶1 "Much of the public debate is over the meaning of the word "redskin", team supporters frequently citing a paper by Ives Goddard, a Smithsonian Institution senior linguist and curator emeritus, who asserts that the term was originally benign in meaning; though in an interview Goddard admits that it is impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated." – Too complex. Suggestion: Use a terminal period after "redskin", then begin the next sentence as "Team supporters frequently cite a paper...". Reworded somewhat
  • ¶1 "...impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated." – It might be useful to add the native words if that info is available.Native words are not given, but where first translated into French as "peau rouge" and then into English as redskin.
  • ¶1 "Dr. Darren R. Reid, a history lecturer at Coventry University..." – The Manual of Style suggests using a descriptive phrase rather than an academic title. Delete "Dr."? Done
  • ¶2 "In the Washington Redskins trademark litigation..." – This one really threw me for a loop. It took me a long while to realize that the link is to another part of this article. That's a confusing no-no. The fix, not necessarily easy, is to restructure the article so that the link becomes unnecessary. For the article to flow logically, something about the trademark cases needs to appear much earlier in the main text. I remember reading how to do internal links, so now I am surprised to find they are verboten. However, the link is not essential so I have removed it.
My point is that the first main-text mention of trademarks is here: "in the Washington Redskins trademark litigation". This needs further explanation at this point in the article rather than much later. Trademarks are mentioned in the lead, but the lead is an abstract of the main text (which needs to be complete without reference to the abstract). The question you have to ask is "does this article make sense for a reader who cannot read the abstract and hasn't yet read the rest of the article?" Links are fine if they link to an entirely different Wikipedia article but not if they link to another part of the same article, in effect saying, "To understand part A of this article, read part B of this article."
My solution has been to move the entire trademark content to become a subsection of the "Origin and meaning" section, since establishing that redskin is a slur was central to the cases. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That may work as a general solution, but "In a 2014 interview after the trademark decision, Amanda Blackhorse, the lead petitioner..." still precedes the explanation of what trademark decision this was, and in the trademark subsection "While Dan Snyder..." has become the first mention of Dan Snyder in the main text and needs a link and a brief description, "team owner" or some such. Also, Amanda Blackhorse should only be linked once, on first mention. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Did not think about the cleanup needed after the move, it has been done.

  • ¶2 "...the linguistic expert for the petitioners, Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg" – Ditto for this one. You don't need the "Dr.". Done
  • ¶2 "...sentimental paeans to the noble savage." – Link paean and link noble savage here on first use rather than in the Controversy section on second use? Done
  • ¶3 "Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is due to most being concerned with more immediate issues...". – At first glance, this might be understood to mean that most of the minority are concerned with other issues. Suggestion: "Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is because most of the majority are concerned with more immediate issues..." I went back to the source to better summarize what Ross says, omitting the long somewhat ambiguous quote, but finding another more pointed one. I swapped the paragraphs since Ross is speaking to the issue of Native HS usage validating the Washington team usage.
  • ¶1 "...and why their use by sports teams should be eliminated." – Neutrality. In-text attribution here would make it more clear that this is what someone or some groups say, not what Wikipedia asserts. Entire section rewritten to emphasize the primacy of academic opinion
  • ¶2 I'd add the names of the experts being quoted to the quote starting with "Since the first Europeans...", and I'd consider setting the quotation off as a blockquote, as in MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. The quote contains content that builds upon the other text, the connection might be lost as a blockquote.
  • ¶3 No need for the "Dr." for Richard Lapchick. Done
  • ¶5 "The team's owner[47] and the NFL Commissioner, supporters of keeping the name and logo..." – I'd add and link Daniel Snyder and Roger Goodell here on first mention in the article rather than waiting until ¶4 of the Civil rights subsection. Done
  • ¶6 "In a report published by the Center for American Progress...". – The direct link to an external source from within the text should be replaced by an inline citation. Done
Native American advocates for change
  • ¶1 "...the TTAB placed significance..." I think it would be good to spell out and abbreviate TTAB here rather than in the lead, as you do already with the NCAI. Done
  • ¶1 Link amicus brief? Done
  • ¶2 Link Oneida Indian Nation ? Done
Civil rights and religious organizations
  • ¶2 "The Fritz Pollard Alliance, a non-profit organization closely allied with the NFL on civil rights issues, has decided to announce its support..." – Can you say when it decided this? Done
  • ¶2 Link Fritz Pollard? Done
  • ¶5 Link United Church of Christ and synod? Done
  • ¶1 "Although often assumed to be a debate of recent origins, local Washington, D.C., newspapers have published...". – I would delete the opening clause and just start the sentence with "Local..." rather than having to say who assumes. I want to say something about the erroneous public assumption that this is a new debate, which is what the sources support.
OK. Finetooth (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Responses to the controversy
  • ¶1 "Link Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? Done
  • ¶2 "Snyder's response, and that of other fans, reflects the psychology of identification with sports teams. Self-esteem becomes bound to the players and the team, with many beneficial but also some unfortunate consequences, including denial or rationalization of misbehavior." Neutrality. This strong assertion needs in-text attribution, such as "According to X, a professional Y...". The attribution is as stated: the psychology of identification with sports teams. The citation is for a popularized version by a journalist, but academic sources could be added.
OK. The three citations offer considerable support, and it may be that no one will doubt the claim. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Alternative Native American opinion in support of Redskins name
  • ¶1 "Soon it was reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither, and "Chief" was only a nickname, including being on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." – The ending clause may be a bit too POVish in that it thumps on his wickedness, and the sentence is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "Soon it was reported that the Redskins' "full-blooded American Inuit chief" was "neither and that "Chief" was merely a nickname used by Dodson."
    • Reworded somewhat but it would be POV to exclude what the source supports, Dodson was not only a liar but a petty criminal.
OK, but the prose is still unclear. "Soon it was reported that the Dodson was neither a full-blooded Inuit nor a "Chief"; the latter only a nickname, including being on a list of AKAs from court records related to "theft, paternity, and domestic violence matters." How about "Soon it was reported that the Dodson was neither a full-blooded Inuit nor a "Chief" and that court records linked him to instances of "theft, paternity, and domestic violence."? OK except the word "matters" is part of the quote and applied to both paternity and domestic violence. Leaving it our implies paternity is a crime?
You are quite right about "matters". Between us, I think we have got it right. Finetooth (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 It would be helpful in this paragraph to add dates, if available; i.e., "states", "stated" and "published" when?
Name change as a business decision
  • ¶1 "There have been no name changes by professional teams, though a comparison of NFL teams shows the highest negative trend in brand equity being the Washington Redskins and the Kansas City Chiefs, calling into question the business logic of retaining Native American names or logos that are offensive to even a minority." – Link brand equity? Who questions the business logic? This will appear to be POV without in-text attribution to someone. There is already an attribution of the brand equity opinion to two professors at Emory University, their institutional status being more noteworthy than themselves.
OK. I added the link. Please remove if you disagree. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "the value of the team has risen" – From when to when? What made it rise? Also already cited, the valuation by Forbes is for 2014-2015, although no basis for the valuation is reported
OK. I missed seeing the dates, but there they are. Finetooth (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to take another break from this, though I still have a couple of sections to go. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The above will take some time, since I am not doing each item in isolation. The neutrality issue at the beginning of Controversy section has prompted me to rewrite and reorganize; and I have further summarized the trademarks section to reflect the irrelevance of much of this in the wake of the SCOTUS decision, although all the gory details remain in the linked article.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • OK. I hold off on further comments until the dust settles. Please ping me when you think the article is ready for another look. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Finetooth - Ready for review.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Third installment of Finetooth comments

DC Metro area jurisdictions
  • ¶1 "the current governor opposes any change" – I would add his name, Larry Hogan, in part to make the timeline more clear. done
Public opinion polls
  • ¶2 The direct in-text link to an external supporting source, the memo, should be converted to an in-line citation. done
  • ¶4 Link pow wow? done
  • I'd like to see how you respond to Brianboulton's comments on sources before spending more time on this. I can see at a glance that the entries have many problems, as Brian has noted. Finetooth (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • As noted, I made an intermediate edit which altered the ref numbers, so I went through all within the range indicated (~44-181) looking for dead links, and thought that I had fixed all by adding archive links or new sources.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • You may have fixed the dead links, but haven't made any response to my later comments, posted 6 November, which I concluded with "These are a few points picked up from a very partial review of the sources. The section clearly needs a lot of further attention." Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sorry I was only thinking of dead links and did not go back to the other points. The ref #30 (nor 29 and 31) returns no error for me. Since I cut and paste to construct references, capitalization and formatting is likely whatever the source offered. While about 85% of the article may be my work, I do not copy edit other contributors, and have no interest in doing so. Is there a guideline that specifies what reference parameters are required in FAs; and is there an automated tool to check for them?

The italicizing of ESPN in one ref was due to someone using the "website" parameter rather than "publisher", so I have changed that.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have to do the hard graft yourself. WP:CITE states that, while there is no single house style for references, citations within individual articles must be consistent. You are the one who brought this article to FAC, so regardless of what other contributors did, or of what form occurs in the source, it's down to you to create that consistency. There's a lot of stuff in WP:CITEHOW to guide you if needed. Note that the guideline gives specific information about the inclusion of access dates in web sources. I said in my 6 November that I hadn't looked at all the sources, and I don't want to do so until you've done what's necessary to bring them all into consistent order. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Placed the following in a comment at the top of the page: (working through the list, completed ref #49)
  • Citation conventions in this article per FA review November 2017
  • Name all refs name="", or name="" (YYYYMMDD, YYYYMM or YYYY) if neither name nor publisher is this a RS?
  • Parameters:
    • author(s) - for books and journal articles, first and last, for news and web sources, author=full name
    • accessdate for all sources with a url
    • issn for books
    • publisher and/or newspaper
  • --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations, content

@Brianboulton, @Finetooth: I have completed a run-though of the citations. Could not resist tweaking the content alone the way, the significant change being adding a sub-section to Controversy that contains the academic point of view, leaving the opposing views for the Response to controversy.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Gothic Revival cathedral in Cork city, Ireland. The site dates back to the 7th century and can be linked to one of the county's other major place of historical interest, Gougane Barra. Significant input and guidance from KJP1, Guliolopez, Kafka Liz, and Lingzhi who all made this a most rewarding project. Special thanks to Liz who took many photographs, and walked with me several times around and through the building, explaining architectural concepts and how to describe various features. A most helpful PR can be found here. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I shall certainly be supporting the promotion of this article to FA, but first I have a few small drafting points to raise.

  • Lead
    • "Its demolition and re-building was commissioned" – two nouns but a singular verb. In passing, there should be no hyphen in "rebuilding" according to the OED, Chambers and Collins.
    • "renowned Victorian architect" – a touch of the peacock about the adjective. (I personally think "infamous" would be more to the point, but that's neither here nor there, and I only say it to annoy KJP1 when he looks in.)
    • "Caped" – I'm not well up in architectural terms, and perhaps "caped" is right, but it occurred to me on reading it that perhaps "capped" was meant.
    • "Modeled" – I ran the text through Microsoft's spell-checker with "English (Ireland)" selected, and as in BrE (unlike AmE) this should be "modelled" (and indeed we have "modelling" later on).
  • Medieval and 18th century churches
    • "an old tower ten or twelve in circumference" – is there a word missing here?
    • "re-discovered" – as with "rebuilding", the three dictionaries I use don't hyphenate this word.
  • 19th-century build
    • "Burges partially alleviated ... Burges realised" – I might make the second "Burges" just "He" to help the flow of the prose.
    • "decoration of the West front" – not capitalised in mid-sentence elsewhere in the main text.
    • caption: "the Last Judgement is above him" – in view of the capitalisation here, I wonder if "resurrection" at the very end of the lead should also be capitalised?
    • "Burges took 10%" – I think the Manual of Style asks us to write "per cent" (BrE) or "percent" (AmE) rather than "%" in the body of the text.
  • Architecture
    • "re-used" – another hyphen the OED et al don't use.
    • "thus exhaustive to fund" – rather an unexpected adjective. Perhaps "expensive"?
    • "Cork Builder John Delaney" – should "Builder" be "builder"? And he was spelt "Delany" earlier in the article.
    • "around 844 sculpture" – "sculptures", I imagine.
    • "lead to the cathedral's unity of style" – "led"?
    • "and, at St Fin Barre's..." – you ought, I think, to be consistent within the article about whether you put a full stop after "St" or not. These days BrE usually doesn't and AmE does.
  • Sculpture
    • "the most ascetically dramatic" – I wonder if "ascetic" (rigorously self-disciplined; severely abstinent, austere) has got itself mixed with "aesthetic" (relating to the perception, appreciation, or criticism of that which is beautiful)?
  • Graveyard
    • "archbishop bishop" looks strange.
  • Interior
    • "...Bishop's throne" – but "...bishop's throne" in the next para.
  • Stained glass
    • "oversaw every stages" – singular "stage" wanted here, I think.
    • "As elsewhere in the cathedral..." – the sentence goes haywire and needs attention. Indeed, it seems pretty much to duplicate the previous sentence, and perhaps shouldn't be there at all.
    • "illustrations can be divided between the divine, wise and foolish" – this too is given twice.
      • Another editor has boldly dealt with these two points. Tim riley talk 20:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pipe organ
    • Saint Andrews's day" – "St Andrew's".
    • "avoid its interfere" – "interference"?
    • "expand the kit" – unless it is a technical expression in the vocabulary of organ builders "kit" seems a little too informal for encyclopaedic use, I think.

Those are my few quibbles, except for one concluding one: there may have been a techical glitch, but it looks from the article page as though the peer review has not been closed. Be that as it may, I look forward to revisiting and to supporting FA for this excellent article. – Tim riley talk 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, will be addressing these shortly. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, got them all I think Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
There are still the "Bishop's throne" -v- the "bishop's throne", and I think "aesthetic" would read more smoothly as "aesthetically", but these are minor matters, and I am happy to add my support for promotion to FA. Comprehensive, a pleasure to read, well referenced and beautifully illustrated. The Dean and Chapter, and Wikipedia readers in general, have reason to appreciate this excellent article. – Tim riley talk 22:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Grand altogether Tim. The last two issues now dealt with. Thank you for your typically charmingly stated review. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fin_Barre's_Cathedral_1865.jpg: needs US PD tag, and if author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I watched the article grow and look forward to reading it now again. I should probably comment the lead last, but know already that I'd like more consistency and chronology, for example, after having talked about the ancient site, what does "the previous building" mean. - Detail: when I read "It was once" I thought "twice" ;) - How about "It belonged formerly" or even give a year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Finbarr of Cork

  • How about talking about his death and shrine after he was born?

19th-century build

  • building?
  • The image of the entrance looks strange next to the quote, and the long caption about specific saints is not really what I want to read at that point, rather later. Links to the saints might help, but I suggest to move the image.


  • I find it a bit unusual to have the image of the angel under exterior, but have no solution. Perhaps a change to section layout? I'd like to read layout before individual sculpture. Seperate exterior and interior sculpture?

Plan ...

The end comes soon, I was curious to know more about the grand opening ;) - I love the many quotes that give a good feeling for the period. I'd wish some images could be larger! Thank you, all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, yes have been struggling with cramming in images!! Will look at your suggestions in next day or too....Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw a great way for galleries here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I'm thinking through your comments about re image placement, and tinkering around. A gallery at the foot does seem like a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I have a few nitpicks on formatting:

  • Ref 28: For consistency with other online sources, the publisher should be rendered as "Irish Times" rather than as the website name.
  • You use two different formats for retrieval dates, one in the "Notes" section and another in the "Sources" section
  • With the book sources there is inconsistency in including publisher locations – generally you do, but sometimes (e.g. Bracken, Caulfield and maybe others) you don't.
  • Bracken shows publisher as "Four Courts", Lawrence shows "Four Courts Press"
  • Where the source originates in print media, e.g. Irish Times, Irish Independent etc, these names should be italicized

While in general the sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability, I'm a little dubious about Dier. The material is well presented, but the blog is not obviously subject to editorial or other supervision by an institution. Does it meet our criteria for reliability? No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brian, will see about replacing Dier. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Update....have met most of the points..almost there, looking to replace Dier; its not a grand claim. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Have replaced Dier. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

A fine read with a few quibbles...

  • Burges designed the majority of the interior - why not just, "Burges designed most of the interior"
  • By 2010 the organ's electrics were failing and became unreliable. - needs pluperfect about, "By 2010 the organ's failing electrics had become unreliable." (or maybe leave "failing" out altogether?)
  • Anything on its surrounds...?
There should be...digging around. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not ignoring this Cas; should be able to add something today. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from KJP1

Absolutely delighted to see what was a weak, but important, article so vastly improved. All credit to you. Sorry for the delay in getting to it, but I've been away. I made most of my comments at PR, so it shall certainly be a support, but I'm sure I'll find a few things to quibble over! Will have my comments done and my support registered by the end of the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC) OK, here, we go:


  • "and resulted in the first major commission of the Victorian architect William Burges," - perhaps, "and resulted in the first major commission for the Victorian architect William Burges,.."

History - Finbarr of Cork

  • "The church grounds are located south of the River Lee on Holy Island" - you've already linked River Lee in the lead.
  • "each dedicated to Finbarr of Cork, patron saint of Cork city," - and Finbarr.

History - 19th century building

  • The quotebox has Burges as Bruges - how many times have I made that typo!
  • "and McLeod £5,153 for the carving." - as it's the first time we've met McLeod, should we have his full name?
  • "Saint Fin Barre's is described by Lawrence and Wilson" - again I wonder if we should give them their full names at first meeting, and perhaps an introduction, "the architectural historians David Lawrence..."?
  • "which posterity may regard as a monument to the Almighty's praise" - link Almighty, for non-English speakers, or is it sufficiently obvious?

History - 20th and 21st centuries

  • "In 2006, David Lawrence and Ann Wilson published..." - if you've already introduced them see above, they could now be Lawrence and Wilson.
  • The photo entitled "View of the south face" creates a huge white space to the left for me. Is it so helpful, it's essential?


  • The style is described here as Early French Gothic, which it is. In the infobox, the style is given as Gothic Revival, which it also is. Does it matter? Will it confuse?
  • "Each of the three spires support a Celtic cross,.." - should this be "Each of the three spires supports a Celtic cross,", matching the "Each"? Tim's your man although, after his "infamous architect" crack, we're no longer on speaking terms so you'll have to ask him yourself.
  • Yes, it should be "supports". I missed that in my review, mea culpa. Delighted to have offended KJP1, and looking forward to his retaliation somewhere soon. Tim riley talk 20:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


  • "the twelve Apostles bearing instruments from their martyrdom" - perhaps, "the twelve Apostles bearing instruments of their martyrdom."
  • "It was designed by Burges and erected in 1870 free of charge as his gift to the city, in recognition of Cork's willingness to fund his original design, and positioned the sculpture in place of an intended wrought-iron cross." - I don't think this sentence quite works. Perhaps if you removed "the sculpture" to read "It was designed by Burges and erected in 1870 free of charge as his gift to the city, in recognition of Cork's willingness to fund his original design, and positioned in place of an intended wrought-iron cross."
  • "George Webster, rejected the use images of the naked human body" - "George Webster, rejected the use of images of the naked human body..."

Interior - Main features

  • "The font's bowl is of Cork red marble,[45] is 6 inches wide, and supported by a stem, also red marble, and by green marble shafts, resting on a white marble shaft of sculpted capitals and an octagonal base." - Two queries. "6 inches wide" sounds rather small. You could fit a baby's head in, at a pinch, but are we sure the figure's right. The "green marble shafts, resting on a white marble shaft". Shafts on a shaft? How does that work? I can't find any pictures.

Pipe organ

  • While lamenting the loss of the immortal phrase, "It...can safely be described as one of the truly great organs of Europe", I think you were right to let it go.

Ahem, yes :) Have incorporated all these very good suggestions; many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you have. It's a fine piece of work, a great read and I'm very pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and additions throughout. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota

Nominator(s): DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Elcor, Minnesota, one of many small mining communities that once existed on the Mesabi Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. Elcor was a mining location, built by the mining company to house the workers for its mines. Many of these communities quickly came and went; Elcor was one of the few communities which had some staying power, existing for 59 years before it was abandoned. Unlike many other mining locations, the residents of Elcor had something special and unique: amenities other locations lacked, which included their own post office, mercantile, churches, law enforcement, a primary school and a railroad station. Because Elcor was an unicorporated community, it was extremely difficult to research a ghost town like this, and a lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is modeled loosely on the FA Pithole, Pennsylvania and comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg: don't agree that a non-free image is justified here
I have removed the File:Don_H._Bacon (at least for now) per the recommendation of Brianboulton below.
  • File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Elcor,_MN.jpg, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Captions fixed.
  • With regard to File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg, the image was provided by Cleveland-Cliffs for use by the authors in their copyrighted publication. I can't be sure the image is not free, since the photograph was taken before the subjects death in 1922. If this becomes an issue as the nomination progresses, it can be removed.
  • With regard to File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg, I cannot be sure when it was first published. This was a free leaf that was in the Minnesota Collection at the Reference Collection of Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota. The librarians could not track down the original source, but were able to rule out Sanborn Maps from the scale. We were able to provide a rough date from the information contained on the map. I can contact/visit the University of Minnesota again in an attempt to track down the source, but am not hopeful since the librarians were unable to do so the first time.
  • With regard to the File:Elcor,_Minnesota.jpg, this is from the Krause collection of donated photos to the Iron Range Historical Society. I do not believe they had a specific publication date, but a rough date is provided by the information contained in the photo. I will check with the Iron Range Historical Society to see if they can provide me with a more specific date of publication.
I have emailed the Iron Range Historical Society requesting this information.
Response from the Iron Range Historical Society: On Oct 23, 2017, at 12:25 PM, Iron Range Historical Society <[email protected]> wrote:
Kathy and I looked at the Elcor reunion book and at the 3 photos we have in the Krause collection and none has a date or original photographer listed.
Iron Range Historical Society
Post Office Box 786
Gilbert, Minnesota 55741
Follow us on Facebook
From the appearance of the photo it is definitely pre-1923, but if this is a problem, I can change the license to published without a copyright notice. This photo has been used in other publications. I will return to the University of Minnesota when time permits to check again for the source of the final photo. Sorry, Nikkimaria! DrGregMN (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not when the photo was taken, but when it was published - both File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg and File:Elcor,_MN.jpg have tags based on pre-1923 publication, but if we can't demonstrate that we should use a different tag based on whatever publication (or non-publication) we can demonstrate. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. I know the photo File:Elcor,_MN.jpg was used in the Elcor Reunion Book published in 1982 by the Elcor Reunion Committee without copyright: this is the earliest instance I am aware of its publication (it has appeared on other webpages since, but not Wikipedia). The Iron Range Historical Society was founded in 1973 and the original photograph was donated to them sometime prior to 1982, so I'm assuming a license of no copyright notice will suffice. To the best of my knowledge, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg has never been published, so I am open to suggestion if the current license tag is inadequate. The File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg will take some work. If the original source cannot be found, what would you suggest? I would hate to delete the file from the article on a technicality. DrGregMN (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • With regard to the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg, this was a donated photo from William Keller to the Iron Range Historical Society. This photo is edited from the original poloroid. The date stamp on the side of the original poloroid is Mar 67 (this information is a part of the file). DrGregMN (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Nikkimaria! I have changed the licensing to the File:Elcor,_MN.jpg and the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg to attribution. In reading the link, I realize that the photographer maintains copyright of even non-published, donated material even when deceased. Fortunately, for both of these photos we know the donors and the Iron Range Historical Society granted permission to use these photos ( unless they are restricted by the donor, so they should be properly licensed now. This is the way I have them captioned in the article as well. The librarians at the University of Minnesota are back working on the source for File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure I follow that line of reasoning - if the photographer maintains copyright, why would it matter whether the Society granted permission, since they're not the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not following yours.
1. If the deceased remain holders of the copyright even if the photos were never published, and
2. If the family of the deceased donated said photos to the organization (i.e. the Iron Range Historical Society), and
3. If the Iron Range Historical Society grants permission to use the photos with acknowledgement
Does the attribution requirement not satisfy these requirements? I am frustrated and not sure what you are looking for with regard to the licensing of these images. I am trying to do the right thing. You are being less than helpful. DrGregMN (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
What you posted above was "the photographer maintains copyright of even non-published, donated material even when deceased" (my emphasis). If the copyright was not transferred to the Society with the physical photos, the Society does not have the authority to relicense them. In that case we would need to base our determination of copyright on the publication date (or whether it meets the requirements of {{PD-US-unpublished}}), not on what the Society says. Conversely, the attribution would be sufficient if the copyright was transferred to the Society along with the physical donation - do we know that? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Again, I would have to check with the Iron Range Historical Society. I know when they receive a donation, the item is tagged and numbered and documented describing the item(s) and person(s) who donated it. I don't know if the print items, photographs or family histories they receive have the copyright transferred with them. Bear with me, my first FAC, I'm learning as I go.

Brief comments

Welcome to FAC. I haven't done a complete review, but can offer a few points for your consideration:

  • The very brief lead looks too short to meet the requirement of WP:LEAD that it "should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." (my emphasis)
I will work on the lead to more effectively summarize the article later this weekend.
I have more effectively summarized the body of the article and added appropriate weight to the lead section. I put in a request for copy edit of the same.
Copy Editing of the lead section has been completed. Thank you, Jonesey95!
  • I note at least three paragraphs in the article that are ending with uncited statements
There are only two by my count, the first paragraph in the Establishment section, and the last paragraph in the Abandonment section. The reader need only go to the geographic coordinates to see the mine is now centered over Elcor's former location, but how to cite geographic coordinates? Is it necessary since they appear twice in the Infobox? I was unaware that the Elements of Style required the last sentences of all paragraphs to be cited. Comments from both Peer Review and GA article review stated that the article might be "over-cited".
The three instances to which I refer are:
  • First paragraph of the Establishment section. This can be resolved simply by shifting refs 20 to 24 to the end of the paragraph – although I'm sure you don't need all of them. The comments about overciting probably refer to your tendency, here and elsewhere, to multi-cite simple facts. One reliable source is generally enough in these instances.
I have started removing redundant citations, but this is by no means complete since it will take awhile to go through the entire article.
  • Last paragraph in the Abandonment section – but the sentence is redundant given the explanatory text that precedes it, so I'd simply drop it.
  • First paragraph of "Geography and climate" section, where only the first of the four sentences carries a citation. it! I forgot the copy editing had moved that section to the end of the article.
All have been corrected.
You'll find it's a well-established and now undeviating practice at FAC for paragraphs to end in citations. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Don H. Bacon's obsession with the letter M is largely trivia, and doesn't seem worthy of the amount of space you devote to it. The Bacon image, which I see has been queried above, adds little to the article and could, I believe, easily be dropped along with some of the adjoining text.
His penchant with "M" is important from the standpoint that some of the ships and streets of Elcor that he platted share the same names. The ships that are not directly relevant to the article could be deleted but the article would also lose some Wikilinks in the process.
I have reworded the section about Don H. Bacon, removing his photo (at least for now) and the names of the ships of the M fleet. It pained me to do this. Although they were not directly relevant to the article, they did paint a nice picture of how the streets of Elcor got their names.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton! I look forward to your next feed back.DrGregMN (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I'm about halfway through the sources check, and have yet to do any spotchecks. What I've found so far:

  • Inconsistency in retrieval date formats (e.g. ref 1)

This reference was added by Sporkbot on 29 July 2014. Date published, date retrieved, date archived? Should the published date and retrieval date be the same? I didn't think bots made errors. I changed the retrieval date to the date that Sporkbot made the revision.

  • The issue was the date formatting in this reference. I've changed it to be consistent with other references. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Page ranges require dashes, not hyphens (ref 5)

Fixed for all references with page ranges DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Not quite all. Refs 5, 27 and 58 still have hyphens. Also, in page ranges the dash should not be surrounded by spaces, e.g. 75–76, not 75 – 76. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Page numbers need to be given for newspaper articles where there is no online link. See refs 6, 9, 15 and probably others
I have physical copies of all of the articles, but not necessarily the page numbers. This will require a trip to the Minnesota Historical Society to reference the microfiche. Please be patient. This is my first FAC nomination, so I'm learning as I go.
All fixed for newspapers with no online link DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 11: In what medium was this interview published?
Typewritten transcript of an Oral History (there is another handwritten manuscript of an oral history cited in the article as well).
  • WP:PUBLISH states "All reliable sources must be both published and accessible to at least some people". You may have difficulty in arguing that typewritten or handwritten manuscripts fall within the definition of "published". Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot argue "published". I can argue "transcribed". As for accessibility, one only needs to contact the Iron Range Historical Society for copies (or if one is feeling adventurous, travel there).
  • Ref 22: "Vintage Minnesota Hockey", being an online rather than a print source, should not be italicized.

This is puzzling since it is not italicized in the citation template, but it is coming up italicized in the article. I tried reverting it. How to fix?

Changed website to publisher in the citation link. Fixed. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 26, 27 and 28: Retrieval dates missing

Fixed for all references. These references have since been renumbered with the expansion of the lead section. DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Ref 30: "Angelfire" is not a publisher, it's a build-your-own-website facility. In this case the article in question was originally published in 1983 by The Gilbert Herald

I removed Angelfire as the website. The bottom of the page states Gary L. Gorsha, so I have to assume it's his webpage at Angelfire (but I removed his name as well). I added the Gilbert Herald as publisher (the Gilbert Herald does not have a website).

  • Ref 31: The publisher is evidently "State of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources", not "Iron Range Tourism".

Fixed DrGregMN (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll start working on the rest. DrGregMN (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of three sentences, I have also removed redundant citations, limiting them to 1-3 refs per sentence.

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton DrGregMN (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I was slightly confused by the changes in some of the ref numbers, but I'm checking out at the second column now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here we are:

  • Ref 40: is it "Gilbert Herald", as here and ref 4, or "The Gilbert Herald", per 28? Consistency needed.
  • Fixed
  • Ref 49: I refer you to my comment on ref 11.
  • This is another transcript of an oral history from a former Elcor resident.
  • Then the problem is the same as with 11 – it's not a published source. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I followed the cite:interview template. So the problem with transcribed oral histories is not the fact that they exist, but that they've never been published? This seems kind of harsh, especially when you consider that the oral histories are probably more accurate than the print sources. I can delete the references and keep the text the same, but then some material would be unsourced (examples for the Phillipich/Torresani interview would be the town had a night watchman first before a full time patrolman; the fact the rent was never increased by Pickands Mather, and what people did and how people obtained supplies prior to the establishment of the Elcor mercantile. All of the other Phillipich/Torresani citations have backup. For the Sedgeman interview, he specifically mentions the location of the school on Malta street, something Van Brundt does not). See my comment for reference 11 above. A way compromise?
  • Ref 51: What is the nature of this source, i.e. in what form was it published?
  • Book format published by the Iron Range Historical Society for the Gilbert Centennial. The page cited talks about the history of the Saari Campbell and Kraker Mercantile.
  • Already done (page 15).
  • Ref 52: What makes this a reliable source?
  • This reference provides a list of names and dates of operation for every post office, past and present, in the U.S. (it also serves a resource for collectors looking for cancellation stamps from historical post offices, but this is not directly relevant to the article).
  • Reliability is not judged on the basis of content, but on who published it and in what circumstances. I can't judge whether Jim Forte postal history is reliable or not by FA standards; as this is the third citation of a simple fact, the easiest thing would be to delete it.
  • Done.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Ref 56: Should be reformatted, using the cite web template.
  • Fixed

That's all. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you again, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't mention it. The main sources point that still needs to be addressed is the use of unpublished sources in refs 11 and 49. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The transcribed oral histories have been deleted. This leaves some of the text unsourced, but most of the affected text still has back-up references. DrGregMN (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in replying. This looks good, but you need to be sure that nothing significant is unsourced. Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Elcor is a ghost town, or more properly, an extinct town" This sounds too colloquial and does not give the dates. Maybe "Elcor is a former town which existed between 1897 and 1956"
  • Fixed, but kept the term "ghost town".
  • "It was never a neighborhood proper of the city of Gilbert,[2] and the people of Elcor were only generally considered to be citizens of Gilbert." The first part is implied in the previous sentence, and the second is so vague it is unclear what it means. I would delete.
  • Compromised and clarified.
  • "platted" I have not come across this word before and it would be helpful to link to plat for non-US reaaders.
  • Fixed.
  • Some refs such as 9 and 30 have no link to the article. Is no online link available?
  • These newspaper references are so old as there is currently no online link. Per Brianboulton page numbers were added to these references since there is no online reference.
  • I agree with Brian that there is too much about the letter M. I would delete references to naming mines, steamers etc, which are not relevant, and also delete the list of streets, which is excessive detail.
  • This has already been reworked.
  • " and was usually classed with the McKinley district." I do not understand this.
  • Clarified.
  • The paragraph beginning "The Elba group of mines" is not relevant to this article. You might move it to a new article on Minnesota Iron Company.
  • Disagree. This paragraph provides a bridge from the community being platted by the Minnesota Iron Company to the ownership of Pickands Mather and Company, and refutes some misinformation about the community in other sources outside of Wikipedia; it is also outlined in the lead section. I can, however, add a Wikilink to the Minnesota Iron Company, although such a page does not currently exist.
  • The 'Establishment' sub-section covers the whole history until abandonment. Maybe start a new 'Heyday' sub-section at "The community grew at the beginning of the century."
  • "The communication system between the different ethnicities and the respect they had for each other was remarkable." This is not WP:POV and is better revised or deleted.
  • Fixed.
  • "There was never any crime or trouble in Elcor." This is more rose-tinted hindsight. The town would not have had its own law enforcement if there was never any crime.
  • I don't agree that the presence of law enforcement implies criminal activity. This is cited in several sources, so I have to believe it's accurate. Regardless, it has been removed.
  • "eighth grade" A link or explanation would be helpful for non-US readers.
  • Wikilinked.
  • "the rent did not increase until the homes were moved from Elcor in 1955." Are you saying that higher rents were charged after the houses were moved? If not, I would just say rents were never increased.
  • Fixed.
  • "The convenience of having a local store and post office was greatly appreciated by the town." This is colloquial and superfluous.
  • Fixed.
  • "Finally, the community was named "Elcor"" This implies that the town was named Elba for its first 23 years. If so, that should be stated in the lead and clarified here.
  • Fixed. Clarified in the lead section. It is also hammered home in the first two paragraphs of the Establishment section. I think the current paragraph in the body section is acceptable (In 1920...official U.S. post office began operation...much confusion in mail due to another town named Elba...finally the community was named Elcor).
  • "Mail was picked up twice daily, at 10:00 am and about 12:00 noon" This is excessive detail.
  • Fixed.
  • "Mining operations ceased." This is repetition.
  • Fixed.
  • "Sources differ on why the order was issued. Some recall the company wanting the land for a dump site. Others contended that the company no longer wanted to tend to the town's maintenance.[9] Still others thought the company decided it was not economical to own houses anymore.[56] No one in authority revealed what was to become of the land." This is again too colloquial in style.
  • Fixed. Hopefully more encyclopedic, less colloquial.
  • This is obviously a comprehensive account, although at times the detail is excessive. The main fault is the colloquial style and flattering comments, which at times reads more like a newspaper than an encyclopedia article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few points where we do not agree, but I do not think they are important. The one issue you have not dealt with is that the 'Establishment' section covers the whole history until WWII. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Dudley Miles. I missed that one. It's easy enough to fix, but I would like other reviewers to chime in before I do. In examination of the other five featured ghost town articles, they are always divided by Boom/Bust or Establishment/Abandonment without a "Heyday" or "Peak" subsection. I hope the other fixes are appropriate. Thank you again! DrGregMN (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Created new subsection "Peak Years". Thanks again, Dudley Miles! DrGregMN (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

SMS Wittelsbach

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Another in my series of German battleships, this one was the first ship authorized under Alfred von Tirpitz's direction. Obsolete by World War I, the ship nevertheless saw use in the Baltic during the war, patrolling for Russian warships and supporting the German Army. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review about a month ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Germany's_fighting_machine;_her_army,_her_navy,_her_air-ships,_and_why_she_arrayed_them_against_the_allied_powers_of_Europe_(1914)_(14593450659).jpg: are any more specific copyright tags available?
  • File:SMS_Wittelsbach_NH_45197.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Both fixed, thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Is there a reason why the citation at the end of the footnote is not formatted in the same way as the other citations?
    • As I recall, when I started using that note in articles, the template couldn't handle a nested {{sfn}}, so I used the harvnb template as a workaround - apparently it was fixed at some point and I didn't realize it. I'll have to go and paste that through the other articles that use that note.
      • Amusingly, in doing so, I discovered this glitch - seems the template was only partially fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the list of references, Vol. 5 of Die Deutsche Kriegschiffe has an isbn but Vol. 8 does not. Not speaking German, I don't know what value there is in the link you've attached to Vol. 8.
    • Yeah, Worldcat is hit or miss on the several editions of Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe - and the books themselves aren't any help either - oddly enough, they don't include the ISBN.
  • The 10-digit isbn converts to 978-3-7822-0456-9
    • Fixed.

Otherwise, all sources seem sound, reliable and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Link decommissioned in the lede and scrap in the infobox.
    • Done
  • with provisions for a squadron commander's staff accommodations?
    • Yes, but also an enlarged bridge for the command staff
  • struggled throughout the early- and mid-1890s to secure parliamentary approval for the first three Kaiser Friedrich III-class battleships, but in June 1897, Hollmann was replaced by Konteradmiral (KAdm—Rear Admiral) Alfred von Tirpitz, who quickly proposed and secured approval for the first Naval Law in early 1898. The law authorized the last two ships of the class, This isn't really clear. Probably need to say that Hollman was ultimately successful in getting the 3 ships approved.
    • See if how I changed it suits you.
  • Link screw, cylindrical boiler
    • Done
      • I think that Scotch marine boiler is a better link than fire-tube boiler.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Works for me.
  • Infobox states 12 water-tube boilers, text says 6 cylindrical and 6 water-tube. Which is correct?
    • Fixed
  • The ship _carried_ the minesweepers, or was their tender?
    • Yes, carried them - see here (and this photo of Preussen, which was similarly converted)
      • Might be worth adding that picture as I'd never heard of carrying minesweepers before. They must have been teeny, tiny little things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That's all for this pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

  • Wittelsbach was 126.8 m (416 ft 0 in) long overall and had a beam of 22.8 m (74 ft 10 in) and a draft of 7.95 m (26 ft 1 in) forward." Is length between perpendiculars or length at waterline known?
    • Overall - it's in the text, but I've added a link to the infobox.
  • "Unlike her sister ships, Wittelsbach was completed with provisions for a squadron commander's staff." Does this mean she had room for staff for the ship's squadron commander? Could be clarified.
    • Added a bit.

That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I have a few minor suggestions about prose and style.
  • ¶2 "During this period, she was occupied with extensive annual training, as well as making good-will visits to foreign countries." – Trim by four words? Suggestion: "During this period, she was occupied with extensive annual training and good-will visits to foreign countries."
  • Works for me.
  • ¶2 "The training exercises conducted during this period..." – Trim by one word by deleting "conducted"?
  • Sure.
Construction to 1905
  • ¶2 "Completion of the ship was delayed due to a collision with the ironclad Baden in July 1902, which accidentally rammed Wittelsbach while she was fitting out." – I think it would be slightly smoother if you moved "in July 1902" to just after "rammed Wittelsbach.
  • Sounds good to me
  • ¶2 "...on 23 November and a cruise into the Skagerrak..." – Link Skagerrak?
  • Good catch
  • ¶1 "The fleet then cruised through the Kattegat..." – Link Kattegat?
  • Done
  • ¶1 "The British fleet stopped in Danzig, Swinemünde, and Flensburg, where it was greeted..." – Link Danzig here on first use rather than later in ¶4 of the World War I section?
  • Fixed
  • ¶1 "...a hostile fleet attempting to force the defenses of the Elbe." – Link Elbe here on first use rather than later in ¶4 of the World War I section?
  • Fixed
Battle of the Gulf of Riga
  • ¶1 "After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw." – This is not a complete sentence.
  • Good catch - removed "After"
  • ¶2 "Nevertheless, Prince Heinrich decided to try to force the channel a second time, but now two dreadnought battleships from the I Squadron would cover the minesweepers. Wittelsbach was instead left behind in Libau. – It might be smoother to tighten this a bit and recast slightly. Suggestion: "Prince Heinrich attempted to force the channel a second time using two dreadnought battleships from the I Squadron to cover the minesweepers and leaving Wittelsbach behind in Libau."
  • That works for me
  • Concise alt text would be nice even if not required.
  • Have added alt text.
  • No problems with dabs.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No problems with duplicate links.
  • Thanks, Finetooth! Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All good. Happy to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Segundo Romance

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After getting both Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FA, I've been wanting to get this article FA as well for a long time but never had the motivation until. The article was promoted GA in 2014 and recently received a peer review and a copy-edit (courtesy of GOCE). This article follows a similar structure to the other two FA articles mentioned above. This is the second of the four bolero albums that Luis Miguel released and I'm very fond of as I am with the other two. Erick (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Segundoromance.jpg: use is justified, but we don't need quite SO much repetition in the FUR to say so! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching that, I have addressed it promptly. Erick (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (Segundo Reomance comprises cover versions of boleros (Latin ballads),), I would recommend linking “Latin” to “Latin music (genre)” for clarity.
  • In the same sentence, change “Reomance” to “Romance” as it is a spelling error.
  • The structure of the following part (Four singles were released: "El Día Que Me Quieras" and "La Media Vuelta", which reached the top of the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart in the United States, and "Todo y Nada" and “Delirio”.) is a little off to me. I would put the chart placement for the first two singles in a separate sentence following this rather than putting everything in a single sentence. I would suggest revising this portion to read and flow better as a whole.
  • In the same sentence, link El Día Que Me Quieras (song)
  • I was a little confused by this sentence (Like its predecessor, the album helped continue the popularity of boleros.). Where did the album help to continue the genre’s popularity? World-wide? Clarification is necessary here.
  • In the infobox, you have Latin ballad and bolero as two separate genres, but in the lead, you include “Latin ballads” as a translation for boleros. This is a little confusing.
  • For this sentence (Miguel excluded one track, "Lo Mejor de Mí", composed by Rudy Pérez, because he felt it would be more proper to perform it as a ballad for his next album rather than a bolero.), change “rather than a bolero” to “rather than as a bolero”.
  • I am a little confused by the insertion of this part (slow ballads "endowed with romantic lyrics”). Is this a definition of boleros in general or a critics’ take on Miguel’s interpretation of boleros? If it is a definition, then I am not sure why it is not connected to the first instance of bolero in the body of the article. If it is from a critic’s review, then you will need to attribute it and make it more defined.
  • For the audio sample, you do not need to include the artist’s name in the title.
  • For this sentence (All three singles reached number one in Mexico.), could you provide a wiki link to the actual chart in Mexico?
  • I would recommend providing more structure to the “Critical reception” section. Right now, it appears more like a list of quotes from critics without any real direction.
  • I would imagine that a “Release history” section and chart is necessary for this article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aoba47, couple of things. Since sources refer to this album as a bolero album, I've removed Latin ballads from the infobox and linked it instead on the lead. I took your advice about the general definition of boleros and moved it to the background section. I fixed the structure on the lead as well regarding the singles. For the popularity of boleros, I worded it to similarly to Romance (Luis Miguel album)#Influence and legacy as sources indicate Miguel helped the growing trended that he started with Romance. The reviews on this album are quite short (some of them having only one sentence or two(!)). So what I did was cut down the quotations and carefully avoided paraphrasing. The source for the Mexican songs chart is apparently UPI according to the link, an organization I am not familiar with. I honestly don't see the need for a release section since there wasn't a deluxe edition or anything like that for the album. Erick (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I understand your point on the release information, and I agree that it is best to keep the article the way it is on that front as there was not particularly special on the release as a whole. Please let me know if you have addressed everything else and I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've removed mentions of the songs being #1 in Mexico as I have no way of knowing how reliable UPI is and the songs predate Monitor Latino. Anything else I might be missing? Erick (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I have a small number of questions and suggestions related mainly to prose and style issues.
  • The caption for the 22-second sample ends with "The opening of the track features a "romantic accordion" being played with AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis commenting that it sets the "tone for the rest of the set". I would replace the awkward "with plus -ing" construction. Suggestion: The track's opening, which features a "romantic accordion", sets the "tone for the rest of the set", according to AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis.
Critical reception
  • ¶1 "According to Promis, the album "which further established Miguel as a first-rate balladeer"." - This is not a complete sentence. Delete "which" and just use the rest of the quote?
  • ¶1 "...he praised Miguel's "scrumptious, sophisti-pop take of "Nosotros" and "Delirio"." - The Manual of Style advises against links inside a direct quotation. Perhaps you can paraphrase and move the sophisti-pop link outside the quote.
  • ¶1 If you keep the quote as is, it will still have a minor punctuation problem that can be solved by using single quotation marks around 'Nosotro' and 'Delirio' to avoid confusion with the outer set of quotation marks.
  • Some of the citation titles use title case, while others use sentence case. Citation 61 uses caps for the initial letter of every word. It's best to choose either sentence case or title case and use it consistently throughout. Nitpicky, I know.
  • Alt text looks OK.
  • Citation 60 returns a 404 error, and the archive-url goes to a page in Dutch that seems unreadable.
  • The dab checker finds no problems.
  • I unlinked one duplink. The checker found no others.
@Finetooth: Thanks for the feedback Finetooth. Looks like Ed Morales's book was removed from Google Books so I've just removed the url and accessdate and will use the page number for verification purposes. For the references with sentence cases, it is mainly due to how capitalization rules in Spanish is different from English regarding titles (only the first letter of the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Of course, if you want me to use the English cap rules for those references, I don't mind. Other than that, I believe I have addressed everything that you brought up. Erick (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: I see what you mean about the Spanish caps. MOS:CONFORM recommends internal consistency but allows exceptions for any typographical changes that might alter the original meaning. I'd leave the Spanish caps as they are, but I'd make sure that all the English ones are in sentence case as in "Luis Miguel grows up and moves on with his latest albums" for citation 61. Does that make sense? Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
In looking at the citations again, I noticed some unhyphenated ISBNs in the reference section (citations 4, 18, 53, and 60). A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Finetooth: I think I understand what you're saying, so I've amended all titles of English-language articles to use the proper capitalization and fixed the ISBNs. If it's not what you meant, please let me know so I can further amend it if necessary. Thanks! Erick (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • My explanation was a bit murky, and so are the guidelines. I tweaked a few of the English-language newspaper citations a bit more to make them all sentence case, just like the Spanish-language ones. That might be as close to consistent as we can get. The ISBNs now look fine. I'm switching to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 2: Can you clarify the nature of the source "Americas (English Edition)"? Is it a print journal? If so the title should be italicized.
  • Ref 45: Who is the publisher? "" is the website name, but who publishes it?
  • As a general point, with major publications such as the New York Times it's not necessary to add the publishing company, e.g. "The New York Times Company" as this creates unnecessary clutter. Not a point worth addressing in this nomination, but worth thinking about considering in future.

Subject to the above, sources (mainly in foreign languages) appear to be appropriate to the subject and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I've added the publisher for Americas per the article, replaced with a book as the website appears to be self-published and there's a lack of mentions of it. Erick (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The tables in this article don't appear to comply with MOS:DTT. (Please {{ping}} me if you have any questions; I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I am confused by what you mean on the tables. Could you be more specific please? Erick (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
To make an WP:ACCESSible table, the (gray) header cells need to say whether they refer to the column or row. So, for example, the table that says "Chart (1994)" at the top should have that cell marked as scope="col", to indicate to people using screen readers and other devices, that the the whole first column is about the 1994 charts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Got it. I believe I have addressed the problem. Erick (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Lilias Armstrong

Nominator(s): Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a phonetician at University College London: Lilias Armstrong. She worked in the 1920s and 1930s and was a colleague of Daniel Jones. Her research focused on intonation and tone, and her work on Somali and Kikuyu is still held in high esteem. I was actually first made aware of Armstrong when I was referred to her work on Somali. I created this article as a stub in December 2014, and then decided in April I wanted to expand this article. I got this article to Good Article Status in June, and a peer evaluation believed it is ready for Featured Article Status. This is my first FA nomination, but I believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good but there are some monster paras, which should be split. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Split. There were a few places I had forgotten to double line break, thanks.Umimmak (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review - welcome to FAC!

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. You may wish to do a general Manual of Style review before other editors comment
  • File:British_phonetician_Lilias_E._Armstrong.jpg: the given source appears to include a list of illustrations with author/copyright holder for each - who does it credit for this one?
  • The level of originality required for copyright protection in the UK is quite low, and I'm not sure all of the transcriptions fall below it. Do you have further details about their copyright status? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the captions. The list of illustrations provides a general note "The remaining photographs were supplied by Michelle Stanbury [i.e., Daniel Jones' daughter —Umimmak] or taken by ourselves", but it doesn't indicate who actually took the photograph.
As for copyright, I didn't think one could copyright images of individual words or simple geometric shapes.
But the text of Mill on the Floss was written in 1860 and Armstrong's transcription was published in 1921, so by any metric that should be good. Armstrong died more than 70 years ago so copyright has lapsed in the UK for the works which she solely authored. [Edit: And Kikuyu was published posthumously but before 1988 and more than 50 years ago. 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)] That leaves the Tunes and the Burmese, which come from works still in copyright due to the second author, but the images themselves don't have enough creative aspect involved for copyright.Umimmak (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: if I use File:The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun_as_per_Armstrong_Pe_Maung_Tin.png, is that better since I'm the one who typeset it?Umimmak (talk) 03:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
No. If transcriptions do meet the threshold of originality - and I'm unsure whether they do, haven't found any cases - the originality would be in the transcription itself, not the typesetting thereof. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm just confused because it would be completely fine if I quoted it as text with attribution in the body of the article, as I do in the caption for Firth or Watkin's transcriptions. I'm just quoting three words, but because of typesetting limitations on Wikipedia, the words have to be in an image file because I can't accurately type it using Wikipedia.
Are the portrait of Armstrong, and the Mill on the Floss, Somali, and Kikuyu transcriptions okay given the explanation above? Thanks Umimmak (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The difference is, unless you're throwing in an attribution template, it's assumed that short textual quotes are fair use, whereas for image files we need to provide an explicit licensing tag. The confusing part is, are these fair use too, or are they PD - and on that point I'm honestly not sure, IANAL and all that, but I do know UK law has a fairly low threshold for what's copyrightable. The non-transcription images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
And are the transcriptions from works that Armstrong alone authored okay since she died more than 70 years ago and posthumous works were published more than 50 years ago so the UK standards no longer apply? Umimmak (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
What about US standards? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
What about them? You said the issue was U.K. Copyright since they might have a lower threshold for what constitutes creative work? U.S. Copyright only applies to literary or creative works, not facts or data. The part that actually has a creative aspect, i.e., George Eliot's words, is in the public domain (but it's moot since Armstrong's transcription of Eliot was published before 1923). Umimmak (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so we're asserting that all of the article's transcriptions don't meet threshold of originality for US. Then you'll just want to add the appropriate copyright tags for the UK status, since they are all on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I went and added more tags for images which come from works now in the British public domain in addition to Template:PD-text. But I'm still not sure what the next steps are. Do I just need to sacrifice those three images (The Burmese and the Two Tunes) whose coauthor didn't die long enough ago? Or is there any way I can somehow make the image myself or claim fair use? I'm just confused how three words can be copyrighted -- if it were the image of the entire text, I could understand how that might meet the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, but I specifically limited it to the title because I figured you can't copyright a title. Umimmak (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
At this point, I'd say the tunes are fine. I am not sure either way about the Burmese, but in the absence of clear case law on the matter (or opinions from other reviewers), I think the best course of action is to assume that you are correct that it doesn't meet the threshold of originality. Sorry for the confusion - this is a very odd case! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
So to clarify the images are fine now, and I need to do anything else? Thank you. PS I've made a post at WP:IMAGEHELP about this nomination to see if anyone there had comments on this matter. Umimmak (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I don't know that I will be able to review this in detail, so for now please consider these "drive by" comments:

  • There are a lot of quotations in the citations. It is unusual to add quotes to citations unless there is a dispute about what the source said or some other compelling motive for including them. If there is not such a justification, you should probably trim these out of the citations.
  • I fixed a couple of MOS:LQ issues that I spotted; you might want to check for others.
  • I see a lot of people mentioned as co-workers, commenters, etc., without any explanation of who they are. Even when there are links, some brief context is usually preferred. For example, "British phonetician Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..." rather than just "Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..."

That's it for now. If I get a chance to review the article more thoroughly, I may come back with more. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the quotations in the citations, my reasoning was it would be good to preemptively include quotations for increased verifiability, particularly when the original source was not in standard English orthography or was from a source other editors might not have easy access to. I figured it would be easier to add the quotations while I still had access to the sources than risk someone requesting a quotation when I no longer had access. If this is something I need to do, I'll go and remove them, but I'll hold off on this for now because it would be a lot of effort and I can imagining other editors preferring them to be there, for the reasons mentioned above and also to ensure I'm not too closely paraphrasing. Other points noted and I'll edit accordingly, thanks. Edit: I did remove some of the quotations -- but only those which are in standard English orthography, online, non-paywalled, and not via Google Books as one can't trust a Google Books URL to be available for all editors. Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Update: Additional paywalled quotations removed if they were in major online resources like JSTOR and in standard English orthography. Umimmak (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to be well-written, well-cited, and an example of Wikipedia's best work. All my concerns were addressed already, so I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I appreciate that a great deal of trouble has been taken over the referencing of this article. There's a lot to check here, and as it's the nominator's first FAC, spotchecks for accuracy and close paraphrasing will need to be done. For the moment, however, I'm making a few general points based on my examination of the first 70 or so of the references.

  • In a large number of occasions the citation is followed by an extract of the source's text. This, I note, has been raised by an earlier reviewer. I'd like to reiterate the view that such overdetailing is entirely unnecessary; ref 5 should read, simply, "Armstrong 1923, p. vii", ref 6 "Collins & Mees 2006, p. 478", and so on. Using the standard short citation format will remove much clutter from the referencing section.
  • Another feature I noticed was a tendency to include what are apparently supplementary citations, preceded by formulations such as "See also...", "see e.g...." etc. If these "supplementaries" are inessential, I'd advise dropping them and simplifying the citations list. if they are thought essential, then they should be cited as references in the standard format.
  • When a source is in a language other than English, this should be stated by adding, e.g. "(in French)"
  • Ref 10: You preface this with "Sources disagree as to the name of the school or schools she taught at, how long she taught, and what her positions were". So they might, but the issue is relatively trivial, quite unworthy of the massive multi-referencing introduced around this topic. I'd ignore the slight differences of name & chronology in the sources ("East Cheam" is obviously a misprint for "East Ham") and use a couple of references that support the statements in the text – which can if necessary be made a little flexible to allow for any doubt.
  • I noticed that ref 4 appears to be based on original research, using the findmypast website. This site is not considered as reliable by FA criteria standards; it may be possible to find a reliable secondary source that will confirm this information.

That's what I've found so far. I'd like some response before going on with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Quotations removed or commented out in cases where there might be a chance of someone using Template:Request quotation.
I can reword the "see alsos".
I can add these
I can rewrite that bit.
Reference 4 and its corresponding sentence in the body can be stricken.
Changes have been made.
Umimmak (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Updated 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm encouraged, will look in later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Continuing my review (down to about ref 150):

  • A general point: is there a reason why some sources for which there are multiple citatioins (e.g. Jones, Asher, Collins & Mees, etc) are shown in the "References" list, while others (e.g. the Armstrongs 1921, 1923, 1927, 1932, 1934, Armstrong & Ward, Pike, Leach and others) only appear in the citations list? Unless there's a good reason for doing it this way, it would be preferable to place all multiple-cited sources in the references section.
  • Ref 97: This looks like a remaining case of overkill – too many citations for a minor point
  • Ref 128: What is the language here?
  • Ref 130: You give the language as French, but the title is in German
  • Ref 132 incorporates a Harvard error
  • Ref 142: What is the language here?

I'll deal with the remaining refs during my next pass. Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A general point -- My thought process was to have "References" consist of the important works about Armstrong. Pike isn't about Armstrong, so I didn't want to group it with the other sources which are actually about her. As for the works originally by Armstrong, in a version long ago I used shortened footnotes that were anchored to the full citation information in the "Works" section, but another editor found that confusing that some anchors went up to works and others went down to references. It seems redundant to repeat the same information in both her works section and the references section, (as per MOS, the works section should be before the references).
Could you take a look at User:Umimmak/sandbox/combined#References? I've followed other featured articles, e.g., Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Joseph Priestley which group the references in similar ways. I'm still not super happy about the redundancy of works she authored being listed twice, but it seems like this is standard practice. Hopefully you understand my reasoning -- I just want a way to tell the reader "these are the main references about Armstrong", and not include a book that's, say, mostly about the intonation of American English when only a couple pages of that whole work are relevant. [rewritten slightly 00:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)]
OK, I accept what you've done with regard to the works authored by Armstrong. But separating works about Armstrong from works about her field of expertise or related topics is confusing; I'd prefer to seee all of these anchored in the References list, so that anyone looking at that list gets a proper idea of the range of principal sources used. The works co-authored by Armstrong, e.g. Armstrong & Ward, Armstrong & Pe Maung Tin, etc, could be listed either among the works or in the references. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Ref 97 -- I removed one of them, but I'm making a claim it was cited in speech training bibliographies (e.g., Thonssen et al), theatre training bibliographies (e.g., Voorhees et al.) and for decades (e.g., Cohen 1964). I don't think it's excessive, but would it be better to write say ...appeared in bibliographies for speech[1] and theatre[2] up through the 1960s.[3]?
No, how you have it now is better - suggest leave it.
Ref 128 it's in English
Fine, OK
Ref 130 fixed, I got primed seeing the "französischen" I guess
Ref 132 I'm not sure I see the issue? it works fine on my end.
Works for me too, now.
Ref 142 Article is in English, but like all articles in MPh, it's in phonetic transcription instead of standard orthography.
Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking now to see if there are any further issues in the final third of the citations. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(Later) – just a few queries:

  • 156: the source language appears to be Somali
  • 215: is the source language German?
  • 219: link not working. This may be temporary, but please check.

That only leaves me to carry out a few spotchecks, which I will do over the next couple of days or so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

156 No, Andrzejewski's "Grammatical Introduction" is in English.
215 No, the article is in English; the journal just has a German title.
219 Should I remove the link then? It seems like had it up but has since realized the work is still copyrighted and removed the work.
Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Update: I'd prefer to seee all of these anchored in the References list, I acquiesce; changes have been made. Umimmak (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: As a head's up, I've decided to swap in a new source for reference [55] based on your earlier comment about avoiding "see also"s. Umimmak (talk) 05:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  • errr...what's a king's scholar? (should it be capitalized?) oh well, it'll remain a mystery...
  • she had success in this line of work - odd phrasing for a teacher, maybe better as "highly regarded"? its more of a style not a dealbreaker really.
  • At first mention of Pe Maung Tin, a descriptor would be good "Burmese linguist" or something

Otherwise looking good - am thinking about structure of lead though have nothing to offer as yet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

king's scholar wasn't capitalized in the source. I'm not really sure what it means to be honest... the wikipedia article King's Scholar only seems to discuss it in terms of public schools, not universities. As far as I can tell it means she was the recipient of a "king's scholarship", but I'm not entirely sure what that means.
maybe better as "highly regarded" I guess, but one can be highly regarded but, due to things like budgetary constraints or other issues, might be prevented from being successful. I'll think about how to reword that if it's awkward.
a descriptor would be good noted.
~Umimmak (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok I am happy with prose and completeness...though concede it's not my topic area at all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is an interesting account about an expert in a field that will be unfamiliar to many readers. I'm reading it as a non-expert, and I'm unable to closely follow or critique the more technical content. I made a small number of low-level prose changes as I went. Please revert any that seem misguided. Here are further suggestions about prose and style:


  • ¶1 "She worked at University College London and had attained the rank of reader." – Tighten a bit and stick with straight past tense? Suggestion: "She worked at University College London, where she attained the rank of reader."
  • ¶1 "...was a popular analysis for some time." – The phrase "for some time" is too vague to be meaningful. I'd either replace it with something more specific or delete it if there's no way to make it specific.
  • ¶1 Ida Ward should be linked only once in the lead, and it would be better to choose either Ida C. Ward and Ida Ward but not both. Suggestion: Change the first instance to Ida C. Ward, and use last name only, Ward, in the second instance.

Employment history

  • ¶1 "Armstrong's first experience teaching phonetics was in summer 1917, in Daniel Jones's summer course..." – Tighten? No need to repeat "summer". Suggestion: "Armstrong's first taught phonetics in 1917 in Daniel Jones's summer course...".
  • ¶1 "for missionaries to learn phonetics" – Delete "to learn phonetics" since that's already clear from context?

Courses and lectures

  • ¶1 "In addition to teaching courses on French and English phonetics,[26] Armstrong taught courses on the phonetics of Swedish[27] and of Russian. She also taught a class on speech pathology alongside Daniel Jones titled "Lecture-demonstrations on Methods of Correcting Defects of Speech".– Tighten to avoid repetition? Suggestion: "Armstrong taught courses on French, English, Swedish, and Russian phonetics, and, alongside Daniel Jones, a class on speech pathology titled "Lecture-demonstrations on Methods of Correcting Defects of Speech".
  • ¶2 "...for a course geared for those studying and teaching French" – I'd replace the slangy "geared" with "meant".
  • ¶2 and ¶3 The word "also" appears a combined seven times in these paragraphs. It's an OK word when used sparingly. I think you could safely remove some of these without changing the meaning of the sentences in which they appear.


  • ¶1 "...while he was there, Lilias Armstrong and Ida C. Ward..." – I would just use "Armstrong" here rather than the full name, and I would link Ida C. Ward here on first use in the main text rather than in the "English intonation" subsection further down.

Le Maître Phonétique

  • ¶1 "...which consisted of texts transcribed in IPA from various languages," – I would spell out, link, and abbreviate IPA here on first use in the main text; i.e., the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).

London Phonetic Readers Series

  • ¶1 "Armstrong and Pe Maung Tin developed the first transcription of in accordance to principles of the International Phonetic Association." – Word missing? Transcription of what?
  • ¶3 "The number of specialized phonetic symbols and diacritics was a complaint of one contemporary review of this book." – A number is not a complaint. Maybe "...led to a complaint by a contemporary reviewer.
  • ¶3 "...necessary to convey the interaction of tone and prosody..." – Link prosody to prosody (linguistics)?

English intonation

  • ¶1 "It was accompanied by three double-sided gramophones which consisted of Armstrong and Ward reading English passages." – I don't understand what "gramophone" refers to in this context. I understand "gramophone" to mean "phonograph", a recording and playing machine, but that doesn't fit here. The illustrations make somewhat more clear that "gramophone" is being used here to refer to a notation. Is there a more clear way to explain this or a better word than "gramophone"?
  • ¶3 " symbolize adequately (i.e. structural)..." – That should be "structurally" to match "adequately". Is the parenthetical remark in the original quotation? Does it really say "structural"?
  • ¶3 "...there is "a greater wealth of detail than are here recorded"..." The word "wealth" is singular, and the verb should be singular, "is", rather than plural, "are". Is the mistake in the original? Or is this an OK variant in the English language?


  • ¶4 "...each tone class was defined in terms of its tonal allomorphy depending on surrounding context." – Link allomorphy here on first use in the article rather than on second use in ¶4?


  • All images have alt text.
  • No problems with disambiguation links.
  • No dead URLs detected.
  • I removed a few duplicate links from the main text. There may be a few more but not many.
Response: @Finetooth: Just for organization I gave this this own section heading. Quickly looking through your suggestions they make sense. Some particulars:
  • My thought process for "while he was there, Lilias Armstrong and Ida C. Ward" was that it would be unbalanced to say "while he was there, Armstrong and Ida C. Ward", i.e., with one last and one full name. But if you don't think this is an issue I can fix that.
I don't think it's an issue, but if you want to re-insert "Lilias" for balance, that's fine too. I linked Ward here on first use in the main text and unlinked her later in the article. Finetooth (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A word was missing thanks for catching that. Will change to "Armstrong and Pe Maung Tin developed the first transcription system for Burmese in accordance to principles of the International Phonetic Association."
  • "A number is not a complaint", I see your point. Maybe "One contemporary review of this book referred to the amount of specialized phonetic symbols and diacritics as a 'profusion of diacritical marks that is rather confusing'." ? Just saying it "led to a complaint" feels vague to me, like you're still waiting to find out what the complaint actually was.
  • a word was missing, they were accompanied by gramophone records, thank you.
Ah, yes, of course. My mind wandered into complications that weren't there. Finetooth (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pike does in fact say "structurally", thank you.
  • Armstrong and Ward quotation in full is: "The writers are aware that there are other varieties and greater wealth of detail than are here recorded". Will change "are" to "[is]", if that works. Thank you for catching that; I was confused by the notional agreement in other Britishisms like "The committee are", I suppose.
Good solution. Finetooth (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • General note on WP:DUPLINK -- I acquiesce on these changes, I suppose if this is policy. My thought process was that one of the Ida C. Wards you unlinked was three sections/seven paragraphs from the last mention of Ward, and nine paragraphs from its initial wikilink. Catford's name appears ten paragraphs after the only previous time he's mentioned and wikilinked. Is it expected a reader will remember that a name from much earlier in the article was wikilinked? Apparently, according to the MOS...
  • Also, I suppose that following your guidelines I should say who Firth is under "courses and lectures" and link him there, and then just hope by the time they get to students they remember he was notable enough to have been linked in the previous subsection?
Your logic makes sense. The guidelines are not laws or absolutes, and if you think an extra link in a few instances would be helpful, please re-add them. Whatever you decide about this will not affect my support for this excellent article. Finetooth (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Umimmak (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Other wording suggestions and changes make sense and will be incorporated into the article. Thank you. Umimmak (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source spot check as this would be the nominator's first FA if promoted. Brian, are you still able to do this, having bravely volunteered above? If not, we can add this to the list at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


I found it very difficult to carry out a thorough spotcheck, since the vast majority of sources are books or articles I don't have. Of the online sources, some are in foreign languages, others are behind paywalls and others involve lengthy downloads I don't have time for. From what remains, I picked six sources at random, and in each case they supported the cited text, with no issues of close paraphrasing. So I'm prepared to say that spotchecking is satisfactory. Brianboulton (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate you giving an effort! (P.S., quotations from some of the less available sources remain in an earlier version of the article [13] in case they'd be useful for you, or some other editor Sarastro1 finds, to spot check some of the harder to obtain sources. I'm not sure if "satisfactory" means its meets standards for FA or not.) (P.P.S., should I somehow warn the reader that certain files are large? Is there a standard way to let them know?) Umimmak (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Subject bar and See also

Greetings, Today I added a subject bar thinking this will help the average Wikipedia reader find additional topic information. For the SA, I'm totally out of my element here, so I'm wondering if there are specific articles that could be added onto See also? Overall, a well written article. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I might change the subject bar to the portal bar, just because only portals are linked and the portal bar is less clunky than the subject bar. I also don't think SA sections are mandatory, any potentially useful articles I could think of are already linked and incorporated in the body. Umimmak (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... one of Frederick the Great's cavalry generals, usually credited with the training of cavalry and development of cavalry tactics. I've experimented with a different citation template for this, to aid in the review process auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Major_General_von_Seydlitz_pipe_Prussian_cavalry_Battle_of_Rossbach_Richard_Knötel.jpg: When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetle

Not all I have to say, but some observations for now:

  • "Seydlitz emerged as a redoubtable Rittmeister (cavalry captain) in the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748), also known as the First and Second Silesian Wars." My understanding is that the War of Austrian Succession was a wider conflict that included the Silesian Wars, so I find the "also known as" a bit misleading. If you mean to say that Seydlitz earned his promotion after service in those two wars, I think you should drop the reference to the wider War of Austrian Succession and just say "emerged as a [captain] in the Silesian Wars." Wikilinked, naturally. compromised...:)
  • "He was still not healthy enough to participate in the annual campaigns". What is meant by the phrase "annual campaigns"? Perhaps it would be more clear if it read "front line operations" or similar. removed annual. Campaigning was done annually, and usually not during the winter....too cold for man and beast....So annual campaigns were conducted from March to November, sometimes December. Sieges might occur during the winter, but not usually.
  • You use the title "King" multiple times in the lede but its not directly established that by this you mean Frederick. Might help if you say "King Frederick" the first time or similar. fixed
  • "His future sovereign always addressed him in German." Might be worth mentioning Frederick by name here. done
  • "Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, a notoriously violent man.[11][Note 4]" The footnote explaining Schütz's violent tenancies is WP:UNDUE for this article. left it in and clarified that Seydlitz disapproved of the man's tactics.
  • "A subordinate brought him two healthy Circassian girls" A wikilink to Circassian beauties might give us a better idea of the purpose of their introduction to Seydlitz. ooooh, I didn't see that link. Very good.
  • "after an attack of apoplexy, he completed a couple of stays at Carlsbad to take the waters." Wouldn't hurt to clarify that Carlsbad was a spa town or otherwise state that these were mineral waters he was "taking", as they say. wikilinked, etc.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I'm satisfied with your responses above, my final observations:

  • "Seydlitz's cavalry again saved the day." "Saved the day" is rather colloquial, perhaps "played a decisive role" or similar would be more suitable.
  • 'I couldn't find this, but it may have been edited out.
  • "brought to an end his formerly close friendship" might sound better as "brought an end to his formerly close friendship"
  • fixed. Good call.
  • "The K2169 (a county roadway) passing through Reichertswerben is named von Seydlitz Strasse." Is there any secondary source that can support this?
  • it's on the maps....and cited to google.....and yes, cited to the anniversary brochure published.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Refs 4, 6, 11, 16, 17, and 18 all show Harvard errors. I can't see immediately what the problems are, but they're most likely minor drafting errors within the source templates.
    • I've gone through and fixed those - it was a problem with how the link was formatted. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 24: needs publisher details
  • There is inconsistency in the display of publisher locations for books. Either all, or none, should have them.
  • Isbn formats should be regulated in 13-digit format. You can use this to convert 10-digit to 13.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy

I came to nominate an article myself and couldn't help but be excited to see this up for FA.

  • There's a duplicate link for major in the second section
  • In this note, there's only one citation given - which biography makes the assertion and which one rejects it?
  • "...the victorious meeting at Katholisch-Hennersdorf..." - readers might be a bit thrown seeing a battle described as a "meeting". A link to meeting engagement would be appropriate, I'd think.
  • "...the peace on the 25 December 1748..." - I think the "the" is extraneous (or something is missing).
  • "By the start of the next war..." - piping Seven Years' War to "war" seems a little WP:EGGy to me. Ditto for Raid on Berlin to "raid" below.
  • Shift the link to heavy cavalry up to the first occurrence. Also for syphilis in the Later life section.
  • On the Semi-retirement section - it seems a little odd to split off 2 sentences into their own subsection.
  • On the subject of memorials, there's also German cruiser Seydlitz. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I couldn't document the Seydlitz I didn't include it.  :) Other stuff to be addressed later today if my wikipedia editing is working now auntieruth (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • these are all addressed now, I think. auntieruth (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You can pull a citation from the Seydlitz article - Gröner p. 65 should be sufficient. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • someone already took care of it!  :) auntieruth (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yup, happy to support now. Great work, Ruth. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

Just a few from me. I reviewed this at GAN and have been through it again to look through the changes since then:

  • "Frederick's Court" should probably be "Frederick the Great's court", (and link Frederick) as you haven't introduced him in the body at that point. done
  • I assume that Margrave Frederick William of Brandenburg-Schwedt was the same chap as the Cuirassier regiment was named after? If so, it is a bit weird that one is Wilhelm and one is William? done
  • In August, 1744 - drop the comma after August done
  • I suggest introducing and linking the concept of coup d'œil in the preceding para where you state "his ability to see at a glance what needed to be done", alternatively, you need to explain what coup d'œil is, as it is an unfamiliar term

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • coup d'œil : it is introduced in the lead, and I'm not sure what you mean by introducing it into the paragraph before Rossbach. I can introduce it in the 1740s that what you mean? auntieruth (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I mean it should be introduced as a concept when it is first mentioned in the body. In the preceding para it says "his ability to see at a glance what needed to be done". I suggest adding at the end of that sentence ", a concept known as coup d'œil." Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
duh. I got it now. auntieruth (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • I reviewed this at A Class, but I have a few further comments.
  • "and then moved the battlefield to the south of the country" how do you move a battlefield?
  • "Hussars, commanded by Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, a violent man whose conduct of warfare Seydlitz disapproved." This reads as a bit odd. Maybe "Hussars. They were commanded by Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, who was a brutal man, and Seydlitz condemned his conduct in warfare."
  • "cavalry horses were the sturdy warm-blood Trakehner" Trakehners?
  • "In May 1757, regardless of the custom of keeping the heavy cavalry in reserve, Seydlitz brought his regiment forward" I think "in defiance of" would be better than "regardless of".
  • "the Prussian army had defeated the combined armies of two European powers" You have not said which powers (apart from referring to "French/Imperial artillery") It would be helpful to say that the battle was against France and the Holy Roman Empire.
  • "The K2169 (a county roadway) passing through Reichertswerben is named von Seydlitz Strasse." Is there any evidence that it was named after him?
  • @Dudley Miles: well, b attlefield broadly. I fixed it. The bit about Schutz has been rewritten several times, and now it's back to the way it originally was. Trakehner/Trakehners, either way. In cavalry talk, horses are plural or singular as horse. defiance is better. Thanks. I added the different army, and the road in Reichertswerben goes directly through where he regrouped his cavalry. auntieruth (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Added a link to the article on the 250th anniversary celebration. auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson has made quite a name for herself from beginning acting from the age of seven to becoming one of Hollywood's biggest stars. She is also quite often in the lists of sexiest women in the world, which contributes significantly to her public image. I saw some of her films not long ago and liked her in them.

Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews, and do not have anything controversial so I think they should be okay for use here. I also feel the article might have many quotes, but I believe they are important and add to the article and her personality. Should someone object to it, I will do my best to address their concerns. Thanks to anyone and everyone for taking the time. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from regarding the sources, but there is documentation regarding fabricated quotes and interviews for at least one of them, haven't checked others. Strongly suggest you reconsider that approach, and only include what can be reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the Daily Mail source, the other one is IndieLondon, not sure how you feel about it. Will go through the sources again tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed, but only Scarlett Johansson.jpg currently has alt text. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, added.
It does not. Pls look again and you'll find the alt text.
  • My apologies. When I was skimming I mistook where the end of the caption ended. Great, images all look good! Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Moise

Comments from Aoba47

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For the "her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks" aspect, I would think that WP:In-text attribution would not be appropriate if there are multiple or various sources stating this. In-text attribution could make it seem like it's just according to that one person or media outlet. But I see that this has been resolved by adding "the media" in front of "considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Comments by Wehwalt

Support Interesting piece.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Flyer22 Reborn

Comments from Freikorp

Happy to support this. Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Before we promote, I wonder if John or Corinne could have a last look at the prose and see if we are good to go from a 1a viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John

I had a preliminary look. It's a nice article, almost ready to go. Few too many quotes and I'm sure I saw an "it was revealed" in there. I'll have a better look in the next days. --John (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@John: From a Ctrl+F search, it appears that there is one instance of "it was revealed" in paragraph 3 of Personal life. I haven't changed it yet as I don't know the optimal replacement, but feel free to change it as you please. I'm sure you didn't need me to find it, but I agree that it's not quite encyclopedic. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I have taken out the revealed part (which was there before I expanded the article and somehow missed it) and have summarized a small number of quotes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC) John just a gentle reminder. FrB.TG (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
John, sorry to be such a pain in the arse. I understand you might be busy but when you get time, it would be really great if you could continue your review if you have more to add. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not at all, I apologise for having been too busy to look at this over the past days. I will look at it tonight before I go to bed. --John (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Section by section:


  • Her achievements include being among the world's highest-paid actresses from 2014 to 2016: the link is a bit eggy, isn't it?
  • Off-Broadway is usually hyphenated, I think.
  • She was nominated for Golden Globe Awards for these films feels like it needs a number in front of "Golden".
  • the 2013 comedy-drama Her; do we need that hyphen? --John (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
All done. FrB.TG
Thank you. I took the liberty of signing for you. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Early life

  • Johansson's mother, Melanie Sloan, a producer, comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family of Polish Jewish and Belarusian Jewish descent whose family surname was originally "Szlamberg". Having three "Jewish"s in quick succession makes this a jangly sentence. Some creative piping maybe, if we really need all three links. Is her ethnic heritage really worthy of such detailed discussion?
  • Growing up, her family had limited financial means. Almost everybody in the world can say this. Do we mean she was poor? What do the sources say?
  • She was particularly fond of musical theater, describing herself as "one of those jazz-hands kids". (quote no 1) I am deeply unsatisfied by this quote. What does this even mean?
  • I always had the chance to do whatever I wanted to do, my parents were very open about that [...] Acting has been a passion of mine. I wanted to be in musicals as a kid, and took tap dance, so for me it's a dream come true, my childhood was filled with things that I loved to do, and also very normal things: I lived in New York, I have a family life and went to a regular school. If anything, I look back and think, 'Wow, I did a lot of things that a lot of people don't get to do in their lifetime'. (quote no 2) There's good stuff here but why is it a pull quote? Is this a quote that people often refer to her by? I don't see why this can't be summarised and/or shortened.
I have paraphrased most of it but have retained a small part of it, which I think is better in her own words.
  • Determined, she decided to become an actress anyway. I don't like this. I think I'd recast this and the previous one into one sentence.
  • She remembers being on the set of the film, recalling, "for some reason, I just knew what to do, instinctively. It was like, I don't know ... fate." (quote no 3) I think this can happily be summarised too. Remember, there is nothing to stop the vital parts of a quote being shunted into a reference or a footnote, for those who really need to read every word. All of these quotes so far are pretty mundane and probably apply to a great many actors. We just need an encyclopedic gist, not chapter and verse. --John (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Early roles (1996–2002)

  • "Unfortunately, because it's adults writing these scripts, it's tough [for young actors to find realistic roles]. The problem is adults portray kids like mall rats and not seriously ... Kids and teenagers just aren't being portrayed with any real depth." —Johansson on finding good roles as a teenager (quote no 4) Again, this is a great and telling quote, but I don't think it needs to be quoted in full and I don't think it needs to be a pull quote.
  • Quotes no 4-8 are what seem to me like well-chosen quotes from reviewers and I am fine with them. I particularly liked On Johansson's maturity, Redford described her as "13 going on 30". (quote no 7)
  • Nominated for the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Most Promising Actress for the film, Johansson believed that it "changed things for me in a lot of ways [...] I went through this realization that acting, at its heart, is the ability to manipulate your own emotions." (quote no 9) In this case I don't think the quote adds anything. It can best be summarised. I also don't like the sentence structure, I would recast that.
  • Quotes 10 and 11 are fine with me. It's getting late here. I may have one more section in me tonight. In any case I'll try to finish up by this time tomorrow. --John (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Transition to adult roles (2003–2004)

  • Comedy-drama again. Is this a recognised term? With or without the hyphen? I know we have an article on it, but it isn't a very good article. I genuinely don't know here.
Although certainly not the best, our article hyphenates it as does this.
  • I think the whole first para could be reorganised. No issue with Ebert's quote (no 10) nor no 11 from Entertainment Weekly.
  • Webber interviewed 150 girls before Johansson was cast for the part. could read as patronising or even sexist. These were adult women, albeit young. They wouldn't be interviewing guys for a female role; why state the gender at all? Just say "150 young actors".
  • He felt the actress "just stood out. She had something distinctive about her. (quote no 12) seems fluffy and inessential.
  • Quotes no 13 and 14 are ok, I suppose. We don't need "similarly" though. They aren't that similar.
  • Johansson had five releases in 2004, three of which—the teen heist film The Perfect Score, the drama A Love Song for Bobby Long, and the drama A Good Woman, adapted from Oscar Wilde's Lady Windermere's Fan—were critical and commercial failures. is good material but too long and meandering for a sentence.
  • Opined See WP:SAID. "Wrote" is fine.
  • Johansson voiced the role of Princess Mindy, the daughter of King Neptune Do we need "the role of"?
  • She agreed to do the film because of her love for cartoons and the animated series The Ren & Stimpy Show (1991–1995). Awkward sentence. Surely The Ren & Stimpy Show is a cartoon? And do we need the dates?
  • ...who is nearly half his age... is clumsy and ambiguous. "much younger" would be fine I think.
  • Fine with quotes 15 and 16. --John (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have done most of these things except where I have noted otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Films with Woody Allen (2005–2009)

  • In Johansson and Rhys Meyers The New York Times saw some of the best acting in an Allen film in a long time, and Mick LaSalle, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said that Johansson "is a powerhouse from the word go", with a performance that "borders on astonishing". The sentence structure is off-putting; I had to read this twice to parse it. Ok with quote no 17 (I'll keep the same numbering scheme for simplicity, even though I know you have now removed some.)
  • The film received mixed reviews and grossed $162,949,164 against a $126 million budget. I'd be inclined to round the first number to $163 million.
  • Ebert was critical of the film, but found Johansson "lovely as always", and Mick LaSalle opined that she "brings deftness and freshness" to her part. Not sure we need the first quote (no 18); neutral on the second (19).
  • Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film. Nonetheless, she thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part, and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph likewise found her miscast. I'm not a fan of "Nonetheless", and I don't think the quote (no 20) is merited. I think these two sentences could be rewritten into one.
  • CNN noted that she "takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen". Quote no 21 can happily be summarised.
Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning.
  • Also in 2006, Johansson starred in the short film When the Deal Goes Down, directed by Bennett Miller, set to Bob Dylan's song "When the Deal Goes Down...", released to promote his album, Modern Times. This is not a FA sentence.
  • Nolan, who was interested in having Johansson play the role, described her as possessing an "ambiguity" and "a shielded quality" (quote no 21) is ok, I suppose, but the sentence should be recast.
  • The film was both a critical and box office success, recommended by the Los Angeles Times as "an adult, provocative piece of work". (quote no 22) Fine but lose "both".
  • Some critics were skeptical of her performance: Anne Billson referred to her as miscast, and Dan Jolin in Empire magazine criticized her English accent, writing that she "forgets to engage her audience, trilling the film's only bum note" "Referred" sounds a wee bit WP:SAID again; have you read elegant variation? Quote no 23 is gratuitous and could be removed, perhaps to a footnote.
  • Quotes 24-28 are fine I guess, but I dislike "garnered". "Earned"?
  • Quote 29 is ok but "labelled" is elegant variation.

Marvel Cinematic Universe and stage roles (2010–2013)

  • Set in the 1950s, in an Italian-American neighborhood in New York, it tells the tragic tale of Eddie (played by Liev Schreiber), who has an inappropriate love for his wife's orphaned niece, Catherine (played by Johansson). Johansson was initially uncomfortable playing a teenage character, but later agreed to do the play after a friend convinced her to take on the part. The repetition of the subject's name is awkward. These sentences could be recast to flow better.
  • Ben Brantley of The New York Times wrote of Johansson's performance that she "melts into her character so thoroughly that her nimbus of celebrity disappears". This quote (no 30) can be summarised I think.
Trying to think of a way to phrase it that it does not lose its meaning. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Tim Robey of The Daily Telegraph quote (no 31) could be summarised. --John (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise I have done these things. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking good, thank you. On we go.
  • ... it examines the relationships among members of the family of Big Daddy... -> it examines the relationships within the family of Big Daddy
  • Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who admitted to being a fan of his acting work "Admitted" is a bit like "revealed". It's the language a tabloid uses to titillate its subliterate readers. I prefer "Gordon-Levitt wrote the role specifically for Johansson, who had previously admired his acting work."
  • Claudia Puig of USA Today (no 31) can stay.
  • "speaks Samantha in tones sweet, sexy, caring, manipulative and scary" (no 32); I find the quote a bit icky. Could we possibly just use the adjectives?
  • Johansson improvised her conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who were unknowingly participating in the film; these scenes were filmed with hidden cameras. -> Johansson improvised conversations with non-professional actors on the street, who did not know they were being filmed.

Recent work (2014–present)

  • Johansson was attracted to her character's way of doing her job, employing her feminine wiles and not her sexuality and physical appeal Just "physical appeal" would be fine here, I think.
  • Odie Henderson (quote no 33) is fine, as is Richard Roeper (34).
  • The Jim Vejvoda quote (35) can be summarised.
  • Johansson's pregnancy -> "her pregnancy"
  • Earlier in 2016, Johansson featured in Coen brothers' critically acclaimed comedy film Hail, Caesar! needs a "the" in front of "Coen brothers". I don't like "critically acclaimed" either; almost everything has been "acclaimed" by at least one critic. Was it "well-reviewed" or "positively received"? Either of these would be better, if the sources support it.
  • Johansson played the cyborg, supersoldier Motoko Kusanagi in Rupert Sanders's 2017 film adaptation of the Ghost in the Shell franchise The comma is awkward, and aren't all supersoldiers cyborgs? One link or the other maybe?
  • The film received mixed reviews: it was praised... -> The film was praised...

Music career

  • She performed with the Jesus and Mary Chain for a special Coachella reunion show in Indio, California, in April 2007. What was "special" about it? Aren't all reunions "special"? I would just remove this.
  • Johansson later spoke of the opportunity she had to record the album, adding, "I thought I would do maybe an album of standards, because I'm not a songwriter. I'm a vocalist." (no 39) This adds nothing at all. I would just remove this too.
  • added her voice to -> "sang on"
  • In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles. It is made up of... -> "In February 2015, Johansson formed a band called the Singles with..."
  • The first single released by the group was called "Candy". -> "The group's first single was called "Candy"."

Personal life

  • Johansson is reluctant to discuss her personal life, saying, "It's nice to have everybody not know your business." I am agnostic on quote no 40. I'd probably completely remove this, on the basis that she seems to have discussed her personal life quite a bit; the source this quote is drawn from also includes ""Contrary to popular belief, I am not promiscuous", and I think by including this we are falling into the trap of reporting her words about herself in Wikipedia's voice. I'd certainly remove the quote.
  • In November 2012, Johansson started dating Frenchman Romain Dauriac... This paragraph is very choppy and needs an edit or two. Too many short sentences.
  • They separated in the summer of 2016. -> "They separated in mid-2016." (WP:SEASON)
  • Johansson was awarded $3,400, a fraction of the $68,000 she had claimed. -> "Johansson was awarded $3,400; she had claimed $68,000." --John (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Public image

  • Johansson is described as a sex symbol by the media, which considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks. All of the media? Trademarks? This isn't quite right.
There are two sources supporting it. It would sound strange to say this and this or some of the media consider these her trademarks. Of course it does not mean all of the media, but the general. I can find other sources saying these things about her, but I failed to find one that says "the media says these things".
  • A string of three medium-sized quotations (41-43, unless I've missed one or two) by guys who think she is sexy, including Woody Allen. Hmm. This is perhaps a case for sending the quotes to the reference and just say they have gone on record commenting on her attractiveness. Then her quote about it, which I suppose is fine but could just as easily be summarised.
The Woody Allen quote sounds unnecessary, yes, but I believe comments from Sydney Morning Herald and New Yorker can be kept and are relevant in my opinion.
  • Johansson's sex appeal also cost her the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part. -> "Johansson lost the lead role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011) as its director David Fincher thought she was "too sexy" for the part."
  • What is the pull-quote about? What does it mean? What does it relate to? Is it something frequently quoted by her?
This one should be fine in my opinion; she talks about how she approaches roles or how she acts. This looks like a distinctive quote to me.
  • After appearing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Costume Institute Gala with Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, Johansson was announced as the face of the new Dolce & Gabbana make-up collection in early 2009. She made a personal appearance at the London store, Selfridges, in July 2009 to help launch and promote the line We don't need the date it was announced, just the actual date it happened is fine.

Other ventures

  • took part in social advocacy as part of the anti-poverty campaign ONE, sounds interesting. What social advocacy did she take part in? The source doesn't say.
Source (page four) only says she took part in it. No particular what she did.
  • The two quotes regarding Oxfam and SodaStream really add nothing (I've lost count now but I reckon we were well over 40). It's fine just to say why she withdrew, without the two quotes to support it.
  • Of George W. Bush's 2004 reelection, she said, "[I am] disappointed. I think it was a disappointment for a large percentage of the population." -> "When George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, she said she was disappointed."
  • Johansson publicly endorsed and supported Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer's 2013 run for New York City Comptroller by hosting a series of fundraisers. I'm not sure what a private endorsement would look like. Just "supported" would be fine. Does this even merit a mention?
  • She elaborated, "Once the heaviness [of the election] began to subside, an opportunity has presented itself to make real long-term change, not just for future Americans, but in the way we view our responsibility to get involved with and stay active in our communities. Let this weight not drag you down, but help to get your heels stuck in." This looks like yet another self-serving quote. Vanity Fair has a more interesting take on it, that she was advocating for Planned Parenthood based on her own experience with the organisation.
There is a similar one from LA Times already used in the article.

That concludes my first pass on 1a grounds. --John (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I have addressed these as well. FrB.TG (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Final nips and tucks

Are you ok with these edits? I finished this second phase of the review tonight. --John (talk) 00:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you for that and also for your thorough review. When expanding a BLP next time, I’ll make sure I keep the quotes limited to the good ones. FrB.TG (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
FrB.TG, regarding those series of edits, I restored the "ScarJo" quote here (followup note here); I did this because the nickname aspect does not flow well with the "sexiest list"/Madame Tussauds New York paragraph, and I think it's better to address why Johansson dislikes the nickname. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
We can also summarize her reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I have paraphrased the quote and let it be part of the prose, which I think is better. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I take it that you don't think the "associate that name with pop stars" part is needed? It does seem that people would think of J.Lo when reading it and take it as an insult with regard to pop stars. I'm not sure if we should mention the pop stars part or not. The gist is that she finds the name lazy and flippant; so your summary gets that across. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if "insulting" should be replaced with "flippant." Apparently, she finds the name disrespectful and something not giving her the seriousness she deserves; so I wonder if "flippant," which is a synonym for "disrespectful," gets that across better. But then again, "insulting" is more commonly used than "flippant." We could also use the word "disrespectful." If you think it's fine as is, I'm okay with that as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2017‎ (UTC)
Changed to this. I don't think readers are likely to get what she means by "violent," especially outside of the quote. I don't even understand what she means by it. So I added "flippant" in its place. She uses both "flippant" and "insulting," and these two words don't always automatically mean the same thing; so I think it's fine to include both. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It's definitely getting there. I still have a question about why we have used the source:

Do you feel like any of the characters you’ve played have been close to who you actually are?

All of the characters are close to who I am in some ways. The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act. So there is a part of me in every role that I play. For better or worse.

and truncated it to

"The conviction comes in how you sell yourself to yourself, in a way. You have to believe in yourself and your character and what they stand behind, even if their morals or ethical ideals are different from your own. You have to understand where they are coming from and be convinced of what they believe in and how they act." —Johansson on her approach to acting

It seems to me we've omitted the question she was responding to, and the first and last sentences of her response, and added on the explanation that the quote is "on her approach to acting". It seems rather to be about how she feels about the characters she plays. I don't like it, and I don't see that is belongs as a pull quote in a section about her "Public image". --John (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Removed. FrB.TG (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@John: sorry for another ping. Would you mind finishing your review, as I’d like to see this nom conclude. FrB.TG (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. Last few niggles.
  • She remembers being on the set of the film, knowing instinctively what to do. Would you mind if we recast this as "She says that when she was on the film set, she knew intuitively what to do"? The "-ing" form is jarring, especially when repeated twice in a sentence, and this wasn't instinct but perhaps more intuitiveness.
  • I'm aware that alt text for images isn't essential for FA any more, but I like them and if we are going to have them they should be more descriptive. For example, the one for File:Lee Strasberg Institute 115 East 15th Street.jpg should not read A picture of the Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute. but something more like "A red-brick three-story building with a tree outside it" so as to actually provide info for people who can't see the picture, rather than just duplicate the caption.
  • Where's the sourcing that Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media and fans? One source says it is "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using" is sourced to an archived article on, maybe not the strongest of sources. I do prefer my version which was "Johansson has been called "ScarJo" by the media and fans, but dislikes it." but really the "and fans" is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed. --John (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the "and fans" part, but I do think that her reason to dislike the nickname should be retained in prose rather than in footnote in quotes. I liked your other suggestions. FrB.TG (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
No problem with that, but I think that we are struggling even with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the media. What does "commonly" even mean here? I don't see it in the Guardian coverage, for example. And thanks for implementing my suggestion for the alt text but I think all or most of them would need to be similarly adjusted. --John (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Done, I think. FrB.TG (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The point of "commonly" was the point that all qualifiers have. And we do use qualifiers, such generally or typically (and, yeah, commonly too), on Wikipedia. Qualifiers such as these let readers know that it's not an "always" matter. The wording "prone to using" is also something that lets one know that it's not an "always" or "solely" matter. Johansson is not solely called "ScarJo" by the media, but it's common enough that she's commented on it multiple times. That stated, I can live with the removal of "commonly" for the piece. "Fans" should be there as well since she's called this by fans too. But since "fans" is not sourced, we'll have to do without it for now. I obviously agree with FrB.TG that Johansson's reasons for disliking the nickname should be retained. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It isn't "the media" in general though, at least according to our sources, it is "gossip magazines"; can you live with this? --John (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess. I don't know about The Guardian, but Rolling Stone and Variety have. Not sure if that qualifies as the media in general though. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Per this CBS News source and this The Sydney Morning Herald source, it is not just the media who calls her ScarJo; it is the general pubic, as in the media and fans, which is the original wording I used per the sources. The CBS source, which had been in the article before, states, "Your fame means that your name has been reduced to acronym that everybody uses." The Sydney Morning Herald states, "Johansson has said she finds the nickname insulting and wants her fans to stop using it." So we have sources noting that the media and her fans call her "ScarJo," and that she strongly dislikes this. One source stating "a gossip magazine mainstay" does not mean that gossip magazines alone call her "ScarJo." Per the sources, it's clear that people in general call her that, not just gossip magazines. Indeed, one source that John cited above states "the name that the media is prone to using," which means the "media commonly calls her this." We have sources stating the "media" and "fans." Per this, I removed John's wording of "certain sections of the media." Use of "certain sections of the media" is not wording employed by any of the sources and it's WP:Weasel wording because it makes people wonder "Which sections?" when reading it. I changed the wording to "by the public," and supported this with the CBS News source, which says that "everybody uses" the nickname "ScarJo." I also changed the Yahoo! source to The Sydney Morning Herald source for Johansson's interview since John expressed hesitancy about using the Yahoo! source. I was going to use the Glamour magazine source as a direct source, but I didn't see the part where Johansson comments on the matter when I clicked on URLs for it (such as this one, which only shows photos and has brief descriptions). And since The Sydney Morning Herald uses the word "fans," that was a plus per my previous "and fans" argument. I re-added "commonly" per what I stated above and in this paragraph (it's more accurate and flows better), but we can remove that again. I also re-added "is," because there is no indication that Johansson being called "ScarJo" is a past matter and not a present matter as well.
I don't see that we need to spend any more time on this particular aspect. Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by both the media and fans, very much dislikes, and we note this. Simple. Let's move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I can't live with Johansson is commonly called "ScarJo" by the public on a BLP FAC as it is introducing a synthesis from sources which speak of acronym that everybody uses (although it clearly is an acronym it clearly isn't used by everybody, so I would distrust this source) and ones that refer to "a gossip magazine mainstay" and "the name that the media is prone to using"; how, do we get from there to 'commonly called "ScarJo" by the public'? I'm sure there is a good compromise out there, but this isn't it. --John (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
John, "commonly" is no more WP:Synthesis than your use of "certain sections of the media." When we look at the definition of "tend," we see that it means "regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic." So how is a reliable source stating "the name that the media is prone to using" not the same thing as "the name that the media commonly calls her"? As for the CBS News source stating "an acronym that everybody uses," the source obviously does not mean that everyone in the world uses the name, just like sources don't mean that all critics hated a film when they state "critics panned the film." There is no reason to take such a strict reading of sources and forgo WP:Common sense. We are allowed to use synonyms. As for distrusting sources, it is CBS News; it is undoubtedly a reliable source. So are the Rolling Stone and Variety sources above. There is nothing that says we must use a The Guardian source instead. We go by what reliable sources state. And the CBS News source is speaking of the the fact Johansson is widely called "ScarJo." So, per the sources, we can leave the text as "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the public.", which is not ideal to me since it leaves out the important "commonly" qualifier, or we can add "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." We have reliable sources stating "media" and "fans." I don't see what is so contentious about this text you keep disputing. I did remove "commonly" (followup note here), despite "tend to" being a synonym for "frequently" and "frequently" being a synonym for "commonly." Stating "Johansson is frequently called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." would also work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Above, John stated, "I do prefer my version which was 'Johansson has been called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans, but dislikes it.' but really the 'and fans' is unsourced in either version and needs to be sourced or removed." Per this and what I stated above, I have changed the text to "Johansson is called 'ScarJo' by the media and fans." The first source (the Yahoo! source) states "media" and the second source (the The Sydney Morning Herald source) states "fans." The text is completely supported by the sources. And as stated before, use of "is" happens to be more accurate than "has been" in this case. And use of "the media and fans" obviously does not mean all of the media and fans, which is why adding the qualifier "commonly" or "frequently" is better. It's why one source states "prone to." But I trust that our readers will have common sense, just like they will know that "she is described as a sex symbol by the media" does not mean every media outlet ever. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

On a side note: Maybe noting here that some scholarly sources call her "ScarJo" or specifically comment on the "ScarJo" aspect will help show how common and notable the "ScarJo" nickname is. For example, this 2015 "The Oxford Handbook of the Word" source, from OUP Oxford, page 1019, states, "A small set of public celebrity nicknames combine a forename initial with a truncation of the surname [...] Forms that combine forename and surname truncations, such as Cujo for Curtis Joseph or ScarJo for Scarlett Johansson, are also found." This 2016 "The Palgrave Handbook of Posthumanism in Film and Television" source, from Springer, page 42, flat out uses "ScarJo" in its title for a section when analyzing some of Johansson's films. The only reason we even mention "ScarJo" in the Wikipedia article is because of how common it is and because Johansson has stated multiple times that she dislikes it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@John:, by stating "the media", we certainly do not mean all of the media. I don't think this "all of the media" point applies anywhere as that is not true in any case. Since there are many reliable sources that have called her that, I think it is currently okay, although, if I am being honest, I wasn't a big fan of "commonly" either. I have added an "often" there to imply that they do not always call her that. Hope it works now. FrB.TG (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very very large shark that went extinct a really really long time ago. It also got to GA a really very long time ago in 2008, and now I'm here to see it through FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Pbsouthwood

Image licenses:

  • File:Megalodon shark jaws museum of natural history 068.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Stenoshark.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon tooth with great white sharks teeth-3-2.jpg - looks OK
  • File:White shark.jpg - looks OK
  • File:FMIB 45542 Cetorhinus maximus.jpeg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon scale.svg - looks OK
  • File:Carcharodon megalodon.jpg - looks OK
  • Source link doesn't appear to have original publication - when/where was this first published?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Megalodon.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon teeth.jpg - looks OK (dead link to source)
  • File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon skeleton.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Giant white shark coprolite (Miocene; coastal waters of South Carolina, USA).jpg - looks OK
  • File:Meg bitten cetacean vertebra.jpg - not found at source url, page may have changed. OTRS ticket on file, assuming OK
  • File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg - source archived, I don't know how to check licensing for this one.
  • File:Physeteroidea - Livyatan melvillei.JPG - looks OK
  • File:VMNH megalodon.jpg - looks OK. source checked, OTRS ticket on file.
  • File:Megalodon teeth.png - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
  • File:Orca pod southern residents.jpg - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
  • File:Megbook.jpg - looks OK, but I am not expert on fair use.

File:Megbook.jpg and File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg should be checked by someone more expert. I am satisfied with the others. These two are probably OK too but I am not sure. Nikkimaria, perhaps you would be kind enough to check them. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The map appears to be pretty much identical to the source site, which is problematic given this statement. The book cover currently has no fair-use rationale for this page and can't be used here without one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the book image, but I'm not too sure what to do with the map. It says you can use a modified version of the map, and the one on here is covered in dots, so that seems to check out. It says it can only be used as a resource, just not point-blank copy/pasted onto a page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg appears to be an unmodified version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I switched it out with File:Land shallow topo 2048.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to me · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All images have alt text. I think some could be improved. I will get back to this for details or make the suggested changes myself if you are happy with that. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have made some alt text copyedits, and plan to do more. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them.
    Done with alt-text. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • External links look OK on Checklinks. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect check looks OK on Rdcheck. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox gives four synonyms as C. spp. Are they all Carcharocles spp? Phylogeny section appears to suggest that other synonyms exist.
Synonyms of Carcharocles sure, but not synonyms of megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair comment. If the accepted procedure is to list only species synonyms in the infobox, no problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that this has been changed. Looks OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • First paragraph suggested that Megalodon:The Monster Shark Lives is a documentary. I changed it. No action required · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • competing figures still exist as to when it evolved - What are Competing figures?
disagreement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the expression, is it standard or common usage in paleontology? I think it may be a bit obscure for the average reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the visible V-shaped neck on the teeth?
the neck of the tooth is where the root meets the crown   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four sharks Are these four sharks those which are now assigned to Carcharocles? If so it would be clearer to mention it.
I switched it to "those four sharks" because I figure it'd be confusing saying "the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four Carcharocles sharks"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
External appearance
  • This section seems excessively tentative. It suggests that the shark resembled at least four rather different extant species. It may be that there are different opinions as to which shark it most closely resembles, in which case this should be specifically mentioned, if possible mentioning the specific attributes that are hypothesized to match each of the species.
there’re three different ideas as to what it really looked like, so they’re split into three different paragraphs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps the section should lead with a mention that opinions differ, and possibly mention who holds which opinion.
I just opened the paragraphs with "one idea is..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That is better. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • However, since sand tiger sharks are displacement swimmers, and use drag to propel themselves; they are required to move around three or four times their own weight in water on each tail stroke. On the face of it, this does not make sense. Explain or link "displacement swimmer", explain how drag can propel anything, as it seems a contradiction in terms.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph is still incomprehensible to me, and is not linked to anything that explains it. I am not a specialist on animal swimming, but I am educated in basic hydrodynamics and have probably a better than average layman's knowledge of marine biology, so if I don't get it, I suspect that the majority of readers also won't get it. In this context does "own weight in water" mean an amount of water weighing as much as the shark independent of immersion medium, or an amount of water weighing as much as the apparent weight of the shark when immersed in water? I expect the latter, but then some indication of the apparent weight is needed, as for a neutrally buoyant shark this would be zero. If the former, that is a huge mass of water, and the reason escapes me. Axial swimming is not explained in the article and does not appear to be explained anywhere else on Wikipedia. A footnote may be useful. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"axial swimmers that flex their body for propulsion"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"own weight in water" means in the most literal sense possible "own weight in water"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The source specifies own mass, which is unambiguous. Weight in water is ambiguous as it can mean apparent weight. Own weight of water is less ambiguous.
I read the source. It also fails to explain the meaning of axial swimming and the requirement to displace a large mass of water by drag adequately. I also did a little research into fish locomotion, and found a resource which explains the differences between body forms optimised for acceleration, maneuverability and sustained high speed. I think Kent is trying to say that the sand tiger is optimised for acceleration and possibly maneuverability, but is an inefficient form for sustained high cruising speeds, which tends to be represented by less flexible bodies and high aspect ratio caudal fins, and preferably near neutral buoyancy to minimise induced drag. I am going to look for a suitable wikilink, but may have to resort to a redlink. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is clearer to me. If you are satisfied that that is the intended meaning of the source I am happy with it. OK for me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a "pig-eyed appearance" intended to mean in this context?
the source said “pig-eyed” which means popping out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I accept that the source said "pig-eyed". I checked, and it is there, but I could not access adjacent text to see what meaning they intended. Nevertheless, I do not get a clear understanding from the expression as used in the article, and question its usefulness as a description on that account. I found definitions for pig-eyed in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, which both say "small, deep-set eyes", quite the opposite of "popping out". I think we can reasonably assume that the authors meant small, deep-set eyes, and as the meaning is clearly not obvious, suggest that the article is changed to clarify. There is no entry in Wiktionary. Either reword or a footnote would do.
I just appendaged an explainer on the end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Megalodon is represented in the fossil record by teeth, vertebral centra, and coprolite. Only one coprolite? If so, "a coprolite". If more than one, use plural form.
Teeth and bite forces
  • What are post-cranial generated forces? Link would be sufficient.
I just removed “post-cranial”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Range and habitat
  • Fossil remains show a trend for specimens to be larger on average in the southern hemisphere than in the northern, with mean lengths of 11.6 and 9.6 meters (38 and 31 ft), respectively; and in the Pacific more so than the Atlantic 10.9 and 9.5 meters (36 and 31 ft) respectively. The section in italics is not clear. Do the 10.9 and 9.5 meters refer to mean lengths in the Pacific and Atlantic (both hemispheres) repectively, or to mean lengths in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere in one of these oceans?
11.6 and 9.6 metres mean length for the southern and northern hemispheres respectively; and 10.9 and 9.5 metres for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans respectively. The semicolon is there to separate the two   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
To what does "more so" refer? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what it sounds like? I use that every day to mean "a quantity more than..." (and on occasion "more like..." depending on the context, but you get the idea)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an explanation of the meaning, and is what I would expect it to mean. What I asked was what concept in the sentence "more so" refers to. Is it "a trend for specimens to be larger in the southern hemisphere than the northern", or just "a trend for specimens to be larger"? In effect I am asking whether the trend for larger in SH vs NH is exaggerated in the Pacific in relation to the Atlantic, or whether the trend for larger mean lengths in the Pacific than the Atlantic is greater than the hemispheric variation. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it myself after referring to source. No further action required if you are OK with the change. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Prey relationships
  • Being an opportunist, it would have gone after small and fish and other sharks given the opportunity. First paragraph of the section states probably an apex predator, so maybe "Also being an opportunist...". In same sentence, "small and fish" makes no sense, but not sure what is intended. "Smaller fish"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Checked: sample of 10 refs chosen from accessible websites. Some when checking specific content, some arbitrarily selected for no special reason. These checks are for validity only, i.e. the content is supported by the source. No comment on formatting.

  • Roesch, B. S. (1998) - OK
  • Does Megalodon still live - OK
  • Alten, S. (2011) - OK
  • Weinstock, J. A. (2014), Partly checked, some pages not accessible, no problem detected.
  • Prothero, D. R. (2015), 1 use checked as OK
  • Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik (1983) - OK
  • Fitzgerald, Erich (2004) - OK
  • Ferretti, Francesco; Boris Worm; Gregory L. Britten; Michael R. Heithaus; Heike K. Lotze1 (2010) - OK
  • Renz, Mark (2002), partly checked, pages not fully accessible, samples checked were good. no problem detected.
  • Siverson, Mikael; Johan Lindgren; Michael G. Newbrey; Peter Cederström; Todd D. Cook (2013) - OK

Additional checks when researching for clarification.

  • Pimiento, C.; Balk, M. A. (2015) - OK
General criteria
  • well-written: Could use some more copyediting. I will do what I can, but don't claim to be very good at it.
    • comprehensibility to the layperson reasonable for the topic. Some clarification needed as detailed above.
  • comprehensive: Looks good to me.
  • well-researched: Appears adequately cited, and those refs I have checked look good.
  • neutral: As far as I can tell. No reasons found to suspect otherwise.
  • stable: Looks fine. A lot of constructive work over the last few months and no recent edit wars.
  • lead: Seems generally appropriate.
  • structure: Also seems appropriate.
  • citations: Not checked (yet). Looks OK on a sample check. (see above) I don't do ref formatting reviews, but have not noticed any obvious problems.
  • media. See above: reasonable variety of images, appropriate for purpose, licensing issues appear to be fixed.
  • length. Seems OK.

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal

  • Mega shark series is a dab link, so that needs to be fixed.
that was one purpose,it just lists all the movies in the series   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Using a dab like that is a bad idea (it's just going to draw people trying to fix it), so I resolved by creating a Mega Shark (film series) article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In prey relations, the text is being sandwiched between the two images, so if that could be fixed, it would be great.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More by evening! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna be gone over the weekend to a place where wifi is a foreign concept, so I'll answer any more comments on Monday (or Tuesday)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
wifi at last   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, completely forgot about it!

  • Link naturalist.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
it also says the subject should be facing the text, so like the Megalodon painting shows the Megalodon facing the left so the picture should be on the right side so that it faces the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra. Only the great white approached it." Can these two sentences be merged somehow? (maybe "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, with the great white shark's equaling it, with possibly over 200 centra.)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all I have to nitpick on. It is a really very well-written, solid article!Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - A very solid article, and well deserves a shiny star to it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll take a look at this soon. Some initial thoughts below. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems the image layout could still be improved. In the Taxonomy section, the white shark or tooth image could maybe be moved down, so they don't cluster above, both next to the cladogram.
I moved the great white image down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Under "Teeth and bite force", the Baltimore jaw image seems a bit redundant and crammed-in, could be moved somewhere else.
any ideas where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is slightly repetitive, so I'd just remove it or put it in the fiction section as decoration or something, but it's also a shame to remove it, so maybe just leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm leaving it as is then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The vertebra under "Prey relationships" could be right aligned so it doesn't cluster with the skull photo.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In fiction" Still seems a way too specific and inadequate title for something that includes info about wrong dating of teeth. This has nothing to do with fiction, and instead of making a new section, it would be better to just make the title more inclusive.
I changed it to "Fiction and sightings"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
How about "Fiction and misconceptions"? There have been no plausible sightings. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe fiction and cryptozoology? It may also be an idea to make the title even more generic, if we want to include for example non-fictional media appearances or such. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
"Modern era"? "Appearances"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's on the even vaguer end... "Modern era" could mean anything (all research is also modern?), and "sightings" is too uncritical, as it implies it has actually been seen. "Fiction and cryptozoology" is probably the most fitting after all, but if you want to be more inclusive, "cultural significance" could work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The external links and videos should be cleaned up; some of the links don't work, and some are just redundant junk.
changed to "In fiction and cryptozoology"
I removed all the deadlinks and weird ones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternative combinations (of genus and species names, such as Carcharodon megalodon) should also be listed in the taxobox synonyms. It is also better to spell out the genus names in the presently listed synonyms, otherwise we won't know what genus each invalid species was assigned to. All synonyms should also redirect here.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, there's a problem with listing genera separately from species here, though; Carcharocles contains species other than megalodon, so synonyms of that genus cannot be synonyms of the species C. megalodon itself. So what I meant is you should list full binomials as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why this restoration isn't used?[15] It doesn't seem like a white shark-like appearance has been ruled out, but it's explicitly mentioned as a possibility under description.
I checked the source and it doesn't actually have a picture of megalodon in it (or at least not one labelled "megalodon"), and it doesn't really have the same style as all the other pictures on the sight which makes me question it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
NobuTamura/Arthur Weasley is a pretty prolific paleoartist on Wikipedia (or at least was), he has done many images in different styles, from pencil to 3D, so there is no question it's his own. Much of his underwater work has the same style, see for example these:[16][17][18] FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I can find all those pictures on the website specified in the source, but I can’t find Megalodon on the website specified in the source. Also the article’s borderlining on picture overload and there’s already a pretty realistic Megalodon reconstruction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The image is right here on the site:[19] I agree there is an image overload, but that's mainly because we have way too many repetitive images of teeth (3) and jaws (5). There is only a single restoration of the animal, far from the description/anatomy section where such are usually placed, yet there is still room there (even if you keep the basking shark). It's up to you, but I think the balance could certainly be improved, and it's kind of inappropriate that the reader has to get that far down the article to get an idea how the animal looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The image is licensed NC. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Not on Commons[20], where the artist has uploaded it (and almost all the images on that blog) himself. In fact, he uploaded images for Wikipedia use long before he started his own website, and frequently asked for critique at the dinosaur art review page, so there is no copyright issue here (dual licenses are also fine). FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a photo of a coprolite, is there any published information about this? Could be interesting.
added to the Anatomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the past, the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under the family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae)." This is very vaguely worded. Interpretation of what? What kind of interpretation? And what is "in the past"? You could say there has been a historical debate about its generic classification, and that one possibility is now in favour, but the current wording is just too weak.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"Some argue" is listed as "weasel words", you could say "some researchers argue". FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am am the author of this section that was changed, I am quite unhappy with this change for a number of reasons.

"There has been some debate regarding the taxonomy of megalodon: some researchers argue that it is of the family Lamnidae, while others argue that it belongs to the family Otodontidae" as compared to the original

"The taxonomic assignment of C. megalodon had been debated for nearly a century, but has recently reached consensus. In the past the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae). However recently, consensus has been reached that the latter view is correct and that megalodon is of the family Otodontidae deriving from sharks of the genus Otodus, and thus should be placed under the genus Carcharocles"

No research for the past five or more years has suggested that Megalodon is part of Lamnidae,the latest papers I can see that suggest this are from the mid 2000's. The wording change seems to imply that there is still an active debate about the taxonomy, when there is not. I made this change to the wording and to the genus in the taxobox to specifically clarify this consensus so I am not sure why you changed it back, it gives a disingenuous impression to the reader. It is also inconsistent with the rest of the article, in the naming section it reads: "Megalodon was previously considered to be a member of the family Lamnidae, but it is now considered to be a member of the family Otodontidae, genus Carcharocles". So why only change the introduction? Again, I feel that this edit goes too far to the point of false balance and a misleading impression to the reader. As a point on the genus classification, genera are ultimately arbitrary as the sheer abundance of shark teeth mean that continuity between species of shark can be established. There are many chronospecies of megalodon that have existed since the palaeogene, and don't really effect the familial classification. My original edit might have been a bit too technical and clunky for an introduction, so I am not necessarily bothered by it simply being changed, but that the meaning is changed

Thus I am editing this section to draw comment, If you disagree then please respond to this comment, I am happy for my section to be changed as long as it accurately reflects that there is consensus in the Megalodon family classification.

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There's this from 2016 that says "Carcharodon megalodon", but then again the taxobox uses Otodontidae, so I'm torn here. But in any case, fair point, there aren't that many that use that anymore, so I suppose it's kinda safe to say consensus's been reached; but in the rest of the article, should it take sides or should it not be changed from how it is right now? I'm not really sure there's a source that specifically says consensus has been reached, moreover they're just saying how it is in their opinion in an individual journal article or book or whatever   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the response, sorry if the previous post came off as rude or cranky. Thanks for the reference, I think I have had similar discussions in the past. For this paper, it is not focused on Megalodon at all, instead as a discussion on the bite force of a living shark species, with Megalodons bite force being used as a reference. The fact that the paper does not mention the discussion of taxonomy of megalodon at all is quite telling, and the reference they cite is a 1996 paper which solely mentions the charcharodon name. Had they discussed the taxonomy at all and said something like "we disagree and treat it as charcharodon megalodon for xyz reasons", it would be worthy of merit, and thus the debate could still be considered active in that case.

However the people who were writing the paper appear to be zoologists and not shark paleontologists. I don't think that they dug particularly deep on the topic, simply due to lack of relevance to the paper, and therefore simply just took the bite force data from the 1996 paper and the genus name without scrutiny.

I think in future when we have disputes like this, only the opinions of current specialists should be considered. A lot of the time what happens is that someone who is not versed in the taxonomic debate does not read the literature carefully (Not that I blame them for this, publish or perish after all), typically doing a paper tangential to the topic (eg biometrics, population statistics etc). and cites older research, these articles are often given as a counter argument in Wikipedia discussions of there still being a debate on taxonomy, where in actual fact they have just blindly followed the taxonomy of the older literature, and don't really have an opinion per se. In these cases I think that references like this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Pretty much every paper that discusses megalodon taxonomy over the past 5 years or more agrees with the Otodontidae classification, so again I think we can consider this case fairly settled.

Now for your main question:

The genus level taxonomy for Megalodon is a complete nightmare. This is for a number of reasons, I will explain briefly.

Megalodons ancestry can be directly traced to a genus of shark called Cretolamna from the cretaceous period. After the K-Pg extinction, the genus split into branches. for most of the Palaeogene, the branch ancestral to megalodon is treated as the genus Otodus, one branch of Otodus becomes much larger in size and is then called Charcharocles, including several predecessor species like C. chubutensis etc, this then leads to Megalodon. As you can see, there are multiple genera covering a continuous sequence over 70 million years or more.

The genus and species concept works really well in in the modern world where you are only looking at a snapshot of time where every species is discrete. It also usually works really well in the fossil record as fossils usually only give a brief window into the past where is therefore also discrete for the most part. However the shear abundance of shark teeth means that continuity between species can be established over staggeringly long periods of time, where the form might change substantially. Which is unusual for vertebrates, but much more common for something like forams. In the fossil record normally eg dinosaurs, species are treated almost as if having spontaneously arisen and then gone extinct due to the incredibly poor resolution of the terrestrial fossil record. This why the problem is intractable, because it is a fundamental problem with the genus/species concept itself. I would personally stick with Charcharocles because this is the genus that the literature uses.

Hope this helps

Again thanks for the response, much appreciated

Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The "etymology" section seems to be too specifically named compared with the content. Perhaps change to "naming", as it is not simply concerned with the meaning of the names.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz gave the shark its" I would rather say "this shark", when I read it first i thought you meant sharks in general as a taxon.
should I do that for every time is says "the shark" in the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it was just ambiguous in that instance. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
changed to "this shark"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What did Agassiz base the name on?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The "fossils" section seems like a hodgepodge of text that belongs in other sections. Some of it is about evolution, some is descriptive, some is about extinction date. I think this should be spread out to more appropriate sections. Especially the last two paragraphs, which are entirely about morphology, surely belongs under description/anatomy, which is very short anyway.
I moved them to their appropriate sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Much better. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Relationship between megalodon and the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)" This caption seems misleading, since the cladogram shows the relation with many sharks, not just with the white shark. So it should rather be "including the white shark".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " In this model, the great white shark", and "In this model, the great white shark is", very repetitive.
I did that to avoid confusion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
You could say "according to one scheme" or such one if the times, to avoid repetition. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I feel like some people'd get confused why it suddenly changes from "model" to "scheme" (as if there's a difference) then back to "model"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should be consistent in whether you give scientific names after common names or not. Now you mention modern shark species without and some with.
where is the scientific name before the common name?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
No, I mean some times you mention a species and give its scientific name afterwards, but sometimes you don't. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I saw one for the mako shark, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention various geological ages without links or dates, but this will mean nothing to many readers, so you should add both.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and predate the transitional Pliocene fossils." What transitional fossils? You have not introduced what these are.
considering great whites evolved 6.5 million years ago (at the very earliest), I removed it. I'm not really sure why the great white shark article says 16 mya considering I can't find anyone else who says that except for the one source they both cite (which I can't access)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Later on in the 1980s" Too informal wording.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "to classify the shark C. auriculatus into". Sounds weird, maybe say "was established to contain C. auriculatus" or some such.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Before this, however, in 1960," Insert sentence overload, you could easily cut "however".
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phylogeny section, you are inconsistent in whether you mention authors and dates for theories or not.
added 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Many chronospecies are mentioned in that section, perhaps mention the word if the sources do.
it's mentioned in the paragraph about chronospecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Of course, got to that part after I added the comment... FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "concluded that it is a paraphyly." The term needs to be explained, and the sentence is also wrongly worded. A taxon can be paraphyletic, it cannot be a paraphyly, which denotes the concept itself.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The end of the Phylogeny indicates the species belongs in Otodus, but this is inconsistent with the rest of the article. What is the actual, current consensus, and when has it been established, and by who?
depends who you ask. Some say Carcharodon megalodon, some say Carcharocles megalodon, some say Otodus megalodon, and some say Megaselachus megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention various subgenera, like Otodus (Megaselachus) megalodon, so this term could be mentioned.
I just wikilinked it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in the 1980s, megalodon was assigned to Carcharocles." and "Before this, in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was", why is it not in chronological order?
it’s less relevant. What’s most important is its relationship to the great white shark (classification at the family level), the rest of the paragraphs talk about its genus placement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "One idea on how megalodon appeared" Seems ambiduous, maybe say "one interpretation of megalodon's physical appearances is that".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Steno shark image takes a lot of vertical space, perhaps add the "upright" parameter.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The jaws may have been blunter and wider than the great white, and it may have had a pig-eyed appearance, in that it had deep-set and small eyes." The fact that these claims are in the same sentence makes it seem that the pig eyes appearance is also in contrast to the great shark. If not, it could be changed, maybe the order.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The section "Anatomy" is incorrectly named; size and external shape are also anatomy. Maybe you mean internal anatomy.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Due to fragmentary remains" and "Due to the lack of well-preserved fossil megalodon skeletons" seems repetitive, and could be consolidated into one.
  • The article appears to be in US English, yet you have metres and kilometres throughout.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention informal names, yet overlook the fact that "megalodon" is itself an informal version of the specific name. Perhaps this could be stated, if the sources allow it. It is kind of similar to how thylacine is used.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "were based on a weaker evaluation of the dental homology between megalodon and the great white shark" I have no idea what this means. What is a "weaker evaluation" here?
changed "weaker" to "less-reliable"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure why "Largest known specimens" needs to be a separate section. Both examples are of teeth, so the text would seem to fit better in the section about teeth, which already contains measurements.
so people can find information quickly. Most likely people’re gonna be reading this article to see how big it got   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't they know where to look for it in the "estimations" section? In any case, the manual of style advises against short, single paragraph sections: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."[21] FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
merged with Estimations section
  • "at the National Museum of Natural History (USNM), which is part of the Smithsonian Institution" Why is this needed?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "but this tooth is still designated as intermediate." What does this mean?
intermediate tooth which is what the text before it was talking about, but I removed it since it's redundant   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "hough a reconstruction at USNM approximate" Since you've aleady mentioned the museum, you could say "the USNM".
added "the"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "for its maximum confirmed size and the conservative minimum and maximum body mass of megalodon" Maybe these sizes could be listed here.
already listed in the Statistics section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Not for the white shark, whose size is specifically referred to here the only time, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
added max size for great white   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and coprolite." I'm pretty sure it should be coprolites in plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "this means that most fossil specimens are poorly preserved" In a section about anatomy, that's not really what this means, but rather it is just the reason why.
changed to "consequently"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The jaws would have given it a "pig-eyed" profile." Not sure what the jaws have to do with the eyes, and isn't this repetition anyway?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Chondrocranium" could be explained, also, the paragraph it appears in ends without citation.
looks like I accidentally deleted that ref a few edits back, fixed.
  • "from Gram Formation" From the.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "crutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra; only the great white approached it." Why not moved this to after tyou mention the fossils form Belgium, instead of after mentioning fossils from Denmark?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a mature male, though relative and proportional changes in the skeletal features of megalodon are ontogenetic in nature, in comparison to those of the great white, as they also occur in great white sharks while growing." I'm not sure what you're saying here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe the sentence under Locations of fossils could say "shown in the map below or some such, to make it clear that the text is connected to the image.
it's said in the caption what it is, and it's the only image in the section, and the only other thing in that section beyond that sentence is the table, and there's {{clear}} so it doesn't bleed into any other sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "its inferred tolerated temperature range is" Was?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "(although the megatooth lineage in general is thought to display a trend of increasing size over time)" What is the "megatooth lineage"?
changed to Carcharocles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The overall modal length has been estimated at 10.5 meters (34 ft), with the length distribution skewed towards larger individuals, suggesting an ecological or competitive advantage for larger body size." Why is this under range/habitat?
it talks about its habitat and its effects on it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "formidable predator", "a formidable feeding apparatus", seems repetitive when used in close succession.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sharks generally are opportunistic feeders, but scientists propose that megalodon was largely a formidable predator." You could explain why "opportunistic feeder" is in contrast to "formidable predator". Especially since you later say about megalodon "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish", which sems like a contradiction.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a higher trophic level" Could be explained.
does "more predatory" work?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems the term means it is higher in the food chain. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks given the opportunity." Redundant.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Being an opportunist, it would have also gone after smaller fish and other sharks" and "megalodon also would have been piscivorous" this means the same, redundant.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "some species became pack predators" Like which?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a "killer sperm whale? You need to link and give a scientific name at first occurrence.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In areas where their ranges seems to overlap" Should be past tense.
  • "The shark probably also had a tendency for cannibalism, much like contemporary sharks." You mention two different species in the preceding sentence, so specify megalodon instead of "the shark". This also avoids repetition of the word "shark".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Fossil remains of some small cetaceans, for example cetotheres, suggest that they were rammed with great force from below before being killed and eaten." How is this evidenced?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "They probably also targeted the flipper in order to immobilize the whale before killing it" and "This suggests that megalodon would immobilize a large whale by ripping apart or biting off its locomotive structures before killing and feeding on it" repetitive.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "preferred nursery sites" You need to explain what a nursery site even is before going into detail about it.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Neonate megalodons" Not sure why such an uncommon word needs to be used here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their dietary preferences display an ontogenetic shift:[20]:65 Young megalodon commonly preyed on fish,[26] giant sea turtles,[47] dugongs,[14]:129 and small cetaceans; mature megalodon moved to off-shore areas and consumed large cetaceans.[20]:74–75" This is almost word for word already explained in the Prey relationships section.
the Prey relationships section just says young megalodon ate more fish, but it goes more in-depth what mature megalodon eat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " from Ancient Greek: μέγας (megas) "big, mighty" and ὀδoύς (odoús) "tooth"" All this detail should not be in the intro.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You capitalise as "Megalodon" a few places, which is inaccurate.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The shark has made appearances in several works of fiction, such as the Discovery Channel's Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives." I don't think you need to arbitrarily name one of many media appearances in the intro. Also, it is way too early in the lead, should be at the bottom, if anywhere.
figured I'd put it in the paragraph where it talks about what people are doing with it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
But why name one specifically out of several documentaries? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
It was notable enough to get its own little paragraph specifically about it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Regarded as one of the largest and most powerful predators in vertebrate history," Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "looked like a stockier version" Likewise only referred to as stocky in the intro, but you also fail to mention the other possible appearances.
fixed, and I think "stocky" and "robust" are effectively synonyms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You could mention in the intro that it is mainly/only known from teeth and vertebrae, which is the reason for the various size estimates.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems only a couple of points and answers need to be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything looks good to me now content-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 7: publisher location missing
Which one's that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I mis-typed 7 for 2 – but ref 2 has since been replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: There are 21 citations to a page range 1–159. How is someone to check any of these, short of scouring the whole book?
when the page number isn’t specified in the refs, I just put {{rp}} directly after each mention of the ref to specify page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(This is now ref 14) I understand the system now you've explained it, but I wonder if the general reader will. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been using it for a while, seems okay to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: Same problem – this time 31 citations without page references, in a book with at least 517 pages.
Same’s above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 23 and 40: what makes a high quality reliable source
it’s written by palaeontologists    User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, the "about the author" link says: "I am not a professional in Geology or Paleontology... I am just a very interested amateur..." etc, so I wonder. When the site is assembled by an enthusiastic amateur, how can we be sure that it meets the required standards of reliability? For example, is there any evidence that the site's content is mentored by, has been approved by or recommended by universities or other learned bodies? Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Well on that About the Author page it also lists him doing something with the Paleontological Society, it says he did an interview which starts out with, "We’re pleased to announce this one is with avocational paleontologist and expert fossil-finder, Jason Kowinsky. Jayson is the creator of the popular website and a long-time contributor to paleontological discoveries and education," so it checks out for me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Mr Kowinsky is knowledgeable – this is, after all, his hobby. That doesn't alter the fact that this site is the work of an amateur, and thus in my view fails the required FA standards of quality and reliability, but I'll leave the coordinators to make a judgement here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
If a coordinator does find it unreliable, it's a secondary ref so I can easily just remove it and there's still gonna be another ref around citing the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 29: as per 12 and 17 – 7 citations, no p. refs, book 389 pp.
chapter name is specified in this ref so the page numbers don’t have to be   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(It's 32 now) That may be your view, but the chapter is paginated and there is no reason at all for not providing the page refs. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 37: what makes a high quality reliable source?
it’s written by Joseph Bertucci, brother of Vito Bertucci, and the discussion on the Bertucci reconstruction is what it’s citing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(now 40): Being the brother of an expert does not of itself confer expertise – this is a tribute site. It's also unnecessary to include it, as the point in the text is covered by another reference. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 57: lacks publisher details
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Added the website and publisher (from here) – Rhinopias (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 71: there's a stray > sign, also publisher location missing, and no page refs
I just specified the chapter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed, added, but for page refs: it seems as if this is referencing the entire work (unlike ref #70)? Unless the chapter "Megalodon: The Fisherman's Nightmare" should be cited to support the text more explicitly. – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
(77 now) Why not simply put the page numbers that verify the information given in the text? Chapter headings are not an acceptable alternative in paginated sources. The specified chapter "Final report" is not available in the Google extract, so the link is presently valueless. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 75: publisher location missing and no page ref
Assuming it's been pushed over to ref no. 78, it has a location and the chapter's specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
It's actually 81 now, and the necessary details have been added. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 76: publisher location missing
Assuming it's now ref no. 79, it's already specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 80: New York Times should be italicised
It is?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Changed to newspaper parameter – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality and reliabiliuty. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ll try to fix the rest later, life got really busy really quickly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

I am wondering if you could include more information on the tooth anatomy:

  • A bit more on the general shape might be helpful … They are concave on one side, right?
  • How do the teeth differ in shape according to their location in the jaw?
  • How are the teeth oriented? Is the concave side facing to the inside or outside? I think this is very important, because it is counter-intuitive: I saw museum mounts that got this wrong. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I will do this on Saturday   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
most likely on Saturday   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay I added a paragraph to the Teeth and bite force section going over all the points you raised. It does seem kinda weird how the labial side's not convex but no one seems to be questioning it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:08, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I've had this on my watchlist for weeks, so about time I reviewed it. As usual with my reviews on science articles, I am coming from the perspective of a non-expert layperson who likes to read about ancient animals. I've only read part of the article so far. My initial concerns are about the Taxonomy section, which as currently written seems unnecessarily confusing. Specifically:

  • The history of Agassiz's naming is inverted, describing his 1843 work, then an 1837 attribution to him, then 1835 articles. Why not describe the history in forward chronological order?
  • "The teeth of megalodon are morphologically similar to those of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), and on the basis of this observation, Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon." This could be a more straightforward sentence, such as, "Agassiz assigned megalodon to the genus Carcharodon because its teeth are morphologically similar to those of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)."
  • "The great white shark was previously considered to be a close relative to megalodon, and the two were placed in the same genus, due to dental similarity ..." The aside about genus could be omitted since it was discussed in the section immediately previous. This would again have the effect of creating a simpler sentence.
  • "In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the shark Isurus hastalis than to megalodon, as evidenced by more similar dentition in those two sharks; megalodon teeth have much finer serrations than great white shark teeth. In this model, the great white shark is more closely related to the mako shark (Isurus spp.), with a common ancestor around 4 mya." Is that one model? If so, it seems like a lot of repetition in the phrasing. If it's two models, then the difference between them should be made more clear.
  • "Megalodon was previously considered to be a member of the family Lamnidae, ..." This appears at the beginning of a paragraph that talks about the current preferred classification. It would seem to make more sense to mention this when the older model is discussed, both to consolidate the description of the older model and to make this paragraph more imm