Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
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, Laser brain 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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

  • Analysis
  • Disambig links
  • 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.



Banksia blechnifolia

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, another banksia (like the other 32 FAs). Still, as a body of work I wanted to get them all featured. Anyway, short and sweet. It's comprehensive (I scoured the sources) and should read okay. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad I of Granada

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Muhammad I (1195–1273), the founder of the Emirate of Granada, the last Muslim state in Spain. I've been working on it, relying on multiple scholarly sources. I nominated it for GA successfully, and then put it for a peer review and addressed all the feedback. Would appreciate an FA review on this. HaEr48 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note -- hi, per FAC instructions, any open peer review should be closed before nominating here; pls close the peer review if you're going to proceed with this nom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC).

@Ian Rose: Thanks, I closed it just now. The peer review has been inactive for a while, I forgot it hadn't been formally closed. HaEr48 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I might come back to this later, but a couple of brief remarks for now—a couple of things just stand out on a first read.
  • It's thorough, no doubt, and extremely interesting. The main thing regarding content is his death, including the end of his life. Do we have any more on this? And there's a little repetition ("He was succeeded by his son and designated successor Muhammad II", cf. "By the time of his death, Muhammad I had already secured the succession for his son, also named Muhammad").
  • I'll read up the sources to see if they have more. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Repetition in the lede too: "the last independent Muslim state on the Iberian Peninsula" / "during this period was to be Spain's last Muslim state".
  • Removed the second phrase. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs—fn.13, check the dash; Harvey 1992 / Miranda 1970 / Watt 2007 needs page nos for their chapters; Henri Terrasse should swap places with Watt.
    • Fixed the dash, page numbers, and order of Terrasse vs Watt. HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • "unresolved in 1273, when Muhammad", lose the comma;
    • "One of the taifa leader" needs pluralizing, as does "seven month into the siege of Jaén";
    • "Alfonso was more interested other" needs an "in";
    • "to discuss extension of the 1246 truce"—an extension or extending;
    • "He declared himself to be vassal of"—declared himself vassel of / declared himself the vassel of;
      • I think you mean "vassal", SN. - Dank (push to talk) 10:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • "Initially the rebellion went well"—comma after initially;
    • "much larger than what was paid before the rebellion"—had been paid;
    • "appointment as leader of Arjona in 1232, and helped "—lose the comma;
    • "Both families were intermarried"—unnecessary "were", comma after intermarried;
    • "Muhammad's own hometown of Arjona"—superflous "own";
    • "At the beginning, he displayed"—In the?
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talkcontribs)

Comment from RetiredDuke - I've only skimmed through since it's so early into the nomination, but can you choose one of Málaga/Malaga and Almería/Almeria and commit to it? It's distracting to read. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why include the same image twice?
  • The first one is a cropped image, as a lead image for illustrating how the person was depicted, the second one is the non-cropped image to illustrate the Mudejar revolt (which is discussed in that section). Is this not appropriate? HaEr48 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Replaced by another image. HaEr48 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up the southern Spain map
  • File:Castilla_1210.png needs a US PD tag. Same with

File:Alhamar,_rey_de_Granada,_rinde_vasallaje_al_rey_de_Castilla,_Fernando_III_el_Santo_(Museo_del_Prado).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

SMS Elsass

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Another article on a German battleship up for FAC, part of this topic - this ship was one of the few German pre-dreadnought battleships to actually see battle during World War I, and she was one of a handful that were retained after the war by the postwar navy. Like the other articles I've nominated here recently, I originally wrote the article in 2010 and then completely rewrote it with new sources last year. It has since passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this in detail at Milhist A-Class earlier this year, and it hasn't had any appreciable changes since. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support as WikiProject Germany Coordinator. –Vami_IV✠ 11:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Cardiff Blues vs Leicester Tigers (2008–09 Heineken Cup)

Nominator(s): Rugger80 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a rugby union match that took place just under 10 years ago that was decided by a penalty shootout, the only senior men's professional rugby match to have done so. It became a GA back in 2015, has had a few minor tweaks since then and I believe is pretty close to being at FA level. Rugger80 (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Tower Hill Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I bring you (just for a change!) another war memorial. This one is dedicated to merchant seamen in both world wars who lost their lives as a result of enemy action and have "no grave but the sea". It is one of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's memorials to the missing, and the CWGC's only monument in London. Anyone following my project will have already guessed that this is another work of Sir Edwin Lutyens (who was far from happy that his first design was rejected!). I learnt a lot while researching this and I hope you find it an interesting read worthy of FA status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks a great article, and I'll doubtless come back to this soon. In the meantime, something that jumped out at a skim was the "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial"—it took a re-read to get the precise meaning. Could it be clarified slightly? (Perhaps something like, "Plaques bearing the names of the dead from the RMS Lusitania, the largest single loss of life to be commemorated on the Mercantile Marine Memorial", or something like that? Although of course up to you.) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Support. A thorough and most readable article: rather moving, indeed. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review - Pleased to pick up the source review for this one. It'll take me until later in the week due to work commitments. KJP1 (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Geurst - Worldcat, and the Google Books link, give Rotterdam rather than Amsterdam, as the publication location. Apart, from this, super-picky, point, the bibliography looks absolutely fine.
Citations - online
  • Source 49 - Should we note that The Times is paywalled? Although the snippet gives enough to support the content.
  • Apart from the above quibble, all the online sources check out and support the content.
Citations - offline
  • Fortunately, I've enough of these to allow the necessary spot-checking, so this may be done more quickly than I thought. To follow.

Support from Jim, one comment

Happy to support, I just wondered whether the queen's first use of the medium should have a capital, since it refers to a specific named queen? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): VedantTalk 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Punjabi film. This is my fifth attempt at a film FAC. Looking forward to constructive criticism. VedantTalk 20:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

  • Link romantic comedy. The lead says "conceived as a romantic comedy set in the British Punjab", referring to Angrej and not Goreyan Nu Daffa Karo. However, the development section does the opposite. Please clear up the confusion after reading the source. If Angrej is really a rom-com, add it to Indian romantic comedy films.
  • Please try and comply with WP:FILMCAST, by ensuring all starring actors are sourced. Besides, what is Varun Sharma's role? He isn't even sourced.
  • You might want to replace director of photography with cinematographer for preciseness, and because the article's name is the latter.
  • De-link any term you find too common. This gadget will help in such cases.
  • I'm pretty sure you mean to link Drishyam to this.
  • The "publisher=" field in many refs will need to be replaced with "website=". The ProveIt gadget will help ease the process.

Optional comment: For a movie released as recently as 2015, is this how far you could expand the article? If that is so, never mind if that's how much the Punjabi media covered. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've (hopefully) fixed everything. And yes Kailash, this really covers everything that is out there. VedantTalk 16:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Just one last comment: the lead says "Conceived as a romantic comedy set in the pre-partitioned Punjab", while the body says "Gill, who also starred in the film described it as a love story set in rural Punjab of 1945". It may be consistent in the sense of Angrej being a romance film, but you may have to mention somewhere in the article that it is a romantic comedy (although Tribune's Jasmine Singh calls it "cheerful reminder of love in the old times", we need a statement from the cast/crew about the genre). This source, which you have already added, quotes Ammy Virk as saying, "I feel that “Angrez” will be able to break the cliché of romantic-comedy formula films in Punjabi and give more exposure to artistes". See how you can use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I've added the bit about the comic element of the film Kailash from the same source that describes Gill view of the film. Do you think that the new version solves the problem? VedantTalk 13:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • For this part (the film chronicles the love story of a young man from the province of Punjab) of the lead, I would clarify both parties involved in the love story. Is it a love story between a young man and a young woman? A love story between family? Friends?
  • I think for this part (which featured vocals from Gill, Virk and Sunidhi Chauhan.) of the lead, it should be “features” instead of “featured”.
  • For this part (The performances of the cast, the film's production design, and the humour), I do not think you need “the film’s” as it is clear from the context.
  • For this part (grossed a total of around ₹125 million in its entire theatrical run), I do not think you need the word “entire”.
  • I am confused by this part (he said that idea of an Indian wedding in the period Punjab). In the Wikipedia article, Punjab is referenced as a province, so I am not sure what you mean by “period”. I am not familiar with Indian history to be honest so apologies if I am missing something.
  • For this part (The album consisted of seven songs), I believe that it should be “consists” instead of “consisted”.
  • For this part (The sets, the props, the dresses and dialect,), I am not sure the links for “sets” and dialect” are necessary.

Great work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed everything Aoba47. Thanks for taking out time despite your wiki-break. I'll try and make sure I read that section before posting at the talk next. VedantTalk 06:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All the references look fine to me, save the BookMyShow one. I know that it is a ticket booking website, having booked there for a few films myself, but you can try and find information somewhere else, say here at BBFC, Moviefone and TOI.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've replaced the BMS source with new the refs Ssven2, thank you the review. VedantTalk 13:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This dinosaur is relatively obscure among non-specialists, which seems to be my forté, but does have a significant number of publications about it due to its extended and complicated history. One of, if not the, most complete dinosaur from England, this would become the first Featured Article of a more basal sauropod, and the second for a British dinosaur, following Baryonyx from earlier this year. I believe this article, which should now be stable after a recent overhaul, is as comprehensive as it can be while remaining focused on the topic at hand. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • Interestingly, I think this is the first time we have three dinosaur articles at FAC simultaneously. I'll review soon, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this up, I expect it will be a slower FA review because of its low relevance
  • You could mention current genus affiliations in the captions of images that show formerly assigned species. Otherwise it is a bit misleading.
I think it should be good now
  • The image layout under classification seems a bit messy. The Mamenchisaurus photo creates white space on the left side of the cladogram. Also, I'm not sure if the wretched image of the hips add anything to that section (what's the poinjt when you don't even show the hips of Cetiosauriscus itself for comparison?), maybe just move the Mamenchisaurus photo to that spot and prevent some clutter.
  • I think maybe the life restoration could be moved to the top of the classification section, it seems a bit "hidden" out of the way in its current position. Then the Mamenchisaurus image could be moved to its current spot.
  • "Cetiosauriscus was a generic herbivorous sauropod" This seems like an overstatement, which source says it is "generic", and how do you define "generic" here? How can we even know if such a fragmentary animal was just "generic? Also, it is only stated it was herbivorous in the intro.
Paul's description of "cetiosaurs" was "generalized sauropods", removed from lead and put into description instead.
  • I wonder if all of the points brought up during Jens Lallensack's GA review have been implemented since? At least I can see his last two suggested sources aren't in the current article.
I tried to do the ones I thought were reasonable. Checking the newer Glut supplements he doesn't actually discuss C. stewarti at all, only C. greppini, and Schwartz, which I couldn't re-find, is also on C. greppini so I replaced all citations of the conference abstract with a later published paper with equivalent information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I checked the original Glut (1997) and there was some information on Cetioauriscus. However, plenty of it was incorrect (most likely accidentally using the wrong specimen numbers), so I went to the primary source for the only currently unincluded content, Romers synonymy with Cetiosaurus. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

  • Some minor licensing stuff with a couple images, all fixed, but for File:Cetiosauriscus restoration.jpg, you need to specify a certain study or studies on which you based your reconstruction on (just to verify that it's an accurate depiction) and that about completes the image review   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah yeah added the references, not any paper but the mount photographs and drawing. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What're pleurocoels and why are they important?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say I'm reading through the Description section and I'm very lost. Why is cetiosaur in quotes? If you're referring to Cetiosauridae, shouldn't it be cetiosaurid? When you say the snout was snorter, was that a typo? Why are pluerocoels important and what do they do? I'm reading this like a very complicated scientific report with many words that don't mean anything to me than a read in the English language   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I see you started using square brackets inside of parentheses, but how about instead you replace the parentheses with dashes or commas?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Antiochus XII Dionysus

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

History is a witness to countless moments where a leader was so close to victory then lost all due to a miscalculation and perhaps stupid courage which lead him to fight in the front lines, getting killed in the process, leading his army to disband and his enemy to prevail. This is the summary of Antiochus XII's mistake. This king was an energetic ruler who seemed to be on the path of regaining the Seleucid Empire’s long lost prestige. He defeated Judea and came close to defeating the Nabataeans. This article will be interesting for anyone who have a soft spot for the Seleucids. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Different people take different approaches to lead writing. Checking the history of WP:LEAD will give you a flavor of what the arguments are (although that's impractical for just about everyone). To help you get through FAC, I recommend not listing two very long, nearly identical names before you even get to a verb, so I removed the second one, the transliteration. It would be fine to put it anywhere else ... the start of the first section, some infobox, etc.
  • Consistency is needed in the notation for Seleucid years: "88-87 BC", "85/84", "230", etc.
  • It would be best to create stubs for Alfred Raymond Bellinger and Horvat Uza, rather than linking to the Italian and French Wikipedias.
  • "a certain Philotas": probably just "Philotas", or "a [something] named Philotas", or "Governor Philotas".
  • "Alexander Jannaeus as a retribution for the defeat mentioned by George Syncellus": After the first mention, here and elsewhere, don't use their first names.
  • "6th-century": probably sixth-century. At any rate, consistency is needed (for centuries under 10).
  • "Josephus called Antiochus XII the last Seleucid king, which is echoed by Malalas, according to the translation of Glanville Downey, but Antiochus XIII is generally considered to be the last Seleucid king.": Please clarify.
  • 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) 21:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I corrected everything. If you think anything still needs adjustment, please tell me.
Looks great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Mount Mazama

Nominator(s): ceranthor 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the volcano responsible for a cataclysmic eruption, the largest in the Cascade Range in the last million years. Easily the longest article I've written, I think it is ready to become an FA. I think it is an engaging article about one of the most important volcanoes in the world. ceranthor 18:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Freikorp

Following up my comments at the peer review, I think this is article meets the FAC criteria. Just had another read through and I'm happy to support now but consider the following:

  • "and making it Oregon's highest peak" - should this be past tense? I'm guessing it isn't still the highest peak.
  • It would be nice to get some more information on the potential use of geothermal energy, how that would work etc. I note the source is from 1996; has anyone commented on this since then? Freikorp (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I will look into the geothermal energy content and get back to you. ceranthor 00:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Freikorp: I can't find anything more recent than that. I would be happy to add more content, though, if someone else identifies potential sources I missed. ceranthor 23:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
No worries. If you can't find anything more recent I'm happy with that as it is. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

After initial read-through for spelling etc only one query: "Scott Dreek" looks odd, and I wonder if it is a typo for Scott Creek? A swift googling suggests so. Tim riley talk 08:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Should be fixed. ceranthor 00:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Commenting solely on files which need comments:
There is apparently no ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the Gladstone picture is still there; the NPS site has had a lot of bugs in the past year or so since a certain US President took over... As for the alt text... oops, good catch. Will fix this ASAP (likely tomorrow). ceranthor 00:30, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Added alt text. Let me know if anything needs to be changed or if I missed any images. ceranthor 22:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Support from Pseud14
  • Happy to support an interesting article per my comments at the peer review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and for your support, Pseud 14. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

All sources cited appear appropriate and reliable. A few quibbles about their presentation:

  • I can't work out the reasons for having some sources detailed in the Notes rather than linked to bibliographical details in the References section, as others are. See for instance (among others) S. R. Mark at notes 4 a–j. I'm probably missing something obvious, but I just mention it.
  • I wasn't sure why S. L. Harris is listed above A. G. Harris.
  • You ought, I think, to be consistent about adding, or not adding, publishers' locations for printed books.
  • I also think you should whenever possible follow the original capitalisation of titles of the works cited, e.g. Bacon, C. R.; Nathenson, M. (1996)
  • I was surprised at the absence of an OCLC number for Keroher, G. C. (1966).

Nothing to frighten the horses there, but worth checking I think. – Tim riley talk 17:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I will get to these tomorrow. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Support this very nicely written article on prose. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Ceoil, for the support. ceranthor 02:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which has had historical eruptions and is currently considered to be the most active volcano there (not sure if it has been supplanted by Sabancaya at any point). Apparently before 2006-2007 the region was ill-prepared for eruptions at Ubinas and the issues were remedied in a very short time frame. It is close to Huaynaputina and geologically related to it as well; these two volcanoes have had large historical eruptions, including Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption that is the largest in South America during historical time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - Went through and did some final copyediting. Convinced this is comprehensive and well-written. Great work. ceranthor 18:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In light of its activity, Ubinas is monitored by the Peruvian geological service INGEMMET, which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas as well as a regular volcano activity report. - this sentence is unwieldy and should be split or reworded.
...a history of usually small- to moderate-sized explosive eruptions as well as larger eruptions such as in 1667,... - the word "usually" is redundant I think...
also, if you're covering its activilty in para 2, the "active" in the first sentence makes it a little repetitive and could be removed...?
The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. - umm, then what is it from?
which on the northern and eastern side of Ubinas is covered by volcanic ash and some lava flows - I am confused here - what does the "which" refer here to?
The summit of the volcano is truncated by a - can't we remove the "truncated by"?
The magmas erupted by all three volcanoes appears to originate... - shouldn't this be "magma"?
I am confused, you mention, a period of dormancy lasting until 25,000–14,700 years ago...but then in the next sentence say 5,000-21,000 years ago volcanic activity restarted....
and persistent smoking - doesn't seem to make sense grammatically

These are the most obvious examples. I think there are more - but will give it another read tomorrow. Also, I made these changes, if you can check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Got these issues done. Regarding that notch it is kind of implied but not explicitly stated in the source(s) that it is a landslide scar - says something like "Examination of this features with field glasses and from a study of aerial photographs (but no field studies) suggests to the writer that it is the result of rock avalanches and mud flows rather than an eruptive center. ". I don't think the magmas are exactly identical, hence I preferred the plural form. Your edits look fine to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok - need to read and digest....more later... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Riro Kāinga

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the last king of Rapa Nui or Easter Island. He was a key figure in the native resistance to Chilean rule and was mysteriously killed while on the Chilean mainland. Figure of importance to modern Rapa Nui identity. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Riro_Kainga_Bust.jpg: several concerns about this. First off, what is believed to be non-free: the bust, photo, or both? Chile has freedom of panorama, so unless the bust has been removed it should be possible to get a free image. Second, the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just what is pictured, is considered historically significant - eg. Tank Man
  • It may have to be removed. It could be possible to get a free image but nothing short of asking a person to visit Easter Island, taking a photo and releasing the copyright to that image. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Angata,_The_Prophetess,_The_Mystery_of_Easter_Island,_published_1919.jpg: needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The image was found in a public domain book published in 1919. The author of the book died in 1935. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any credit on the image in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay it's not the most exciting air force subject I've brought to FAC, but it is an important part of RAAF history, particularly as the ancestor of the service's only extant command-level formation, Air Command. Established as one of the RAAF's area commands during World War II, Eastern Area became a key formation following the end of hostilities, when it gained control of most of the service's operational units. It was therefore well-placed to evolve into Home Command (later Operational Command and now Air Command) when the Air Force switched from a geographically based organisation to one based on function. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Not much to do, and it was easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks Dan, I just want to check the details re. your last edit -- I suspect the source was slightly ambiguous so my wording was too, but will try and refine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Support It all looks good. Just a couple of comments.

  • When was the Territory of New Guinea added to one of the areas? Given the Japanese threat, quite early?
  • Pretty much. The sources clearly mention the Territory of Papua as coming under Northern Area Command when it was raised in May 1941 but I don't think the Territory of New Guinea came under an area until the eastern part of Northern Area was split into North-Eastern Area Command (NEA) in January 1942. The area commands controlled RAAF bases within their boundaries, so if there was no base in a state or territory when the area command was raised then the state or territory wasn't mentioned, even though it might be part of the operational zone covered by aircraft from the area. When Northern Area was raised, I believe the only RAAF base in New Guinea was at Port Moresby, thus Papua was clearly covered. By the time NEA was raised, the RAAF had aircraft at Rabaul, and those were directed by NEA Headquarters. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Federal government retired Air Marshal Jones in 1952 " That's an odd way of stating it. Was it a political decision?
  • The top RAAF appointments didn't have fixed terms in those days as they do now, so you could say that every Chief's tenure was at the whim of the Federal Government. In this case Jones had been in the role a decade and the PM and Air Minister made a conscious decision to remove him. In other words he didn't fall, he was pushed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking a look, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Nick-D

Great work as usual Ian. I have the following comments:

  • The lead seems a bit short for the length of the article: I'd suggest adding a second para
    • Tks Nick, I do usually include a longer lead in articles at this level but felt this one hit the key notes (even added a little more detail just before the nom) -- did you have some specific points in mind?
      • I'd suggest starting with a para on its wartime duties (expanding on the convoy escort role perhaps) and a second para with a bit more information on its post-war role. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Bit of a long shot, but do we know where Eastern Command's HQ in Edgecliff was located? (a lot of these higher level HQs were in notable buildings of various types which the military took over for the duration)
    • The exact address per the Ops Record Book is 6 Wentworth St, but I haven't seen it ascribed any special significance.
      • Fair enough. Google Maps shows that it's a vast mansion in Point Piper: nice work by whoever persuaded the owner to let the RAAF use it! Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest updating the urls for Gillison and Odgers to the current urls at the AWM's website - when I contacted the AWM to complain about them breaking all the links to the official histories, the person who responded said that the new URLs are intended to be permanent, so the archive links shouldn't be necessary
    • Ah-ha, the reason I'd left them as archive links was that when the AWM revamped the website entirely, they made it so you could only view the PDFs by downloading them to your device. I felt this was unfriendly for the average user and told them so, recommending they go back to making them open as a new tab in your browser (which could still be downloaded if desired). I see now they've finally acted on that suggestion so yes, I'll be happy to change the links when I get the chance.
  • I know it's one of my obsessions, but I think that the article under-states the extent and importance of Eastern Area Command's anti-submarine patrols. It would have been responsible for covering the main convoy routes between Melbourne and Brisbane, which involved a huge number of patrols between mid 1942 and 1944, which were effectively front-line duties. The crisis of mid-1943 (when three extra ASW squadrons were hurriedly raised from training units) is covered in the official histories. This thesis is also useful.
    • Heh, we've all got our obsessions or we wouldn't be here...! Reviewing Odgers and Wilson, there might be a few more details I could add to the article but I didn't get the impression from them that mid-1943 was a "crisis", although I may have missed something. If there's anything in particular you want to point me to, I'm happy to look at working it in.
      • Chapter 9 of Odgers and chapter 8 of Stevens note that the ASW forces were under considerable pressure throughout early 1943 (Stevens refers to this period as "The ASW Crisis"). See in particular page 140 of Odgers were he notes that three reserve squadrons had to be activated: these included No. 66 and No. 71 Squadron in Eastern Area's zone. Both authors also describe other measures put in place over the year to try to improve the situation (for instance, routing as many training and transit flights over the sea as possible) and the mixed results of the expanded ASW efforts. The current material in the article doesn't really capture this. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • See what you think now, Nick -- I may rejig the paragraphs slightly once we're done to even them up, this is just to get the info in for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I've taken the liberty of adding more. Despite some very useful technically-focused works and the official history, there isn't a truly satisfactory account of the ASW campaign in Australian waters, which constrains the ability to cover Eastern Area's operational role. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
            • I think your additions have further improved the article, tks Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • On that topic, an order of battle from 1942 or 1943 would be useful, as I presume that this is when the command reached its peak strength. It might not be possible to source though.
    • I could add an OOB from April 1943 but it'd be exactly the same list (and source) of units I give in para four of the WWII section. Do you think we should repeat it?
      • I'd suggest either doing that, or merging the 1944 OOB into the text like the 1943 one is. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Done the former -- probably useful to be able to compare the two snapshots like that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Could more also be added on the command's air defence role? I think this involved stationing squadrons at Sydney and Brisbane for much of 1942.
    • Well the 1943 and '44 OOBs mention squadrons in Bankstown and Lowood, but not in an air defence role. Are you aware of any others that came under Eastern Area?
      • There was an American squadron operating out of Bankstown in the air defence role at the time of the attack on Sydney. I suspect it wasn't formally part of Eastern Area. There might not actually be much more to say: this topic is somewhat under-covered in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Do any sources discuss the impact of the arrival of the British Pacific Fleet on this command? It took over a few RAAF bases in the area.
    • Hadn't noticed it but can take another look.
      • I think that Eastern Area had to move out of the airfields around Nowra and possibly Brisbane. Probably not a major impact by this time. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I searched for references to the BPF in Odgers, Wilson and Stevens but couldn't spot anything clearly stating RAAF bases were taken over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. I once read a scathing account of the huge scale of the BPF's imposts on Australia, but can't remember what it was. The economic volumes of the official history grumble about it. But out of scope here! Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your comments, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nick, I think I've addressed everything now -- let me know your thoughts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. It's good to see articles on these kinds of topics in such excellent shape. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Tks for all your help Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Trying to do my bit for source reviewing, as we are all exhorted to do, I have cunningly chosen this pleasingly concise article, and having read, most carefully, the excellent new guidelines, and followed them to the best of my ability I can find nothing at all to quibble at in the sourcing or citation here. All sources appear reliable, and all are consistently and comprehensibly cited. – Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And, while I'm here, support

for a clear, authoritative, evidently comprehensive, and wholly readable article. – Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Operation Retribution (1941)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the German bombing of Belgrade which heralded the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941. Over two days, damage was caused to about one quarter of the city, up to 4,000 were killed, and Yugoslav military command and control was paralysed, contributing to the swift defeat of the Royal Yugoslav Army over the following fortnight. The principal Luftwaffe commander, Alexander Löhr, was executed after the war for his part in Operation Retribution. This article recently went through a Milhist A-Class review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Tripartite Pact says: "Yugoslavia's accession provoked a coup d'état in Belgrade two days later, and Italy and Germany responded by invading Yugoslavia". The first sentence in this article uses "retaliation". It's above my pay grade to pick the language, but I'd be more comfortable if there's a discussion about whether "response" or "retaliation" is best, and if the language is consistent across articles. I know there's no perfect answer, because some readers take a word like "retaliation" to be damning, and others take it to be exculpatory.
  • 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) 18:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • G'day Dan, thanks for the c/e. Regarding your comment above, what I am trying to convey is that the bombing of Belgrade was basically in retaliation for the coup (as ordered by Hitler, explained in the body), the actual invasion was a strategic response to the coup. I hope I'm not parsing this too finely. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, that works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetle

Great work as always, PM. My comments:

  • Might as well mention Alexander Löhr by name in the lead.
  • Some generic info on the pre-war strength of the VVKJ, if available, would make for a nice addition.
  • According to Uki Goñi (The Real Odessa: How Perón Brought the Nazi War Criminals to Argentina p. 236), Vladimir Kren pointed out targets in Belgrade that he thought the Germans should bomb specifically
  • Were there any civilian preparations for the bombing, such as air raid sirens or shelters?
  • It should be stated that the attack forced the government to flee the city (War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration p. 50).
  • Aside from the rubble collection, were there any reconstruction or repair efforts?
  • Is there any background on the political decisions that led to the British retaliation on Sofia?
  • Was the "official casualty figure" a Yugoslav or German calculation?
  • The article has a photo of the monument to the VVKJ's vain defence of the city. Is there any textual information on commemoration of the bombing?
  • Kren was executed by the Yugoslavs in 1948 for a myriad of offenses. Is it worth mentioning this as well?

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from 23 editor

A bit short, imo. Could be expanded with Vladimir Terzic's book . 23 editor (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Herman Vandenburg Ames

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Some time ago I discovered, to my great surprise, we had no article on Herman Vandenburg Ames. In the early 20th century Ames was instrumental in the development of government archives and the preservation of official records in the United States, two things which are very much in the spirit of this project. Originally I'd intended to just write a stub article to remedy this oversight, however, it ended up growing into a much longer article and - for purposes of thoroughness - I also created separate articles on his predecessor and successor as Dean of the Pennsylvania graduate school to fill out the "academic offices" template. I'd nominated this for GA, however, due to the current GA backlog and the lower level of interest in Law articles, after a number of months it didn't appear to be vectoring towards a review and a peer review request met with similar disinterest. Ergo, I've decided to move this straight to FA. That said, Blackmane gave it a good copyedit, and I've also taken care to archive all the web links with I apologize that some of the references are offline and, in one case, may be difficult to acquire (i.e. I had to order reference 15 from the University of Pennsylvania through interlibrary loan). Thanks for the consideration. Chetsford (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "becoming a "brilliant, fervent, and impressive" Congregational preacher": Per WP:INTEXT, quoted text needs attribution in the text, not just in the footnote.
updated Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "serving as ... chaplain of state institutions of Rhode Island": Feels indeterminate to me. One, two, three institutions? What kind of institutions?
updated Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "parents — Herman": If you want to pass FAC, read MOS:DASH carefully, both on this point and the things I mention below. Here, it should be an unspaced em-dash or spaced en-dash.
thank you much - fixed throughout Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Ames family were descended": In AmEng, it's usually "was", but even better would be to rewrite it, since "was" sounds awful to most Commonwealth ears.
good point - rewritten Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "of Bruton, England in": Wikipedia's MOS is slightly behind the times here ... we need a comma after England, and after any similar construction. Check throughout.
updated and checked Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "which would become among the largest university scholarships in existence at that time": It seems to me this would be better without "which would become" ... if it's not, then I don't understand the sentence.
I agree - rewritten Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "1901-1902": en-dash.
fixed Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "would note that - though they had": en-dash.
fixed Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Someone else will probably bring this up, but FAC style (and Wikipedia style, generally) never relies as heavily on quotes as you do.
Thank you - on reading this through I can see what you mean. I've rewritten this to remove the block quote as well as four in-paragraph quotes. Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I did some light copyediting up through "Writing and research". That's probably it for me. I apologize, but I won't have time to finish up. I'm as surprised as you are that this wasn't a Wikipedia article before you tackled it, and I think you've done an excellent job of giving the flavor of the man and his accomplishments, at least as far as I read. I hope this passes FAC, either this time or the next time this comes to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Dank - thanks very much for this review. Please see my amendments above and let me know if I've missed anything or you notice anything else! Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Happy to help. The dashes need a little work, but someone will probably be along to fix those soon. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Also, if there's only one thing in the image and only one thing mentioned in the caption, it isn't helpful to say "pictured"
  • File:Delta_Upsilon_Amherst_chapter_house.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:University_of_Pennsylvania_College_Hall.jpg, File:Herman_Vandenburg_Ames_(1865–1935),_portrait_photograph.jpg, File:Ames_note_1918.jpg
  • File:Herman_V._Ames_signature.png would also need an original publication with that tag, but see COM:SIG
  • File:BenFranklinAtPennCropped.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Nikkimaria. I've made these changes except for the last one as I can't find an image called BenFranklinAtPennCropped.jpg. Chetsford (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It's in the UPenn navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the catch! I've removed the navbox. Chetsford (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Irakli Tsereteli

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

A leading socialist figure prior to and during the Russian Revolution, Irakli Tsereteli was deeply committed to socialist ideals, and his unwillingness to deviate from his principles ultimately helped the Bolsheviks launch the November Revolution. He then returned to his native Georgia and helped the fledgling Democratic Republic of Georgia gain international recognition, before it too fell to the Bolsheviks. He's since then been largely forgotten, and there is only one (political) biography of him out there, which is cited heavily here. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Support by Chetsford

This is a very nicely composed and extremely interesting article. As it's recently passed GA there's not a lot to comment on except some minor nit-picking and all of the functional aspects (e.g. reliable sourcing, use of Alt text, etc.) are met. There are certainly aspects of the biography that left me wanting more, however, within the spirit of an encyclopedia article I believe this is thorough and covers all major aspects without going into needless detail. My own curiosity would be better satiated by exploring the references in greater detail than demanding additions. I had a few minor comments, none of which rise to the level of impairing my support.

  • the two were asked to attend on account their contacts in Europe - I believe there should be an "of" between the words "account" and "their".
  • Twice his law studies are mentioned but, unless I missed it, there is no mention of where they were undertaken.
  • However his refusal to perceive the Bolsheviks as a serious threat, even as late as October 1917, ultimately helped them lead the October Revolution. - Because "however" is being used as a connector, and not a modifier, I believe it should have a comma after it.

Chetsford (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and fixed up those two issues. I also would have liked more, but to so would effectively require going to read his archived papers at Stanford, which while something I'd like to eventually do, is beyond the scope of this, for now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • All of the images description pages should include when and where the images were first published, not just created. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Will take a look and get back to you shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Saving Light

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 trance song "Saving Light" by English electronic music producers Gareth Emery and Standerwick. I believe that the article meets the Featured Article criteria when compared to featured articles of around the same length such as "All You Need Is Love".

  1. Well written. During the articles good article review, it was almost completely rewritten to make sure that the article is the best it could possibly be, making sure that everything has been supported by reliable and third-party reference and that the article was completely unbiased. The article had undergone a copy edit that I had requested from the Guild of Copy Editors where it is now very well written in my own opinion.
  2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. The article has around 30 references, all of which being proven to be reliable in the articles good article review. The article did contain some unreliable sources, but all of which had been removed during the good article review. The amount of references may be considered quite low for a featured article or even a good article, though this is because it isn't a very well known song, being released by a relatively small indie record label.
  3. Stable. The article had received only a few edits since it's good article promotion, as there is really nothing more to add. Since my last edit, I had fixed up every problem I had with the article such as not knowing Karra's last name and dealing with the 'Intro Mix' version of the song.
  4. Appropriate length. The article is of adequate length, being around 27,000 bytes in size and having 1,286 words (according to XTools). The article is not too long, containing only how much the article should have without it dragging on.

The article had previously undergone a peer review, with it being reviewed as a B-class article before it had passed it's first good article review shortly after. The article contains only one fair use image, being the official cover art for the song. Micro (Talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would revise this sentence ("Saving Light" was originally a demo track that Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery had worked on.) to the following (“Saving Light” was originally a demo produced by Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery.) to simplify the sentence structure.
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You say in the above sentence that the song was originally produced as a demo. I interpret that as meaning that the track was created to possibly sell to another artist. Is that correct? It not, then why do you mean by this?
  • I don't think that Emery and Standerwick had any intentions to sell the demo, I think it was simply made out of an idea in a studio session between the two with the possibility of it becoming a full song (as it did). Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. I am actually wondering if there is a way to combine the first two sentences (i.e. "Saving Light" was originally a demo produced by Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery. It was given to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.) into something like this (Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery produced a demo version of "Saving Light", which they gave to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.). Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, combined sentences into what you wrote. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have two concerns about this sentence It was given to Emery's manager and sister Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.). The phrase (Emery's manager and sister) could be misread as applying to more than just the first name so I would revise the sentence to avoid this. Also, could you clarify what the writing session was for?
  • Revised sentence by erasing "Emery's manager and sister", as I don't quite understand what you mean by "applying to more than just the first name". Emery does not clarify what the writing session was for, only saying "this song really began when my sister and manager Roxanne arranged a writing session in my studio, with her, HALIENE, Matthew Steeper, and KARRA." Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification; see my above comment about this sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, point was addressed in another point above. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (20 versions were produced and tested at Emery's DJ sets before the song was finished), I would revise “at Emery’s DJ sets” to “as part of Emery’s DJ sets” as I do not believe that “at” works in this context.
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the above sentence. Is there any information on how the 20 versions were different from one another? In sound, instrumental, vocals, etc.?
  • Emery stated in the interview "should it have an EDM drop? A dubstep section? Literally every idea in the book was tested. In the end we settled on a very classic trance interpretation." This could be put into the article, though he only listed two or three interpretations (dubstep section, EDM drop (I don't know what exactly he means by this, maybe about a generic big room or prog house drop), settled on 'classic trance'. The sentence could be revised into:

    20 versions were produced and tested as part of Emery’s DJ sets before the song was finished, including the possibility of a dubstep section, though a "very classic trance interpretation" was chosen.

    This sentence is rough however and would need changing for it to go into the actual article. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the following revision: (Standerwick and Emery produced 20 versions of "Saving Light" with different instrumentals, which included an EDM drop and a dubstep section. Emery tested each version as part of his DJ set before the song was completed.) Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, changed into suggested sentence and wikilinked EDM, dubstep and 'DJ set'. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The following sentence (The song debuted at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway in June 2016, during the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival and was released on 30 January 2017.) is rather awkwardly phrased. I would simplify the front part to (The song debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016). The location is not really important and only disrupts the sentence. I would also make the second half into its own sentence, ideally with a semi-colon. The revised sentence as a whole would look like the following (The song debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016; it was released as a digital download on 30 January 2017.). In my revision, I clarified the format in which the song was released.
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence ("Saving Light" was featured on Monstercat's thirtieth compilation album titled Monstercat 030 – Finale released on 22 February 2017.) to (“Saving Light” was featured on the compilation album titled Monstercat 030 – Finale released on 22 February 2017.). I do not believe that the record label part in the beginning is really necessary. I would move the wikilink for the record label to the next time it appears in the body of the article.
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that this sentence (It was the first track on the album, which also includes 29 songs by various artists and two album mixes.) is necessary as it does not really add much to the reader’s understanding on the song.
  • Fixed, deleted sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (The song is about standing up to bullying and helping victims in their time of need and giving them support—being their "saving light”.) to (This song is about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their “saving light”.) Also, who is saying this? Is it a critic? One of the performers, songwriters, or producers? I would attribute this in the prose.
  • Revised sentence. Emery had stated what the song is about in his Billboard interview, which could be put into the article as

    "Emery had described the song's meaning as about standing up to bully and supporting victim by being their "saving light".

    Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (All of the proceeds from "Saving Light" throughout the month of February were donated directly to the charity Ditch the Label, which supports victims of bullying and harassment.) to (Throughout the month of February, all of the proceeds from “Saving Light” were donated to the charity Ditch the Label, which supports victims of bullying).
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on this sentence (Emery was previously a victim himself.)? It feels a little too tacked-on at the end?
  • Deleted sentence, didn't really hold much and seemed unnecessary. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, deleted sentence approved. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Should be italicized? I would assume as a website name that it would not be.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the website's address, not name? The website shows that '' is the actual website name, same as 'Your EDM' or 'Billboard', whose names are italicized. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I was just curious if this part should be italicized as I have normally seen something in that format (i.e. not italicized. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's understandable. It does seem strange that is the actual website name and not just the address. Should I mark this fixed? Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would shorten the Lennon Cihak quote (i.e. "Haliene's vocals are truly what brings this piece to a completely new level. She powers through the entire piece, placing her emotions, feelings, and strength behind the lyrics.”). I do not believe all of it is necessary.
  • Fixed, got rid of the first half of the sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (Writing about the overall video production, Cihak described it), particularly the “overall video production”. I thought this was just a remix. There is a video?
  • There is a video of it on YouTube, yes. It's just a video of the choir performing the song but I think it's best to clarify that a video was released on YouTube before going into the reception. I could put in as this:

    On 17 August 2017, an acoustic rendition of "Saving Light" was released as a collaboration between the Saint James Music Academy Choir and Monstercat. A video showing the choir performing the song was released by Monstercat via their YouTube channel.[citation to the video on YouTube or just use one of the already existing citations]

    I want to see what you think of it before putting it into the article. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would definitely add that sentence to clarify that point. I just have two comments for your suggested sentence. For "the Choir", I do not believe choir needs to be capitalized. And I would say "showing" rather than "depicting" as I do not think that the current word choice fits this context; whenever I think of the word "depict", I think more along the lines of depicting a fictional event, but that may just be me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Inserted the new sentence, should I add the YouTube video as a reference or do the current references show this information enough already? Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would cut down on the use of this quote (“warm, subtle, and comforting emotion throughout, and they only scratch the surface at describing what this song does to one's emotional state.”). You can definitely use parts of it, but I do not think that all of it is necessary.
  • paraphrased and shortened the second quote by Cihak. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Lisa-sun Nguyen sentence contains two rather long quotes. I think that this first quote is fine, but I think you can safely paraphrase the second one. I use a lot of quotes too tbh so I understand where you are coming from, but I would look more carefully on why you are using them and what they add to the article.
  • Re-phrased and paraphrased the second quote. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (On 18 August 2017, a remix extended play of "Saving Light" was released, featuring six remixes by various artists, including a remix by American producer Notaker.) to (An extended play of “Saving Light” was released on 18 August 2017; it features six remixes by various artists, including one by American producer Notaker.).
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two typos in this sentence (Jim Babaoglu of EDM Sauce write, "Notakers ability to add a gritty digital feel to this song really let him display his own version of this already incredible track.”). I believe you mean “writes” and “lets”.
  • Fixed, fixed typos. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that the "second to none” quote is necessary and you can paraphrase. You include so many quotes that I think this one can safely be revised out.
  • Fixed, changed it into Dexter simply 'praising' the remix as that seems to fit well. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would look critically at the quote use in the “Critical reception” paragraph as there are a lot of them. I also do not get a sense of a strong narrative or structure here. It just seems to rather randomly hop from one critic to the next without any real rhyme or reason. I would work on the sentence structure and flow to have it read better. I would look at this resource for ideas on how to improve this section.
  • I am not too sure how to improve this section. I had a look at the critical reception at Habits (Stay High) and it is fairly similar to this article. It would help me greatly if you could provide examples and help me improve it so it could be as good as it could possibly can. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Understandable. It should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Addressed.
  • Move the wikilink for Beatport to its first use in the body of the article.
  • Fixed, not sure how I didn't even notice that before. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would try to make the following two sentences more concise ("Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance #1 Again". This was an initiative organised by Emery and Monstercat that encouraged fans to buy the song on Beatport to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label.).
  • Might re-phrase it into this, however it might need more editing to be adequate:

    "Saving Light" was released as part of "Make Trance #1 Again", an initiative that encouraged fans to purchase the song on Beatport to support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label (who received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February) and for the song to enter the top of the Beatport charts.

    Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I think the above revision actually makes the section worse. It is far too much of a run-on sentence and contains a lot of content for a single sentence. Upon re-reading the section, I think it is fine as it currently stands as I am struggling to think of a way to improve it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Addressed, if you do think of suggestions to make the sentence better, don't hesitate to address them here. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would clarify what you mean by “it” in this sentence (It received 100% of the profits made from sales of the song in the month of February.). I would actually just revise this whole paragraph. The context is good, but the prose is not that great.
  • Possibly addressed in the above point. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • See above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Addressed, improvements are always acceptable. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this part (They hoped it would reach the top of the Beatport charts.) really necessary? I would believe that any artist would want their song to be commercially successful?
  • Possibly addressed in the above point about re-phrasing the sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • See above. I would honestly just cut this sentence entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, deleted sentence. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Wouldn’t all of the information in the “Make Trance #1 Again” subsection make more sense in the “Background and release” section. It is really not about the critical reception of the song.
  • Fixed, moved section to background and release. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I really do not understand the Christopher Lawrence part. I do not think that enough context is given to help an unfamiliar reader understand the connection to the song? I am assuming that Emery promoted this song as saving trance music, but that is not made clear at all.
  • Although I can see what you are saying, I am not sure how to achieve this and make it clear. :

    In a Facebook post, American DJ and producer Christopher Lawrence criticised Emery for promoting "Saving Light" in hopes of it reaching number one on the Beatport charts. Lawrence wrote that Emery had been "waving the EDM flag for years", stating that trance does not need saving and that it has been doing "just fine without him". Lawrence has since deleted his post.

    Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the first part of your revision (i.e. In a Facebook post, American DJ and producer Christopher Lawrence criticised Emery for promoting "Saving Light" in hopes of it reaching number one on the beatport charts.) makes the situation clearer to an unfamiliar reader like me. Just remember to keep "Beatport" capitalized. Good work with the revision as it helped me a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, revised sentences. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (for his widely syndicated radio show), I would remove “widely syndicated” as it seems to be overly positive language toward the program. Just saying “his radio show” is enough.
  • Fixed, removed wording. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would work on the prose for this section to make it flow/read better.
  • I might rephrase it to this, though it may need further editing:

    On 1 November 2017, Armada Music opened voting to select for the 2017 Tune of the Year for Armin van Buuren's radio show A State of Trance. On 19 December, Van Buuren revealed the top 50 most voted tracks, which included "Saving Light". These songs were to comprise his mix album, A State of Trance 2017. On 21 December 2017, Van Buuren concluded his four-hour radio show special, announcing that "Saving Light" had won Tune of the Year. Matthew Meadow of Your EDM noted that this marked the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award.

    Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That would be perfect. Thank you for understanding what I meant here, as looking back at this comment, I was vague so I apologize for that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, revised sentences. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (It was noted this marks the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award.), who is doing the noting?
  • Revised so it said that who noted a non-trance label winning the ASoT award, though this may need further editing. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This part (conceived the idea of developing a music video dealing with the theme of bullying and harassment.) is unnecessarily wordy and repetitive . I would just say (developed a music video to focus on a theme of bully and harassment.).
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For the first paragraph of the “Production and release” subsection of the “Music video” section, you use the word “develop” twice in the first two sentences. I would revise this.
  • Changed second 'develop' to 'write', though it may need better wording. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that "create" would work in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, Changed wording. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (They wished to showcase its negative and harmful effects which can lead to thoughts of suicide, and show how just one positive voice can save a life) to (They wished to showcase its harmful effects, potentially leading to thoughts of suicide, and the positive impact of one voice.)
  • Fixed, Revised sentence. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

You done good work with this article, but a lot more work needs to be done for this to meet the FA criteria. After my comments are addressed, I will look through the article again. Please let me know if you need clarification for anything. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There are some points that I've marked with "Fixed" or "Addressed". This means that I believe that the point has been addressed fully and points without "Fixed" or "Addressed" means that I do not believe they have been met and need further attention to be fixed. Micro (Talk) 08:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the responses. I will responded to your points momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have responded to all of your comments above; thank you for leaving such great responses as I appreciate that you took the time to explain all of your reasonings to me. The article is in much better shape now. I will look through the article again and provide further comments, but if you do not hear anything from me by Saturday night, then please ping me. I hope that this receives more feedback, but I have heard that summer is a hard time for reviews. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • If you do find anything else that needs revising, I would gladly address them. Thank you for your time so far. Micro (Talk) 01:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything so far. It is cool to read and learn about this song. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it if you could comment on my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • While I don't consider myself very well qualified to judge if a GA is qualified to become a FA, I will have a look at the Abby article and if I see anything questionable, I would comment on the candidate page. Good luck with the FAC. Micro (Talk) 03:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for the response, but do not feel pressured to comment on it. I completely understand what you mean; good luck with your current and future projects. Upon further examination, here are some further comments:

  • For this sentence, could you clarify what you mean by "They" in this sentence (They composed the lyrics in under an hour.). Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "They" refers to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra. For clarification, I changed the wording it "The group" (possibly for now). Micro (Talk) 07:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (After this, Emery and Standerwick tried different ideas for a musical style for six months before settling on a classic trance interpretation.), I would avoid the use of "After this". Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, deleted the wording.
  • I do not believe the two subsections in the "Music video" section are necessary. I would put the paragraph in the "Critical reception" subsection with this sentence (The music video was announced by Monstercat via their YouTube channel on 24 January 2017 and was released on 30 January 2017.[23]). I would change this sentence (The music video for "Saving Light" met with a mostly positive reception.) to (It was met with a mostly positive reception) during this edit to avoid repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Combined paragraph with sentence, rephrased latter. Although I deleted the first "Production and release" sub-heading, I didn't delete the "Critical reception" sub-heading as it seems awkward not to have the latter sub-heading. I would erase the sub-heading if you believe that it is unnecessary. Micro (Talk) 07:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the edits; I still do not think that sub-heading is necessary, and I would remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed, Removed Sub-heading. Micro (Talk) 09:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

After these comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I support this for promotion following a review of the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Whip It (Devo song)

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 1980 song Whip It, which most people think was about BDSM or masturbation. Now that I have your attention, I'd like you to check out this compact article on a quirky yet surprisingly vital song in the new wave music movement, and a personal favorite of mine. This article has received a peer review and has been copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors, so I believe it is finally ready. Any and all comments are appreciated! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47

  • I would reword this part (that is featured on the band's third album Freedom of Choice (1980).) to simply (from their third album Freedom of Choice (1980).). My suggested revision avoids the unnecessary repetition of the word “band”, and I do not believe that “featured” is necessary as you could argue that any song included on album is “featured”.
  • You do not mention that this song was released as a single in the lead. Also, could you clarify in the lead and the body of the article that the song was the second single from the album?
  • I have two comments for this sentence (Lead vocalist Mark Mothersbaugh wrote the song's distinctive riff, which was based on the riff in Roy Orbison song "Oh, Pretty Woman".). 1) I would avoid the repetition of the word “riff” and 2) I take issue with the use of the word “distinctive”. Distinctive according to who? It borders on Wikipedia:PEACOCK in my opinion, and I would suggest removing it.
  • I am confused by this sentence ("Whip It" was not expected to be a hit because of its nonstandard tempo and strange lyrics.). Who did not expect it to be a hit? Also who felt that the song has a “nonstandard tempo” or “strange lyrics”?
  • For this sentence (Peaking at number fourteen on the Billboard Hot 100, "Whip It" became a major hit and found chart success in several countries.), I would avoid the phrase “a major hit” as it is too informal. I would also avoid the phrase “hit single” in the body of the article as that is also too informal.
  • For this sentence (An accompanying music video depicts these sexual themes), clarify what you mean by “these sexual themes”.
  • For this sentence (In recent years, several journalists have described "Whip It”), clarify what you mean by “recent years”.
  • Revise this part (In the band's forty-year history, "Whip It" remains the only song by Devo to peak), to (In Devo’s forty-year history, “Whip It” remains their only song to peak).
  • For this part (As a result, Devo is often labeled as a one-hit wonder.), again clarify who is doing this action? I am assuming that it is music critics/commentators.
  • Link Devo on the first use in the body of the article.
  • For the first two sentences of the “Background and recording” section, avoid the reptition of the word “band” in such close proximity. Same goes for the word “formulaic”.
  • Is this sentence (The band members believed a hit single would bolster the next album's popularity and finally give them radio exposure.) really necessary? I think that any artist would say that a successful single would increase popularity and radio play.
  • For this sentence (In late 1979, audio engineer Robert Margouleff was brought on to produce "Whip It" and its parent album Freedom of Choice.), clarify that the album was released in 1980.
  • For this part (Throughout the song there are), add a comma between “song” and “there”.
  • For this sentence (Mothersbaugh created the main riff in "Whip It" by taking the riff used in Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman" and changing the ending slightly), avoid the use of the the word “riff” twice in the same sentence.
  • For this part (and layered them to create smooth, consistent time signature), it should be “a smooth, consistent time signature”.
  • I am uncertain about the audio caption, particularly the use of the word “defined” in the sentence (The song is defined by its motorik beat and seemingly nonsensical lyrics about "whipping it”.). Defined according to who?
  • I would clarify the year that Gravity’s Rainbow was released?
  • This is just a suggestion, but wouldn’t it be better to have a GIF for the music video screenshot instead of a static image to better illustrate the caption?
  • I am confused by this sentence (Devo's members has never tried to distance themselves from "Whip It" and as of 2018 still play it live.) as I did not see anything before this about claims that they had tried to distance themselves from the song.
  • I am confused by this sentence (Both musicians are wearing Devo's distinctive yellow janitorial suits and energy domes.), particularly the use of the word “distinctive’. Distinctive according to who?

Good work with the article. I have honestly never heard of this song before. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through it again. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Just wondering if you have addressed these points? Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 18:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the first Catholic priest who was born in British America. He went on to play a pivotal role in the establishment of Catholicism in Washington, D.C., as he created several schools and orphanages, founded several churches, was a well-known pastor of the largest church in the capital, was a president of Georgetown University, and became the vicar general of Philadelphia. I created this article and have worked to promote it to GA status. It now contains (in my humble opinion) mostly everything about the subject that is both known from history and encyclopedic in nature. The article failed the previous FA nomination due to the unknown copyright status of the infobox image, which I have now determined. Ergo Sum 18:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


Some of the citations are missing publisher locations, which you might want to consider adding. The citation style is also a mix of short form and full citations, and you might want to consider standardizing this.Seraphim System (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: I'll go through and try to find locations for the books, although I didn't think there were many for which the publisher locations were known. As for the long-from and short-form citations, I based those off of Barack Obama, which uses both. The short-form citations refer to the full citations found under Sources. I thought this was an acceptable practice. Ergo Sum 16:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure, I'm new to FAC - the criteria as I read it strongly implies the article should use either short form or long form, but I'd appreciate input from a more experienced reviewer. Seraphim System (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay. In the meantime, I've added the locations of publication to all of the books and all of the other media for which I could find locations. Ergo Sum 02:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I should clarify, yes the short form citations refer to the long form in the Sources section, but there is a mix of templates and freehand shortform in the "Citations" section. My understanding is that this would have to be standardized. Seraphim System (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Looking at Barack Obama and Guy Fawkes Night, two FAs, as well as others, it seems the intermixing of the two styles is permitted. In fact, some FAs use {{Harvnb}}, which is specifically designed for that. I can implement that template for all the short-form citations. Ergo Sum 18:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm really confused- is this the right version of the article [1]? It looks like those references were added later. I think I've seen articles lose their FA status over this? I'll let you know if I come across the FAR I'm thinking of...Seraphim System (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: Are you talking about something like this, where all long-form citations are segregated in one section while all short-form citations are segregated in another? If so, I didn't realize that was required, but I can do that. The only thing I'm unsure of is where news, web, and journal citations would go, in the full ref or shortened ref sections, and how they should be styled if they have short-form counterparts like books. Ergo Sum 19:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
@Seraphim System: I've checked a number of other FAs, where the same intermingling of short refs and full-form ones is used. If you do find anything proscribing that, I'm genuinely curious to know. Also, I've updated all of the shortened refs to use {{harvnb}}, so that the short refs will link to the full-form ones. Besides that, I'd welcome any other comments you have. Ergo Sum 14:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Tree swallow

Nominator(s): RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an American swallow in the genus Tachycineta. There has been a lot of research done on it (at least compared to most of the other birds I have worked on), with some even considering it a model organism. It's as comprehensive as I can get it, so I believe it is ready to be a featured article. Thanks! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Tree_Swallow-rangemap.gif: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks to be from the HBW range map. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll review soon. As usual, I have some media suggestions first. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That picture of a box nest isn't very interesting. How about one of these[2][3], of natural nests in trees, or this one[4] of a chick being fed in a box nest?
Nice! I replaced the picture of the nest box with the first photo, and added the last one to the feeding section. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This image of a bird feeding three chicks might be even better than the one I linked earlier:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We have some audio files, if one of them is good, might be useful:[6]
I added one of the files. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This photo shows the egg well, could be cropped and used:[7]
Added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This image show fighting, might be interesting:[8]
Added! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this image shows a mating pair better than the one used:[9]
I think that the one currently in the article is better, just in terms of image quality. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The intro seems a bit oog comparedf to the length of the article.
I tried to trim it down a bit; I'm going to keep the section on breeding and stuff the same because of the fact that the stuff about that is a major area of research about this bird.
  • "This swallow is sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne" Accoridng to who and why?
Found out why. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "of its short coalescence time" Which is what?
I added an explanation, but its pretty long; what are your thoughts on it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "is only inherited from one source" Too vague, you could specify it is from the maternal line.
  • "A study based on such nuclear DNA" Again also vague, explain why this is better?
I already explained it in the previous sentence. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It seems odd that you jump from naming to systematics, and then back to the meaning of the names you mentioned first. This could be organised better if you group the related info.
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Give authorities to the synonyms in the taxobox.
Added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "This swallow" It seems odd that you only link the term down in description, instead of the former section. Also, it is best to refer to the subject wit its full name at the start of a section.
Corrected. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the tarsi are pale brown" So what colour are the rest of the legs? Or does this perhaps apply to the whole limb? If so, could be specified.
Changed to "legs and feet". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You say the wings are blackish, but it seems the wing coverts are also blue?
I'm assuming that means the primaries and such are blackish, but the sources that I have don't say this. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "aspects of this organism's biology" Seems very unspecific and detached, why not just use its name or say "bird's"? Also, what is a model organism?
Changed to "bird's". I don't really think that I'll explain what a model organism is; I feel like most people know what it is, and I linked it anyways. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although it is aggressive during the breeding season, the tree swallow is sociable outside of the breeding season" Unnecessary repetition.
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "about 28% of breeders disperse after" If this is only a percentage of a percentage, you shoudl say something like "of those breeders that disperse, 28% do so because they fail to etc."
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Why is this in British English, if it primarily lived in the US? I see grey and metres. Or is it supposed to be Canadian English?
This is really just how I write... except for "metre". Anyways, I suppose you could interpret it as Canadian English. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "and wing length of the female." Sounds odd, what's the correlation?
It allows it to forage more efficiently; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "increased heterozygosity" Explain.
I feel like this is sort of explained by the next phrase, and I feel like this is common enough in genetics that it doesn't require an explanation; heck, I learned it in middle school. Also, explaining it with something like "(more different alleles)" would clash with the the next phrase. Furthermore, I linked it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 05:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The sex ratio of the hatchlings is male biased in females of better condition" This is a bit confusing, you could make it clearer that the females mentioned here are their mothers.
Changed to "Nests produced by females of better condition often have sex ratios skewed towards high quality males." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "in females of better condition, and these males produced by the females in better condition are themselves in better condition." You say "better condition" three times in a sentence, I think it could be simplified.
Removed repetition. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The growth of nestling tree swallows is influenced their environment." Missing "by".
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Predators other than snakes that eat chicks?
I looked for this, but I couldn't find much. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 22:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I actually just happened on a paper that also said raccoons prey on chicks. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "but the authors of the study that found the correlations find this unlikely" Seems redundant.
I reworded the final part to "believed this", but they both have to be in there, because I haven't introduced the study itself yet. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Instead, they advocated that it indicated that" Also seems unnecessarily long.
Changed to "they thought it showed that". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "quality female is able to lay earlier due to that quality." Also doesn't sound very look so good. A lot of repetition in that entire paragraph of immunology.
I feel like this can't really be removed, because otherwise it wouldn't really by clear what "that" is. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "the reintroduction of beavers" How is this correlated?
I couldn't find the correlation. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "taken in the all four of the Northern Hemisphere" Unnecessary.
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "In nests near lakes acidified by humans, calcium supplements... are more important in the diet of nestlings." What is the correlation?
Reworded, which actually happened to correct a tiny error in my understanding of the paper. In essence, calcium supplements are harder to find, forcing tree swallows to go further to go them, potentially exposing the nest to predators and such. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "according to nuclear DNA studies... according to mitochondrial DNA studies" I don't think this level of detail is needed in the intro. You could just say "depending on the method" or something.
Changed to "depending on the method". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • " is a migratory bird" Is this really needed in the first sentence of the intro, when you explain it migrates in more detail furhter dow the paragrapgh?
I'd say so, because it is a basic fact about the bird; I also say its found in North America, but I describe its distribution there in further detail later on in the lead. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "extra-pair paternity puzzling." Seems too informal.
I'd disagree about it's informality, and it sounds better than the alternative, "confusing", at least to my mind. You can change it if you'd like though. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "hese do no significantly affect breeding" Not?
Fixed RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "but, on nestlings, these do no significantly affect breeding" This seems oddly worded, as if it is the nestlings that are breeding.
Changed to "these do little damage". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "This swallow is vulnerable" Again, seems odd that swallow would be linked all the way down in the third paragraph of the intro.
It's actually the first occurrence of it in the lead. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - this looks to be in good shape to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now... a migratory bird found in North America in the family Hirundinidae. - the construction sounds odd to me, but I concede that it is ambiguous if the family comes before "North America" (so not a deal-breaker). In any case, I would make it of the family... rather than "in"...
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
the eyes are a dark brown - any reason why "a" is here?
Nope; removed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
why are first year females and not first year males mentioned in lead?
Because only first year females can be distinguished on the basis of plumage. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
ok fair enough Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The tree swallow is found in North America, where it breeds in the US and Canada. - you've already mentioned it is found in North America in the first sentence - I'd remove that and give more exactness to the range.
I removed the second mention, and I changed the first sentence to say "Americas", since it can be found to winter in South America.
The tree swallow nests either by itself - err, not in pairs?
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
can we link "acidified lakes" to somewhere?
Yeah; linked. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I think as Polygynous means "mating with more than one female", I think using plain words is better than a jargony one. But agree that shoehorning in the meaning could make the sentence repetitive...
I personally think that most people know what polygyny is, so I won't do this. I will put it in parentheses if you insist, but I think that it is obvious from context; I already say how breeding males are polygynous, so I don't think there is much room for confusion. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
ok point taken/I'll pay that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that it is able to habitate open areas - "habitate"?? surely there is a plainer word...
Changed to "live in" (it's going to be mainstream soon, just you watch!). RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The tree swallow usually renests in the same area to breed again - "nests" is fine, "renests" unnecessary
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
link territory, tree limit, antigen and hypothermia
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Nests produced by females of better condition often have sex ratios skewed towards high quality males. - errr, what's a high quality male?
I'll change it to "males of good condition"; it had originally been "males of better condition", but I think that what I have now changed it to is a good replacement (at least for the purposes of the article). RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 02:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

more later - need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC) provisionally looks ok otherwise. Will look more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok all looks pretty good on prose and comphrehensiveness-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

No major issues, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Tachycineta, where it is depending on the method, either basal to the whole genus, or basal just to a clade consisting of the violet-green, golden, and Bahama swallow. —is this necessary in the lead? It's technical stuff that's off-putting to the casual reader.
I changed it to "where its phylogenetic placement is in debate." RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • grey-brown washed breastgrey-brown-washed breast.
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The tree swallow nests either in pairs or loose groups—It always nests in pairs, better "isolated pairs" or something similar.
Changed to "isolated pairs". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Monogamous; Long Island, New York; exoskeleton—link at first occurence.
Done; but I linked "socially monogamous" instead of "monogamous". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • tree swallow forages both by itself…forages alone…
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. —(in lead as well). This is very parochial. The US legislation is an implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty between the US and Canada, but the Canadian implementation, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, isn't even mentioned.
Nice catch. Added to both lead and status section. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The tree swallow forages 0 to 50 metres (160 ft) above the ground forages up to 50 metres(160 ft) above the ground seems more natural
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In the tree swallow, some components of the immune system deteriorate with age. —Is this typical of all swallows? All birds? All vertebrates?
Well, I think that some components of the immune system deteriorating instead of others is relatively common throughout the animals, but it seems that other passerines recently studied displayed deterioration of acquired humoral immunity, contrasting with tree swallows. I put the sentence "The lack of deterioration in the former contrasts with some other studies of passerines" into the article. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 15:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Philip I Philadelphus

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a little known king reigning Syria at the end of the once great Seleucid empire. He was one among four contenders for the throne, all of them managed to rule some parts of the country! Yet, despite his humble role in history, Rome found it fit to maintain his image on the coins of its Syrian province for fifty years: so he must have left an impression in the region. The article went through copy editing by the guild and is the result of extensive research in which I made sure to represent all scholarly views.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review

A couple of what I think are typos in the refs but didn't like to change:

  • "Chronotope in Liberature" – Literature?
  • "Mmonetary" – Monetary?

That apart, all the sources appear reputable and in line with WP:RS, and are consistently cited. Tim riley talk 18:23, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed monetary. Liberature is correct though.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Support – A good read, well and widely cited, and, as far as a layman can see, comprehensive. Tim riley talk 20:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "Tigranes II of Armenia conquered Syria that year at the request of the Antiochian population, who refused to accept Philip's minor son as his successor. This is debatable, however, since the conquest might have occurred in 74 BC.": This is confusing. Give it another shot.
    • Hello. I realize that it is not easy to follow and this stems from the natur of our information about him. We simply dont know when he died and historians are dating his death to the campaign of Tigranes, but this campaign itself is debated..... I tried my best to keep it simple.
      • Does anyone else find the wording here confusing? - Dank (push to talk)
        • Rewrote the paragraph. What do you think now
  • "In the face of their uncle": I don't know what that means.
    • It is explained in the background section that Demetrius III and Seleucus VI are sons of Antiochus VIII, and that Antiochus IX was the brother and rival of Antiochus VIII, hence, the uncle of Seleucus and Demetrius. Uncle is used to avoid writing Antiochus IX three times in one line
      • I don't know what "In the face of " means. - Dank (push to talk)
        • Oh that part you didnt know. I changed the wording
          • I don't know what "In confrontation of their uncle" means. Did they confront him? - Dank (push to talk)
            • Their father died, and their uncle and enemy took the capital. They did not want to submit to him. What do you suggest should be written to make this clear?
              • What you just said is clear to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
                • Fine
  • "Those factors, combined with the low estimates of annual coin dies used by Philip's immediate predecessors in Antioch—Antiochus X (his second reign) and Demetrius III, disproportionate compared with the general die estimates of late Seleucid kings—led numismatist Oliver D. Hoover to propose that Philip recoined his predecessors' coins and skewed their dies[38] to produce currency bearing his image, reduced in weight from the standard 1,600 g (56 oz) to 1,565 g (55.2 oz).": That's quite a mouthful for one sentence.
    • Sentence split
  • "111–110 BC", "85–84 BC": The trouble is that everyone thinks they know what the dash means, but when you ask them, different people say it means different things. If "or" was meant here, say "or".
    • originaly it read 85/84 which is the academic usage. this changed apparently with the copy edit. I re wrote them with a / . By 111/110 for example, I mean a Seleucid year which began in November 111 and ended in September 110
      • Without reading the footnotes, how will the reader know that this is what is meant? Most of the time, readers don't rely on links for comprehension. "or" would work, and wouldn't require a lot of scholarly explanation. - Dank (push to talk)
        • footnote removed. Information moved to the end of the lede. This way the readers will understand what its meant by year/year and expand their knowledge so they will also understand what it means if they read a scholarly article in some academic journal
          • Other reviewers may want to weigh in on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
            • The solution now adopted is unorthodox, but, I think, sensible. I'm happy to support it. Tim riley talk 18:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "which could not have been produced in if his reign": ?
    • fixed
  • 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) 20:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Note: Hey Dank and Tim riley, I was searching for a more elegant solution and came across this: Wikipedia:Hatnote#Legitimate information about the topic. The guidlines page dont like the hatnote for such a reason, but if I actually make it, then it will look like this at the very top of the article:

Do you think this is suitable?

I just now saw this comment; I didn't get pinged by it because you didn't sign. I wouldn't go with a hatnote. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done
  • File:Philippus_Philadelphus_infobox.jpg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Philippos_Philadelphos_-_AR_tetradrachm.jpg
    • fixed
  • File:Aulus_Gabinius.jpg: source site appears to claim copyright on this photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Photo replaced

From FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time
  • I think the infobox image could need a caption.
  • "according to Eusebius Philip was also there" Comma between the names?
  • "thought it was Beroea." Since this links to modern day Aleppo, I wonder whether that should be stated in parenthesis?
  • "to prepare for a challenge for the throne" To prepare against might sound better, so you prevent two "for" in a row.
  • "Alfred Raymond Bellinger" Present him and others mentioned.
    • Fixed
  • Might be interesting to see if we can find some variations of the coins, like those showing beards, and with his twin. The ones currently used are very similar to each other.
    • I couldnt find a photo of a coin showing him bearded. The coins with his twin are rare and I found one on two sites, but the copyrights are a problem as usual here and here
      • FunkMonk, I was reading on the website that have an image of the coin. one section is named License for Limited Uses. Do you think we can use the image?
Seems very strict, sadly: "You may not republish, commercially distribute, duplicate, or exploit any aspect of the Website, either code or content. Other than the Fair Usage specified in the License for Limited Uses, You may not download, reproduce, modify, distribute, transfer, sell, or create derivative works of any code, contents, data, whether specifically copyrighted or not. Any unauthorized usage of the Website may subject You to civil or criminal prosecution." FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Hey FunkMonk, I think I have one now. It is not from the website of CNG but from a published volume by CNG available for free download on their website. So, I believe the CNG lisence apply to it. Look here
Cool, now I just think it needs a direct link to where the image can be found in the source field. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean? the image is from a printed book that was available for download. The image itself is not on the website. This link take you to the book's entry on the website and this is the downlad link. So which link do are you refering to?
I mean for where the book can be downloaded, could be linked in the source field. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I put the link in commons and placed the photo in the wiki article.
Looks good to me, I assume the licence covers their journal too. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "accept Philip's minor son" WP:Easter egg links are discouraged, spell out the name.
    • Fixed

Support Fifelfoo

Bibliographic and Citation style; HQRS & coverage; plagiarism spot check (3); plagiarism style check; Style; Do sources support claims? (FUTON, 3-5ish from memory?) Fifelfoo (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bibliographic and Citation Style

  • The external link should be brought into style
    • Can you provide me with an example of external links style? Im not really an expert in this
  • Fixed for you Hoover (2008), |series= parameter is expected to take a descriptive type title, "Joes Series on Ancient Drinks," using it for a journal series run would require a similar descriptive function. "Second series"
    • Thanks
  • Checked the back linking from citations to bibliography

HQRS & coverage

  • Three plagiarism spot checks by sources
  • Style reading check for plagiarism: consistent style throughout
  • Gilles (1820) used appropriately
  • Primaries: Josephus and Eusebius used appropriately
  • Question for reassurance: Why the reliance on Bellinger (1949)? Seminal work? Still highly respected? Unique coverage?
    • It is all of the aforementioned reasons actually. The late Seleucid period is one that is avoided by many scholars because of how vague it is. Hoover (whose work on a revised chronology is becoming an academic consensus) listed those problems in page 280. So Bellinger was one of few who ventured into the topic. Practically, in any work that talks about the late Seleucids, you will find Bellinger cited. Kay Ehling, a German professor, wrote about the late Seleucids in 2008, and on google books you see this introduction: "this volume is the first book since A R Bellinger's The End of the Seleucids from 1949 to comprehensively deal with the history of the late Seleucid dynasty, from the death of Antiochos IV to the establishment of the Roman province Syria by Pompey".


  • Bad topic sentence, "The name Philip (Greek Phílippos) means "lover of horses"." Move to be after the sentence with his birth? The new first sentence would make sense then.
  • "His position was insecure." Philip? Topic sentence starting with a pronoun isn't the best for clarity
  • "Philip's attempt weakens" attempt to what?
  • "The king was succeeded" who? Philip?
    • Fixed

Do the sources support the claims?

  • While doing the above I must have checked 3-5ish FUTONs and they did. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Second attempt, let's gooooo. This article is about the city of good food, neon signs, and urban concrete forests. I've done a further expansion on this article, using (hopefully) better references this time. Here's to getting this in before Establishment Day. -- Horserice (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Brief comment Last para of #Etymology, first para of #Regional and administrative divisions, second para of #Architecture, and first para of #Rail have last sentence with no reference. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Now only last para of #Education which has last sentence with no reference. Hanamanteo (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Got it. Added more references. Let me know if you keep catching anymore. Horserice (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

General source formatting:

  • You have several sources that are apparently uncited in the text, and so are producing harv reference errors. Print sources: Bromma (2008); Gaylord, Gittings, and Traver (2009); Lee, Chan, Pan, and So (2002); Rioni (2002); Stone (2008). Academic publications: Poon and Chau (2001); Sinn (1987).
  • Removed these except Gaylord, Gittings, and Traver (2009) and Poon & Chau (2001). Ended up using them again. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • I'll make a pass at this later. If you can find some lingering examples, let me know. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Book-format works with no ISBN assigned should ideally have an OCLC number. Mostly, that applies to works before the introduction of the ISBN system, such as Davis (1841). But you might want to consider providing an OCLC number for Empson (1992), either in place of or in addition to the Amazon-specific ASIN.
  • Publication locations are optional, but are all-or-nothing. You include them for (eyeballing) around half the sources, so you'll need to adjust things one way or the other.
  • When running through all of the sources for the first time, I thought it'd be useful to include as much information as possible. Better to err on having too much rather than too little? Anyways, removed these. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The MOS traditionally gives some flexibility about whether article (and chapter) titles are given in sentence case or title case, but you mix them. Personally, I prefer sentence case for article titles, but what really matters is being consistent one way or the other.
  • Hmm, is it not better to stick to how articles style the titles? Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For journal publications, the MOS generally suggests that publishers are unnecessary (in most cases); regardless, you provide them here for most, but not all, journals and should opt for a more consistent citation approach.
  • Same with publication locations, took these out. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Specific sources:

  • I'm not entirely sure where the demarcation lies between normal "print" sources and "institutional reports". Is The Basic Law and Hong Kong - The 15th Anniversary of Reunification with the Motherland the former and not the latter? If you're going to treat this as a print source, it needs a publisher (and probably an OCLC).
  • I generally divided them into:
print - sources with an ISBN or otherwise had paper copies made
reports - published reports or summarizing pamphlets commissioned by the government/supranational orgs or data sources from an otherwise authoritative source (Akamai or HSBC would be examples)
Also added an OCLC for that source. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Empson source needs a publisher. I'm not 100% certain which version you consulted, as there are a couple, but I believe the publisher to be the Information Services Department.
  • Added bibliographic info. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Chan (1994) is a doctoral thesis. While there's a certain measure of acceptance for doctoral theses, especially from prestigious institutions, is it possible to reference this material to something that has at least undergone peer review? Without digging into the text, I'm not sure if it can support the same claims, but I'll note the thesis author co-authored a published journal article on the same concept the following year: Chan, Tak Wing; Lui, Tai Lok; Wong, Thomas W. P. (1995). "A comparative analysis of social mobility in Hong Kong". European Sociological Review. 11 (2): 135–155. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036353. 
  • Will try to find Found an alternative source for this. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise, Horrocks (1994) is also a doctoral thesis. I don't see any immediate evidence that it was ever subsequently published in an academic journal. By its own abstract, he reaches different conclusions about the event than the prevailing scholarship, and since the thesis does not appear to be widely cited, it is possible that this work does not represent mainstream view on the topic. Perhaps different sourcing would be more appropriate here?
  • Same as above, but may just rephrase and remove that bit. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Lupant (1999) is missing some bibliographic information. In particular, the linked pdf is a scan from the Proceedings of the International Congress of Vexillology 18, and should probably be cited as such.
  • Added bibliographic info. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

§Legislation and court judgements:

  • First, consider whether this should be judgment rather than judgement. In American English, the "no e" version is the only acceptable one; in British English, the situation is more complicated, but the "no e" version is at least as acceptable. I have no idea what the status of the word is in Hong Kong English.
  • My bad, that might have just been a typo on my part. Horserice (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Second, this section is formatted as if it represented notes, rather than references. If it were actually serving as notes (for example, to provide the specific legislation mentioned in passing in the text) then this section should appear in a separate section before §References, per the MOS. However, not all of these notes are being used qua notes; rather, quite a few (most?) of them are the sole reference for statements in the article. And that's potentially problematic. Now, primary sources aren't forbidden as references, but should be used with caution and are generally discouraged when secondary sources exist. In my mind, that goes double for laws and legal claims; if the interpretation of legislation were straightforward, the legal profession could be quite a bit smaller, I would think. Especially in §Legal system and judiciary, I find the direct use of the law somewhat problematic. You have claims such as "Chinese national law does not generally apply in the region..." sourced directly to the Basic Law. And, indeed, at least based on the link provided, I'm not sure that point is particularly clear there. Surely there is a secondary source available which discusses this situation (and the others so cited)?
  • I did three things for this: 1) I redid legislation/case citations like normal references. 2) Basic Law/Joint Declaration citations now point to the specific articles I used. 3) I added secondary sources to replace some of the primary source citations. Direct legal references now are only used when what is expressed in the article is written basically verbatim in that piece of law. Example: "Public finances are handled independently of the national government and taxes levied in Hong Kong do not fund the central authority." references Article 3(8) of the Joint Declaration, which says "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will have independent finances. The Central People’s Government will not levy taxes on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

External links are generally fine. I'm not sure whether the Curlie link is particularly necessary, but I have no fundamental objection. No examination of prose whatsoever. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Serial Number 54129: July 1st is when the handover occurred and the HKSAR was established. I meant that I wanted to get a review started before then and I did. Horserice (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129: LOL that’d be cool, but also totally not gonna happen. Kind of aiming for August 29, when the Treaty of Nanking was signed. But we’ll see how this review goes. Feel free to read through some of the article too ;) Horserice (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Partial comments from Nick-D

I don't think I'll read through this large article again, but would like to offer the following comments:

  • "The Ngong Ping Cable Car, West Kowloon Cultural District, multiple new railway lines, and additional cross-harbour tunnels were all completed in the first 20 years of territorial self-governance. Direct infrastructure links with mainland China are also being actively developed, with both the Hong Kong–Zhuhai–Macau Bridge and Hong Kong section of the national high-speed railway currently under construction. Construction of the rail link generated a high level of controversy surrounding the demolition of key landmarks and displacement of residents along the planned route" - the reference given for all this material (a single newspaper story from 2015) does not support all this content. It obviously cannot reference projects currently under development, and doesn't cover the cross harbour tunnels or cable car. The article is also an op-ed, and so unlikely to be a reliable source.
  • "Political debates have centred themselves predominantly on issues surrounding electoral reform and Hong Kong's jurisdictional independence from the central government. Following the handover, democratic reform of the Legislative Council was immediately terminated and the government attempted to legislate sweeping national security legislation pursuant to Article 23 of the Basic Law. Coupled with years of economic hardships and discontent of Chief Executive Tung's pro-Beijing stance, over 500,000 people demonstrated against the government, which eventually led to Tung's resignation in 2005." - also not fully supported by the newspaper reference Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: No worries, thanks for taking a look at any of it again. I added sources to where you pointed out. Horserice (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Got it. Changed captions around. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg needs information on first publication of the melody per the first tag
  • File:Hong_Kong_in_Chinese_2.svg is not copyrightable
  • Removed copyright notice from file. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:City_of_Victoria,_Hong_Kong.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • Replaced with File:THE PRAYA, HONG-KONG.jpg. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This one needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • When/where was the image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Added a bit more source info to the image. First published in the UK in 1873, when the copyright period under the Copyright Act 1842 lasted for author lifetime plus 7 years or 42 years from first publication, so image is PD. Horserice (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Battle_of_HK_01.jpg: is this image credited in the original publication?
  • Can't find original publication, replaced with File:CenotaphHK.jpg. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:PRC_Shenzhen_Luohu_entry_and_exit_stamps.png: under US law, scanning a 2D work does not result in a new copyright. Same with File:Hong_Kong_entry_passport_flag.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed these images. Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the IR, addressed your comments. I think we should be good on this front? Horserice (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MarshalN20

I am primarily concerned about the article's readability. It is too long, from my point of view. Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines could be applied to various sections, including the:

  • History
  • Government
  • Geography
  • Demographics
  • Infrastructure
  • Transport
  • Culture
  • I can work on cutting some of these down. I'd appreciate if you could point me to some articles you think are a good length. Reading other featured country articles (Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia), it isn't really obvious to me how long this article should be. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
1. Why is infrastructure a separate section? Would it not fit better within the economics or transport section?
  • Sure, I merged it with transport to form a single infrastructure section. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
2. Why is media separate from the culture?
  • Since Hong Kong belongs to both WikiProject Cities and Countries, I drew from both of the guidelines (cities, countries) and added the Media section strictly to detail "local newspapers, TV, and radio stations". Felt more appropriate to discuss the content delivered through those media outlets in the Culture section. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
3. Excessive number of images. I'm of the opinion that, per section, one image is preferable and two should be the most.
  • I'd appreciate other editors' opinions on this as well, because it would seem like almost every featured country and city article has too many images, following your thought on this. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
4. It remains unclear to me why the climate chart is necessary in these articles.
  • I agree with this. These charts seem to be in almost every city article, so I'm sure someone can point us to established consensus on it somewhere. I minimized the other climate chart so it takes up less space. Horserice (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Structure is important to me. I look forward to the improvements.--MarshalN20 🕊 03:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing some of the concerns, Horserice. Regarding the image number, I base my position on Wikipedia policies such as WP:IG and WP:NOTIMAGE. The cityscape section is at the forefront. Three images, practically about the same subject, with no body text. Other sections also have this problem. Articles should display few, unique images. That's what makes them special.--MarshalN20 🕊 15:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Gotcha. Your comments on the Cityscape section are definitely fair. I cut that down to a single image and merged with the Architecture section, because I think showing the sheer number of buildings is the only way to effectively communicate the cramped architectural style. I will continue to work on cutting down some sections, most of it will probably come from the History, Government, and Transport sections. If you could highlight some parts of the Culture section you think are too verbose, that'd be helpful. Horserice (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @MarshalN20: Alright, I cut huge chunks away. Take a look if you can. Horserice (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The issues with summarizing and image number remains present. Several of the current featured country articles (such as Germany and Japan) are in need of serious revision. For example, as occurs with this article, image placement contradicts Manual of Style guidelines concerning text sandwiching. It's unclear to me how the image of Carrie Lam with Nicola Sturgeon (in Foreign Relations) reflects Hong Kong. The politician's portraits in the Government section are also of unclear necessity.--MarshalN20 🕊 12:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Interinter321: I'm cutting down the article in response to readability concerns in this FAC process and in the previous attempt. If you disagree with these changes, we can discuss it here. Looping in MarshalN20. Horserice (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Horserice. I can lend a hand in summarizing, if needed, but defer to the primary editor(s) expertise on the matter to make better decisions. Ideally, information should be transferred to specific articles rather than just deleted (that is, unless the information is already present in the specific articles). For example, the article on the Culture of Hong Kong should contain all of the information presented in the Hong Kong article's culture section, while the section itself should be an introductory summary that encourages the reader to read the primary Culture of Hong Kong article for further information.--MarshalN20 🕊 19:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, let's coordinate on that. I'm positive that nothing I've taken out so far from the History, Demographics, and Government sections can't be found in the main articles. I'd definitely need help on checking the Economy and Culture sections though, and possibly Geography. The Infrastructure section should be pretty straightforward to cut down though. Horserice (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Brief comment - The country should be linked in the first paragraph (I added the link to China but it was deleted). Imagine New York City not linking United States in the first paragraph. Mattximus (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I noticed that another editor deleted it. I personally think that adding "of China" where you did is redundant in terms of sentence structure, because the lead sentence would be saying it twice. Regarding your example, I would point you to Guangzhou, which does not actually link China in the first paragraph. I think the article already makes it abundantly clear which country the city is part of. Horserice (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Michelle Williams (actress)

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Michelle Williams. Among her many roles, she has played a young girl whose family murders their matriarch; a meek woman tragically married to a gay man; a woman whose husband and son are killed in a terrorist attack; a vagrant whose only attachment is to her missing dog; a housewife who drowns her own children; a depressed wife whose marriage is ending; a suicidal and insecure actress with a drug problem; a woman who had sexual relations with a grown man at the age of 12; a mother who loses all her children in a house fire; and another mother who receives her son's mutilated ear in her morning mail. Hmm... so if you're still upbeat about this, please share your thoughts. "Happy" reading. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp

First read-though:
1980–1995: Early life:

  • "Although she described her family as": Would "although she has described..." be better here?
  • "Williams has recounted fond memories of her growing up": Consider removing "her"?
  • "She said of the experience": I'm just making these comments on the fly and haven't had a chance to read through everything, so not sure if my suggesting this throughout might make the overall tone "heavier" but consider "she has said"? If you want to wait until I get through the article to see how many more instances of this there would be, that's okay.
  • "about a young boy's (played by Tom Guiry)": Slightly awkward since "boy's" is a possessive, but if you can't find a better way to reword this, I can live with it. Moisejp (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

1996–2000: Dawson's Creek and transition to adult roles:

  • "which despite selling to a production company was never made": Clause's subject seems to change midway here. "...despite being sold to a production company was never made" would be one way to resolve the issue but there may be other ways that flow better. Moisejp (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "co-starring James Van Der Beek, Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson": So far elsewhere you seem to be using serial commas, but there is none here.
  • "she preferred living there over Los Angeles": Consider cutting or expanding. Feels tagged on and incomplete as is.
  • "In a review of the first season for The New York Times, Caryn James called it a soap opera that was "redeemed by intelligence and sharp writing" and found Williams "too earnest to suit this otherwise shrewdly tongue-in-cheek cast" ": For me, "and found" doesn't flow perfectly, maybe because there is "redeemed", which breaks up the flow, and makes it harder for the reader to instantly tie "found" to subject "Caryn James". Also, should it be "but found" instead of "and found", since what comes before is positive and what comes after is negative?
  • "Ray Richmond of Variety labeled it "an addictive drama with considerable heart" and found...": Two sentences in a row with "found"—better to avoid this if possible.
  • "a rating's success": Should it be "ratings success"?
  • "but she found it difficult to come to terms with her sudden fame": Like "she preferred living there over Los Angeles" above, I feel this idea would be better either expanded or removed. Moisejp (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "admitted that she had not been fully invested in it": Perhaps "she had not fully invested herself in it" would be clearer to make clear that it was her and not external forces doing the investing.
  • "She said that the financial stability of a steady job...": Another candidate to consider making present perfect ("has said"), as—based on the year of the article—this seems to have been said after the fact.
  • "in which she and Kirsten Dunst played young girls obsessed with Richard Nixon.[30][7]": Minor comment (no strong opinion about this) but I wonder whether if they were teenagers, "young girls" could be ambiguous—it could suggest younger than they were. Also, I suggest switching the order of the refs so the smaller number comes first (which you do elsewhere, but I know it can be easy for orders to change during editing when juggling lots of refs).Moisejp (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for these very helpful comments, Moisejp. Looking forward to the rest of them. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain

  • "The British film Me Without You (2001) about an obsessive female friendship featured Williams opposite Anna Friel." I suggest putting commas around "about an obsessive female friendship" for flow. Also, the number of f's in the sentence may be borderline distracting. If you reworded "featured" I think it would help. Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

2006–2010: Work with auteurs

  • "A review in Variety mentioned that she was underused in it." Here "mentioned" doesn't feel like the perfect word—maybe it doesn't seem strong enough for expressing the reviewer's opinion? Sorry that this review is going slowly—I only have time for a very few comments at a time, but I will keep at it bit by bit. :-) Moisejp (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked the sentence altogether. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
And take your time with the review, Moisejp. There's no hurry. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Two days after finishing work on Synecdoche, New York, Williams began filming Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy, which centers on Wendy, a poor and lonesome young woman who travels with her dog, Lucy, in hopes of finding employment." Small comment, but perhaps it is unnecessary to repeat Wendy and Lucy's names in the second half of the sentence. I think it probably works without their names, and sounds less repetitive. Moisejp (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway

  • "She was displeased with how the film turned out." Consider adding one or more details about why she was displeased with it. Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
All she said was, "“Did you see Suite Française? Wow. Ouch. That one hurt.” I didn't find any additional reasons about why she hated it. What do you think we should do? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, maybe instead of saying why she didn't like it, you could briefy talk about what she says in the following paragraph, which could be interesting: "To make or to watch back? “Both,” she says without missing a beat. “You can never have a sense when you read something – or even while you’re making it – if it’s going to be good or not. You really can’t tell. And you work just as hard on the movies that are bad as you do on the ones that are good. So it’s alway sort of a surprise how they turn out.” " Moisejp (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Is this better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You could. For me personally something like the following would better capture the most interesting part of the quote, but this may be a matter of preference: "She revealed/commented in a 2017 interview that she was not happy with how the film turned out, commenting/adding that this can be hard to predict when reading a script and during production." Moisejp (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think that reads very nicely. Moisejp (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Eager to work in a different medium and finding it tough to get hired in film": It seems surprising to suddenly hear that she had trouble getting hired in film. It sounds like previous to this she had a quite regular stream of work, including in some high-profile projects. Maybe this statement needs to be explained better? Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Keen to work in a musical" may be a bit repetitive after directly following "Eager to work in a different medium" (same structure, both with the verb "work"). Could you consider rewording one of the two phrases?
  • "Critical consensus on her performance was mixed": I'm not sure that "consensus was mixed" collocates well. It sounds a bit contradictory to me.
  • "Jesse Green of New York magazine wrote that "she acts the hell out of the role" but Newsday's Linda Winer found her "timid" and "bland"." Maybe one of Green's or Winer's statements could be paraphrased? It feels unnecessary to use direct quotes for both. Green's would be easy to paraphrase but Winer's probably wouldn't be hard either.
  • "The rigorousness of the assignment led Williams to consider Cabaret to be the "hardest work of my life"." May be a matter of style, but I'd have a little preference for "hardest work of [her] life". But if you disagree, that's OK.
  • "Challenged by her work in Cabaret, Williams was eager to return to the stage." Maybe "eager to continue working on the stage" would be less ambiguous? At first I read "return to" as "come back to after a period of being away from", which doesn't make sense given that Cabaret was on stage.
  • "Hilton Als of The New Yorker found Williams'": Consider replacing "Williams' " with "the actress's" (or even "her"). This is the third sentence in a row mentioning Williams' name. Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "the film featured minimal dialogues": I think I would naturally say "minimal dialogue" (i.e., use it as as an uncountable noun), meaning "talking" as opposed to "dialogues" (meaning "talks").
  • "Despite the film's bleakness, Williams identified with her character's desire to reclaim her life in the face of tragedy.[119] Justin Chang wrote in his review that despite her brief role": Two sentences in a row with "despite", best to avoid.
  • "Williams "has one astonishing scene that rises from the movie like a small aria of heartbreak" ": I'd feel better if we were told a little about what this special scene was. Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Moisejp, done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

2017–present: Mainstream films:

  • "She has been cast alongside Adam Driver in Leos Carax's Annette, an experimental musical about a stand-up comedian's supernaturally gifted child, after Rooney Mara backed out of the project." I like the use of the present perfect in the first part ("has been cast"), but I don't think it works with the simple past in the second part ("backed out"). The easiest thing for now may be to just make the first part simple past ("was cast"); even if it is not ideal, it may be the lesser of the evils. (Similarly, earlier in the section, for "She compared her character's joyful disposition to that of Grace Kelly,[107] and she sang two songs for the film's soundtrack", I would have preferred "she has compared", but this does not mesh well with the simple past "sang", so for now I propose to leave this sentence as is. Possibly during my second read-through I might have a better idea.) Moisejp (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Media image and acting style:

  • There is lots of variation in verb tenses in this section for when reviewers are talking about her personality, style, etc. ("Charles McGrath of The New York Times found", "Adam Green of Vogue finds", "Erica Wagner of Harper's Bazaar has praised"). Maybe consider only using present perfect and present, or only present perfect and simple past? If you want to discuss this more before making changes I'm happy to. Moisejp (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Moisejp, oh, yes! Is this better? Please let me know if I'm missing something else. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Second read-through:

  • "For portraying the actress Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn (2011), she won a Golden Globe Award for Best Actress." I wonder if there's another word you can use besides "actress" to describe Monroe, to avoid using the word twice in the same sentence.
I've removed "the actress". It doesn't seem all that necessary anyway.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Despite significant media attention, Williams is reticent about her personal life." I'm not totally convinced "Despite" works here. It suggests that if people get a lot of media attention, they are less likely to want privacy? If you are comfortable with this assumption, though, please go ahead and keep it. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
A bit confused. Yes, some people do like the spotlight but in this case, don't you mean some "are more likely to want privacy"? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally sure what you mean, but it's OK. It was just a minor point, and if it works well for you as is, I'll trust your judgement. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

1980–1995: Early life:

  • "her father, who encouraged her to ... develop an independent personality" / "She mostly kept to herself and was self-sufficient": It's not clear to me how much overlap there may be between "independent personality" and "self-sufficient". Are they saying more or less the same thing? If yes, maybe remove one of the two. Or if no, I suggest putting the points next to each other with additional clarification about how they're different. Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
From her interviews, the "self-sufficient" bit came later after she moved to San Diego and felt a bit alienated there. Does that make sense? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I haven't had a chance to read the source, but would something like "think for herself" work instead of "develop an independent personality"? I see where you're getting with "self-sufficient", but it still feels like as it is "independent" could mean the same thing as "self-sufficient". It may be better to try to differentiate the two concepts as much as possible using different words—again, if indeed these different nuances were intended in the sources. Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense, so I decided to focus on something else she said in the same interview and tweaked it. That better? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's a nice edit. Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Williams became interested in acting at an early age when she saw a local production of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.[10] She performed in a local production of the musical Annie": If you can you replace one of the instances of "local", that would be ideal.
  • "The following year, she made her film debut in the family film Lassie": Replace one of the instances of "film" with "movie"?
  • "However, she disliked going there as she did not get along with other students." Minor comment, but I'm not sure that "However" is needed here. Also, "disliked going there" feels slightly awkward to me, but I can't think of anything better (without using the word "school", which is used in the sentences before and after, so better to avoid)—if you don't have any ideas, maybe just leave "disliked going there" as is. A final minor comment for this sentence: "get along well with" feels less colloquial to me than just "get along with". Moisejp (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

1996–2000: Dawson's Creek and transition to adult roles:

  • "To support herself, she took assignments in low-budget films and commercials.[7] She had minor roles in the television films My Son is Innocent (1996) and Killing Mr. Griffin (1997), and featured alongside Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange in the drama film A Thousand Acres (1997)." Sorry to keep harping on the issue of repetition, but there are three sentences in a row here that use the word "film". Would you consider using "movie" for one of the instances?
  • "In 1997, the 17-year old Williams entered the Robbins World Cup Championship, a futures trading contest; with a return of 1000%, she became the first woman to win the title and the third-highest winner of all time (her father ranks first)." Would you consider a footnote here to give more information? I gather from her father's wiki page that he is an extremely gifted investor. One suspects he coached her (or even made all the decisions for her under her name). I haven't read the sources you included, but is there extra information about the circumstances that would be worthwhile putting in a footnote? Otherwise it could possibly sound out of the blue that she suddenly won so much money—although "her father ranks first" is a hint that there's more to it.
  • "Her first film release since the commencement of Dawson's Creek": Instead of "commencement", "start" would be simpler and straightforward.
  • "which she considered to be a better fit for her personality": Very minor suggestion (ignore if you disagree) but "to be" feels unnecessary to me. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Moisejp, done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Will get back to this review soon, hopefully in the next few days I can add some more, and respond to your couple of comments above. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

2001–2005: Independent films and Brokeback Mountain:

  • "Dawson's Creek completed its run in 2003, and Williams was pleased with how it had ended." Would be nice if you could include specifics of how/why she was pleased with how it ended. Moisejp (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
She said, "Everybody agrees that it’s the right time for it to be over, so there’s a lot of peace that comes along with that". Not sure how else to write about this. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, when I read "pleased how it ended" I imagined it meant that she liked the story arc of the ending. What about something like ""Dawson's Creek ended in 2003, and Williams was satisfied with how it had run its course" or "...and Williams felt it had run its course well" or "Dawson's Creek completed its run in 2003, and Williams felt this was a satisfying time for it to end." I prefer the "run its course" versions because they may suggest not just good timing of its ending, but also good naturalness for the way it ended, which I think is implied in the source. Moisejp (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Williams next appeared in Imaginary Heroes, a drama about a family coping with their son's suicide, and played an impressionable young woman fixated on mental health in the period film A Hole in One." Consider replacing "Williams" with "The actress"? There are lots of instances of "Williams" in this paragraph.
  • "Williams was emotionally affected by the story, and in spite of her limited screen time, was drawn to playing a woman constricted by social mores of the time." Minor comment, but "the social mores of the time" feels a little more usual to me. But I can't say that without the is absolutely wrong.
  • "It won three Academy Awards and Williams gained a Best Supporting Actress nomination." Replace "Williams" with "her"? There are, again, a lot of instances of her name in this paragraph. Not sure if it's more than elsewhere in the article, but I noticed it here, and this particular replacement feels like it would be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

2006–2010: Work with auteurs:

  • "Two days after finishing work on Synecdoche, New York, Williams began filming Kelly Reichardt's Wendy and Lucy, which centers on a poor and lonesome young woman traveling with her dog in hopes of finding employment." Perhaps instead of "in hopes of finding employment" I wonder if "and looking for employment" might be better. It's a subtle difference, but as it is now could it be read that it was through traveling with her dog (as opposed to traveling alone) that she hoped to find employment?
  • "with a largely volunteering crew": suggest "largely volunteer crew".
  • "Shutter Island released in 2010 and was a commercial success, accumulating over $294 million in box office receipts." Consider adding "worldwide" for extra clarity? Moisejp (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

2011–2016: My Week with Marilyn and Broadway:

  • "In 2011, Williams played the actress Marilyn Monroe in My Week with Marilyn, a drama depicting the troubled production of the 1957 comedy The Prince and the Showgirl, based on accounts by Colin Clark, who worked on the film." Could possibly be confusing which of the two films mentioned Clark worked on.
  • "Roger Ebert considered Williams' performance to be key to the film's success and credited her for successfully evoking multiple aspects of Monroe's personality." Best to avoid repetition of success-successfully if possible. Moisejp (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Though she considered it to be a light-hearted film, Jenny McCartney of The Daily Telegraph found a darker undertone to it and favorably compared its theme to that of Blue Valentine." Is "she" Williams or (I think) McCartney? If it's McCartney, I don't feel "considered it to be light-hearted [but] found a darker undertone to it" is very clear. It's confusing. Moisejp (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This section says Williams sang several songs for My Week with Marilyn, but the Songs section below only lists three. Does that just mean only three of the several songs she sang were released (for example, on CD or digitally)?
  • "The film earned over $490 million worldwide to emerge as her highest-grossing release.[104] Suite Française, a period drama that Williams filmed in 2013, was released in a few territories in 2015 but was not theatrically released in America." Three instances of release/released in two sentences, best to reduce if possible. Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Media image and acting style:

  • "Williams has spoken about how she tries to balance her desire to be private and to use her celebrity to speak out against issues such as sexism, gender pay gap, and sexual harassment." Would be better to have a parallel structure after "balance". For example "balance her desire to be private and her..." Moisejp (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about the right way to say this. I've tweaked it to "..balance her desire to be private and use her celebrity to speak out..", but I'm not sure if this is ideal. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked it, but let me know if it doesn't work for you. My version isn't perfect either, as it has "her" three times in close proximity, but I couldn't find a way to avoid it. But I think it's a lesser evil compared with not having good parallel structure. In the version I did, it uses "balance her (noun phrase a) and (noun phrase b)". There could be other ways to reach good parallel structure, though. Moisejp (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, Krimuk, thank you for your patience in all my comments, and I'm really happy with the quality of prose. I'm quite sure I'll be supporting. But taking the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive71#Source review woes to heart, I'd like to also do a source review including spot-checking as many sources as I can muster. Moisejp (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Source review

Initial comment: This has no bearing on whether the source review will pass (it's not a requirement), but I notice that most but not all of your sources are archived. Would it make sense to archive the remaining ones for consistency, or do you have a logic to the ones you didn't archive? Moisejp (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I use this tool to archive links. Assuming that I haven't missed anything, they've all been archived now. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 1: Are the extra links (FYI / A&E Networks) necessary? I wasn't immediately sure what they are for. Moisejp (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Removed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 5: Source→"her younger sister, Paige, and three older half siblings from her father’s first marriage"; article→"her younger sister, Paige, and three half-siblings from her father's first marriage". / Source→"The family moved to San Diego when Williams was nine"; article→"The family relocated to San Diego, California, when she was nine". Best to reword these sentences more. Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: It seems from this ref that Deception was originally called The Tourist. I can see you wanted to use this ref as it talks about her attraction to the role, but I wonder if there is a good way to account for the fact that the title mentioned in the source is different. Moisejp (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 is used as a source related to Heath Ledger but 2001 is before she met him (regardless of the year, I couldn't find him mentioned in the article). Also, consider paraphrasing "self-sufficient" to be "self-reliant" so you're not using the exact same word in the source? Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Update to my long comment below: I see ref 27 says "She passed the necessary exams". But do you have any sources that say explicitly she took the GED route rather than the diploma route? I'm not sure anything I have seen so far is very clear. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you sure it is precisely true that she completed her GED tests? Ref 10 says "I left and graduated from a correspondence school... one of the (conditions) for being emancipated: You have to get your diploma or your GED." Ref 20 says "when you're emancipated, you have to either have your GED, or you have to have graduated from high school. And so from the back of a magazine, we bought this education through correspondence school. It was called ICS, International Correspondence School, bought it for $300, and I finished three years of high school in nine months." I admit I'm not an expert on these things but General Educational Development says that GED is "a group of four subject tests which, when passed, provide certification that the test taker has United States or Canadian high school-level academic skills". But the two quotes from Williams don't say anything about her having taken tests; they say she "finished high school"—which I would guess is the same as getting her diploma; it sounds like GED was the option she didn't choose? Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 22: "...a part that she believed came closest to her personality". Does this ref say this? I didn't spot this, but I may have missed it.
  • May I suggest ref 22 would be better to support "her father ... encouraged her to form a reading habit" than ref 7? Ref 7 mentions her love of books but not her father, while ref 22 ties the two together.
  • Ref 24: "featured alongside" may suggest a relatively big role like those of Pfieffer and Lange, but in the list of roles she is quite far down. If it was a small role, maybe you can tie it in with the "minor roles" mentioned earlier in the sentence. Also, I assume ref 25 is for Killing Mr. Griffin. May I suggest putting it before ref 24, to keep the same order as the roles listed in the text? Moisejp (talk) 03:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 33, it looks like you may have copy-and-pasted the template from ref 32 but missed updating the title? Moisejp (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "It earned $55 million against its $17 million budget." The source (ref 35) specifies these were domestic earnings—it could be good to say this, as some of the figures in the article are for worldwide earnings. Moisejp (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I am a little confused by this sentence in the second paragraph of the lead (Williams went on to gain critical acclaim for playing emotionally troubled women coping with loss or loneliness in the independent dramas Wendy and Lucy(2008), Blue Valentine (2010), and Manchester by the Sea (2016).) due to the chronology. You mention a 2016 film here and then proceed to discuss films that were released before it in the subsequent sentences. I am just curious on why you went with this route?
What I tried to do in this sentence is club her critically acclaimed roles. So that the flow in this paragraph would be: her acclaimed roles; the role she won an award for, immediately after; her highest-grossing releases; and finally her Broadway appearances. Does that make sense? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It makes sense to me. I just wanted to hear your reasoning for it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This may be a silly question, but I am confused by “the Robbins World Cup Championship of Futures Trading”. What kind of championship is this? What are they competing in? I was a little lost as it is not made directly clear in the prose and there is not a link for further context either.
Tweaked with a wiki link. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Something about this part (but Williams was not intimidated by the challenge, crediting Raimi for making her comfortable with the process) reads a little off to me. Could you just say (but Williams credited Raimi for making her comfortable with the process). Something about the middle phrasing/wording seems a little too sensational or overly praising for me.
Makes sense. Removed. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on this sentence (She later regretted working on the project.) or this sentence (Displeased with the film roles she was being offered, Williams spent the next few years working on stage.). I am curious on what she regretted or found disappointing here?
Tweaked it. Is it better now? --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it is better. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think you should add a bit about “All the Old Knives” and “Annette”. I am not sure how it works per say as there are articles out there about Williams being attached to the two projects, but no further word to the best of my knowledge.
Yeah, so I've added the Annette role, which was confirmed last year, but not All the Old Knives, because Variety reported that she was "in talks" to star, but there's been no further confirmation on that. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. I would imagine that it is difficulty to keep up with an actor's future projects as there is plenty of changes (i.e. films falling through, actors being replaced, etc.) Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There are duplicate links in the “Acting credits and awards” section for the film titles. Please remove them as they were already linked in previous sections. Same comment for the phrase “Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play”.
Right, so since these links are mostly scattered through the rest of the article, I feel it's beneficial to consolidate them at one place. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would disagree on this matter. I have also been told that items should only be linked once in an article (and primarily on their first use in the article) to avoid overlinking. However, I will leave this up to other reviewers as I may be incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you think that there should be a note on the top of the page to link to the other Michelle Williams (i.e. Michelle Williams (singer))?
I guess not, since there are WP:2DABS and no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I think that both article titles help us distinguish them clearly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I just wanted to clear it with you first. I doubt that anyone really confuses the two even though they have the same name lol. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Oddly enough, I have only seen Williams in two films (Dick and Oz the Great and Powerful). I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I hope that my comments are helpful, and I hope that you have a great rest of your week? Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Aoba47 and as usual, they have been most helpful. :) Do try and watch more of her films -- especially if you are in need of an existential crisis. ;) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. You have done a great job with this. I will definitely check out more of her work in the future; I would love to see My Week with Marilyn sometime in the future. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Aoba47. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I am just glad that I could help; hats off for tackling such a large topic. I really should try and work on an article about an actor in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Halmyros

Nominator(s): Constantine 11:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The Battle of Halmyros was a pivotal event in medieval Greek history, ending the first century of the Frankokratia with the rout of the Duchy of Athens and the installation of the Catalan Company as masters over much of central Greece, much to the consternation of pretty much every other power in the region. The article has been worked on-and-of since 2014, and has passed GAC and more recently, MILHIST's ACR, much to its benefit on both cases. I feel it is complete both content- and context-wise, and includes the best relevant scholarship. Any further suggestions to improve it will, of course, be most welcome. Constantine 11:09, 24 June 2018 (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) 13:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot as usual, Dank, your edits are fine. Constantine 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Gran-Companyia-Catalana-segell-1305.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Tag added, I am working on a better-quality version of the map (based on File:Map of the southern Balkans, 1410.svg), but this will take time. Constantine 17:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support it is a comprehensive article and nicely researched. Only comments regard the citations number 1 and 37. It will be nicer if 1 can be in the sources and 37 turned into a note. But I will leave this to the judgement of the nominator as it is not very important and wont affect this high quality aticle.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about then, with the proviso that I knew practically nothing about this period of Frankish Greek history when I first read it. I've taken a look at the changes and additions since then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • None of the three "primary sources" listed is cited in the article.
  • There are no publisher details for the Jacoby work cited in ref 37. Can you also confirm the language for this source?

Otherwise, sources seeem to be in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The primary sources are given because they are well, the primary sources. They have not been used in the article, except to check up on the facts reported by the secondary sources. Should I remove them to a separate section? I've also asked Phso2, who is very knowledgeable about Frankish Greece and the relevant scholarly literature, to take a look at the article, so there may be some additions, including new sources, over the next few days. Constantine 18:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have not used these sources directly, they should not appear in your list of sources. They could be listed as Further reading or External links. Though, if you've used them to confirm information included in your secondary sources, perhaps they should be cited. Incidentally, you've not answered my query with Jacoby. Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Brianboulton, I've moved the primary sources down to a separate section "Primary accounts", but have considerably reworked and expanded the sources part in the main article. I've also used Jacoby to rewrite the localisation debate, and expand a bit on the comments that Phso2 already made on the similarity with Courtrai. Please have a look. Cheers, Constantine 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
What you've done satisfies my concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo

Support on: Citation style; HQRS; Primary & Tertiary use; plagiarism by style check; historiography check; white myth/clean wehrmacht check. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Citation out of style "David Jacoby, Catalans, Turcs et Vénitiens en Romanie…"; Last, First (Year).
  • Short citation out of style "Setton (Catalan domination of Athens, p. 11)" Author Year, p. nn.
  • Kalaitzakis 2011 is a popular encyclopaedia article, but appropriately used
  • Brittanica is appropriately used
  • Miller, William (1908). is heavily used. Is this text still approved of by other scholars in the historiography? cited as a seminal and standard text. Good work.
  • Historiographical commentary inline is good.
  • I don't see a "white myth" problem in this article.
  • I read style for plagiarism. Style is consistent to me.
Hi Fifelfoo, I have reworked some sections of the article, and addressed your reference formatting issues. Please have another look. Cheers, Constantine 17:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note to coordinators: nominator has not responded for almost 2 weeks. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note I will be on vacation and possibly without a good internet connection until early August, so my response to any new comments may take some time. Constantine 09:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

British logistics in the Falklands War

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an aspect of the Falklands War. If you've heard of this war, you're probably Gen X or older. It has long since become an historical footnote, but is of great interest to logisticians as a high-intensity conflict fought with modern weapons in a remote location lacking roads, thousands of miles from the nearest bases. The article has an A class review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)


Reads nicely and very little to pick up on (unsurprising, as it's had the A Class review). I'm having to nit-pick to find even these two so far, but:

  • "to the height of a mexeflote" – just to help those of us who need to click away, perhaps "to the height of a mexeflote landing raft"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "supply was therefore Freetown in Sierra Leone": I'm not sure the "therefore" is needed
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Done to the end of "Logistical", with more to come. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  • "650 Argentine Prisoners of War" - should that be "prisoners of war"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "defuze" - that's rather archaic in normal language - it is used with that spelling in military circles, or would "defuse" serve better?
    The normal form in BrEnglish. And yes, we always used that form in the US too, per the DoD dictionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's it from me. It reads very well and is very informative. I have absolutely no knowledge of logistics, particularly in the military, so this is a prose review only, per my caveat. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

Nice article, I remember reading blow-by-blow accounts of the Falklands War over breakfast in the Australian as a teenager... Formed part of my motivation for joining the Army a couple of years later.

  • I'm not familiar with Hercules aircraft being used to do airdrops to ships. How did that work?
    The goods are parachute dropped in a waterproof container. Added this. I looked for a more technical description, found details of the missions flown and aircraft involved and even photographs of the drops. Also added a bit about Mission "Ursula", in which a colonel was parachuted into the ocean. Hope this is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • yomp is a bit colloquial/jargonish
    It is so associated with the campaign that I felt it should stay. It is linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • the bit in the lead about Sandy Woodward's observations isn't covered in the body, which also needs further explanation of what other factors drove this assessment
    Moved to the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • in the lead, suggest "from the Falkland Islands, which had an airfield." I assume it also had a port which was important logistically? This port detail seems to be missing from the Ascension Island section as well.
    Added "There was an anchorage, but no port facilities, just a lone jetty" to the Ascension section. The port at Stanley is discussed in the Aftermath section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • might be worth mentioning in the lead that the 500 rnds per gun was stocked by helos
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • might be worth explicitly pointing out when first mentioned that 3 Commando Bde was a RM organisation and that the paras and 5th Bde were Army.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • what were the prime movers? Or were these just Bedford trucks? And if the tpt sqn wasn't taken, where did the 54 "prime movers" come from (sounds like most of a sqn to me)
    Looking at its TOE, the transport squadron had 82 4-ton trucks. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • trim "Over the next few weeks the BFSU ballooned to over 800 personnel in the first three weeks"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • worth mentioning that the Herc is a transport
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1000 meals a day on the island? Shouldn't that be 3000 for 1000 pers?
    That's what the source says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "For this reason, peacetime financial restraints had precluded the RN from practicing beaching manoeuvres."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • link Mexeflote on first mention
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a bit more is needed regarding the bow loading of the LSLs and the impact it had. Were they reloaded, and how were they discharged into the mexeflotes and LC, by crane?
    By hand and forlift through the stern doors. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • STUFT were a poor substitute? As it appears to be used here in a plural sense.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "The STUFT also took 90,000 rations with them"
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • what was done to discharge the STUFT that Clapp withdrew?
    Eventually discharged by landing craft and helo, as described below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Herc airdrops to ships? How did that work?
    See above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "These were reserved for night operations. To allow the crews to rest, and necessary aircraft maintenance to be performed, they were not employed during the day. " contains a bit of redundancy
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "On 24 May 11" needs a comma
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "exceeded the forecast"?
    Not done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "The final four-days"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 59 Sqn is referred to differently in different spots, making it unclear it is the same unit
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 50 Fd Sqn? Where did they come from?
    England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Did the workshops remain afloat until Stanley was captured, or did they move into the BMA before that?
    One detachments remained on each LPD, the others joined the BMA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • operated by the NAAFI or EFI?
    NAAFI. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • the original version of fn 15 is now 404 so can be dispensed with
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • fn 105 is now 404
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo

Support. Reviewed on: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," class / gender / colour query, plagiarism style check, plagiarism spot check, if sources support claims spot check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check Fifelfoo (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  • 1a: Good. I found some smart quotes… “”. So yeah, I checked your double quotes throughout. IFTFY.
    One fixit: Minor: "It was also missing 383 Commando Petroleum Troop, as this was made up of reservists, who were not called up." What was missing? The noun can't be readily located in previous sentences. 3 Commando? 54 Commando Logistics?
    The Commando Logistic Regiment. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    lmftfy en versus em in body
  • 1b: Done: Comprehensive (weight)
  • 1c: Done: Research completeness
  • 1c: Done: checked what are the major sources, their dates, their use structure
  • 1c: Done: Checks out: Where are the HQRS used, and the lower QRS? Check whether analytical claims are cited against authorative/seminal HQRS?
    • Done: Full cite in citations: lQRS used for trivium, appropriate to their level.
    • Done: Bibliography, PRIMARIES: Uses checked as appropriate (Movements, reassignments, orders, construction actions, no analysis hangs on them): Clapp, Fursdon (in EXPERT area, cited supplementary to HQRS narrative for EXPERTise), Gardiner, Hellberg, Jolly, Pook (double cited against other unknown on trivium), Thomson 1985, Van der Bijl
    • Done: Bibliography, publishers/modes not known to reviewer, Brown (EXPERT, gpreview), Burden (lower QRS, trivium weight appropriate)
    • Done: Checks out: sandbox, strip (what you consider) primaries / lQRS, check HQRS narrative as you do it. (Why did I do this?, because I could identify PRIMARY uses easily when reading, but couldn't identify lQRS uses as well and wanted to check weight/structure)
  • 1c: Done: Query: Was there any historiographical debate WEIGHTY to include?
    High-quality sources are used throughout. The article is only about British logistics, and the islands are called the Falklands throughout, per WP:COMMONNAME, but obviously a NPOV issie. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    I definitely agree on this, but I more meant, did the history itself generate interesting historiographical debate, "Despite the Joan School emphasising X, a new appreciation has extended this in the Bob School." I don't expect that such would exist here, but I think it is worth asking for our high quality history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    None within the scope of the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, expected this, had to ask. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1c: Done: Query: For debates in military science as a discipline, "For the RAF, the primary lesson of the war was the utility of aerial refuelling…" Did the Argentinians, or other powers, react with military science findings as a result of the war? Privratsky, Kenneth L. (1 April 1986)? Valovcin, Paul (February 1992)?
    Expanded the lessons to an entire section. I would like to editorialise here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Brilliant. I expected this might be the , as the British military science response already existed in the article. I can understand the temptation to editorialise given Thompson's block quote, which translated from bureaucratese is very hard on deficiencies. Thanks, will read as I complete this review. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1c: Done: Checking for appropriate use of PRIMARY TERTIARY sources. Full citations in footnotes checked. Bibliography checked (see above in relation to HQRS/lQRS use).
  • 1c: Done: Query: One problem identified in wikipedia is the sanitisation of articles, often by not-reflecting HQRS consensus / scholarly consensus. This can be called "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht". Improper military conducts could be (based off unpalatable military history in general): improper putting down of the PoW riot; forced requisition, billeting and housing (civil population); and, improper labour use of PoWs. When you were reading did any of these emerge in the sources?
    No issues of this kind. Alfredo Astiz was wanted by France and Sweden in relation to crimes committed elsewhere, but the Geneva Convention did not permit prisoners to be handed over to a third party, and he was returned to Argentina. I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Glad to hear there were no issues. I don't think Astiz's correct treatment is weighty for Logistics, but it would of course be to a PoW article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1c: Done: Query: A similar problem is blindness to the major categories of social history. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers class / gender / race? In this article I'm particularly thinking of gender, and in relation to STUFT—class (owner complaint? seaman industrial issues?).
    Added a bit about the Hong Kong Chinese crewmen on the RFAs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Cheers for doing this. I didn't view this as a weight deficiency in this article, but I think it is worth asking after in our highest quality history articles generally. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism style check
  • 1c: Done: Clean: Plagiarism spot check [7 (futon)]
  • 1c: Done: Clean: Spot-check if claims are in sources [7 (futon, trivium)]. Didn't have the time resource to check HQRS
  • 1d: Done: Appears neutral over repeated rereadings to do this.
  • 1e: Done: Its stable
  • 2b: Done: Query: When you developed the article's structure and weight what HQRS literature inspired the article's consensus?
    The article draws mostly on Privatsky, Freedman and Thompson. Its structure is similar to Privratsky, in that it is geographical-chronological-topical, but this is also the structure I employed in my PhD thesis. I discussed the logistics of the campaign with Thompson in 2005. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Many thanks for the reply. These sources already stood out in the rereadings of the article so far. I'm sure I'll attend to their use while finishing the content / research portions of the review above. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 2c: Done: Citations checked: consistent. Footnotes checked: consistent.
  • 2c: Done: Miscited: lmftfy so far.
  • 3: Done: Query: The image captioned, "Key locations and the routes taken by British land forces during the Falklands War" is rather terse about unit designations. M&AW, for example, meant nothing to me until I'd spent some time searching?
    Added a legend explaining that SAS = Special Air Service; SBS = Special Boat Squadron; M&AW = Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre (the Special Forces of the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Marines respectively) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Many thanks. I can picture some readers stumbling over SBS or even SAS when they're excited by the map. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 3: Done: Query: I'm assuming the map reflects your understanding of consensus of the war?
    It hasn't been fully translated from German, but was chosen as the best one we had that showed the locations mentioned in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
    Good stuff! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 3: Done: The blockquote "The majority of senior officers and their staffs were handicapped by a dearth of understanding of the logistic realities…" is appropriately chosen.
  • 4: Done: I can't see a useful possibility of reducing length. Sub-articles wouldn't stand well on their own. This makes me think the length is appropriate.

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi Hawkeye7, thoroughly readable, fascinating and informative. (And yes I remember it, seemed to come out of nowhere and be over quickly.) As usual most of my comments are gnomish plus suggested wlinks...

  • For the first time in British history - in British military history?
    I think it is clearer this way. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • One British prisoner was held in Argentina, Flight Lieutenant Jeffrey Glover, who was released on 16 July. - read better? One British prisoner, Flight Lieutenant Jeffrey Glover, was held in Argentina; he released on 16 July. (You could link him, it redirects to the skirmish.)
    Done. The grammar becomes more convoluted n the process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • opened by Prince Andrew - too trivial to mention that he had served there?
    It's alright. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • it was supplied by Toronto through a dracones moored offshore - is that one or plural?
    Singular. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • sea-keeping - wlink?
    Why not. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • caption: landing map - SBS = Special Boat Squadron needs dab already fixed
  • Argentinian prisoners v Argentine prisoners
    Settled on "Argentine". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Argentine prisoners at Goose Green - wlink Goose Green?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • and other stores including tent accommodation - 'other' not necessary or are the helicopters considered stores?
    Added "along with their tools and spare parts" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • dispatched v despatched
    Settled on "despatched" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Brigadier Julian Thompson - refine wlink to Brigadier (United Kingdom)?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • had been dismantled for maintenance work - 'the' maintenance work (because maintenance already mentioned prev sentence)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • take on sea water as ballast - seawater one word?
    No; that US English, which is heavily influenced by German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • producing potable water - wlink potable or add (drinking)?
    Wlinked potable water
  • low intensity patients - is that definitely low 'intensity' not low 'dependency' patients?
    Should be "low dependency". Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • As minor injuries such as trench foot were anticipated, this was undesirable. - it was undesirable for them to be treated on Uganda?
    Yes. Reworded to "Due to the distances involved, this meant a prolonged absence for casualties, even those with minor injuries" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Royal Naval Reserve doctors were called up for service in the UK - ambiguous? from UK to go with task force or used in UK to treat homecoming?
    Added "to replace those headed for the Falklands" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • but these were soon swamped by the requirements - overwhelmed
    Changed (Everyone knows Hawkeye lives in the Swamp.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • all contractors or employees, or the families of contractors or employees, - just 'and their families'
    Doesn't read right
  • sending people back on the planes they arrived on - to where, UK?
    Or Sierra Leone. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • parachuted into the sea and plucked from the water - was plucked already fixed
  • 30 Signal Regiment - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • H-hour - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rick Jolly - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Queen Elizabeth 2 was met by a veritable fleet - is 'the' needed?
    To avoid any confusion with Queen Elizabeth II Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Farnella - RV Odyssey Explorer
    Created a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Snowcats - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • prize crew - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Aftermath "Built in the 1970s, the airfield" - Port Stanley Airport doesn't seem to have been linked yet. Do here or at "matting earmarked for repairing the airfield at Port Stanley"?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • para starts "With the end of hostilities," but further in says "By 20 June 10,250 prisoners had been repatriated. Only 593 remained, including Menéndez. These were held for intelligence gathering, and to encourage Argentina to end hostilities" - But Menéndez surrendered 14 June, hmmm I went back and looked at A-class review..., maybe add 'other' before hostilities and maybe with link to Operation Keyhole?
    Don't see the problem here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
    Added a bit about Operation Keyhole. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • King Edward VII Memorial Hospital - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • British Forces Falkland Islands - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • where it was the subject organised teaching and research at - subject of?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Atlantic Conveyor - not linked in lede per others
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hecate - wlink HMS Hecate (A137)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • RMS St Helena - wlink RMS St Helena (1963)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Farnella - RV Odyssey Explorer
    Created a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Leeds Castle - HMS Leeds Castle (P258)
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In the meantime it was supplied by Toronto - should be Fort Toronto?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ordered to advance to Estancia House - I wondered what this building was, maybe precede with 'the settlement of'?
    Changed to "Estancia", which is how it appears on our map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ref Brown, David (1987). The Royal Navy and the Falklands War - check OCLC
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Rick Jolly - author link
    Linked. Didn't know he had an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Very happy to sign support. (Hee hee, you added the snowcats wlink here instead of article?) Thanks for all. JennyOz (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Don't think we've had an image review here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Kate Sheppard

Nominator(s): gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the leader of the New Zealand suffrage movement, which gained votes for women 125 years ago on 19 September 1893.-gadfium 05:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I will be on holiday and unavailable to respond from 6 August to 21 August. Please don't close this FAC due to lack of response during this period. Other editors may be able to address issues raised while I'm away.-gadfium 20:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the comic and petition
  • File:Julius_Vogel,_ca_1870s.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Women's_Suffrage_Petition_1893_(9365778997).jpg, File:National_Council_of_Women,_Christchurch,_1896.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I've scaled up the images suggested. I think perhaps the petition is now too large but I'll leave it for further comment.
    • Each of the three images you identify have rationales as to why they are in the public domain in New Zealand. I'm not a copyright expert, and if these rationals are not sufficient, I'm happy to remove the images from the article. The photographer of the Vogel portrait died in 1919 and the photo was taken in the 1870s, so it is clearly public domain as New Zealand uses life of author plus 50 years.[10] For the petition, if you accept the copyright belongs to the original petition and not the much later digitisation of it, Sheppard was the author and she died in 1934. The photo of the National Council of Women has an unknown photographer, so its copyright status depends on when it was published. I am not clear on whether this photo was published in the NZ Graphic in 1896, or a similar photo was published there. @Schwede66: might have more information.-gadfium 18:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The primary issue in these cases is the US status - they currently use tags indicating a pre-1923 publication, not simply creation. If a pre-1923 publication can't be demonstrated, a different tag would need to be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I would happily change the tags of the first two to PD-old-70, but that tag says it also needs a US-specific tag. This needs someone well-versed in copyright law to sort out.-gadfium 20:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I have changed the tags of these three images to PD-US-unpublished. If there is evidence found that any have been published, then the original tags were correct. If this is not an acceptable solution, I will request assistance at Commons:Village pump/Copyright.-gadfium 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I've looked into the issue whether the third photo (New Zealand Council of Women) was published in the 16 May 1896 edition of The New Zealand Graphic as implied by the National Library entry. I'd say this is highly likely (what else would they mean by giving this reference?). But one way to know for sure is to go to a library and have a look. Nine libraries hold copies of this journal and the closest one to me is the Canterbury Museum Documentary Research Centre. If needed, I'd be happy to enquire with them (a) whether they hold this edition and (b) whether they give me access. Let me know if it's needed. Schwede66 05:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes please. If you find you don't have time, I can look in the Auckland Museum library.-gadfium 08:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
            • @Schwede66: I can go to the Auckland Museum today if you have not already had a chance to look at this.-gadfium 20:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
              • Oh, I didn't see the previous reply - sorry. This page wasn't on my watchlist (it is now). Let me know if you have success today / find the time to go. If not, I'll ask at the local museum here. Schwede66 20:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
                • The Auckland Museum was not able to supply this to me today, although they do have it, so I found a copy at University of Auckland. The photo was published in 1896, and I have updated the Commons description accordingly. Thanks to @Schwede66: and @Susan Tol: for their help.

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your copyedits, and your support. You have a great ability to turn convoluted prose into plain English!-gadfium 03:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Your writing is in very good shape, and easy to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good.

  • fn 100, 101, 106, 108, 116 and 117 differ from the rest. Suggest moving them down into the sources to match.
  • On the other hand, "Women and the vote: Introduction" and "1893 women's suffrage petition" from New Zealand History are not used in the article. Suggest moving them to the Further Reading section.
  • I had to click on the link to find out what they call "football" in New Zealand
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll tackle these in the morning, about 12 hours from now.-gadfium 06:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Done.-gadfium 23:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, which definitely improved the article. And thank you for your support.-gadfium 19:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " a position through which she elevated the cause of suffrage in New Zealand" A bit clumsy. Maybe " and she used the position to advance the cause of female suffrage in New Zealand"
  • "Kate Sheppard promoted suffrage" I think you need to say female suffrage each time.
  • "she successfully advocated for women's suffrage" I think the wod for is not needed.
  • "Failing health provoked a return to New Zealand" provoked is an odd word here.
  • "George Beath, the partner of Kate's sister Marie" What does partner mean here - lover? fiancé? business partner?
  • "also Classics Master at Christchurch High School at the time" I think "at the time" is superfluous.
  • What are Relative Statistics?
  • "prohibition and women's suffrage would be the organisation's central aim." Presumably aims.
  • "he eventually did so on 19 September, which granted women full voting rights" This sounds awkward. I suggest deleting "which granted women full voting rights" and moving it to replace "enabling women's suffrage" at the beginning of the paragraph.
  • " it was not until 1933 that the first woman was elected to parliament" No change needed, but I see Britain was ahead of NZ on this, and presumably on first woman cabinet minister with Margaret Bondfield in 1929.
  • "but also found time to promote " I would delete "found time"
  • "Sheppard bought new furnishings and appeared to be planning for a permanent residence" This is unclear. New furnishings for a house in Canterbury?
  • A first rate article but some minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done.
  • Re George Beath: In modern New Zealand, "partner" means romantic partner, possibly more so than in other Western countries, but I agree it is inappropriate and confusing in this context. I considered "boyfriend" but I think that would also be inappropriate for that era. The source does not say they were lovers at that point, nor whether they were engaged. "Suitor" might work, but I went with "future husband" which makes no assumptions at all.
  • Relative Statistics seems to be a term used by the prohibition movement and I cannot find a definition of it. In the American temperance movement, the equivalent position was at one time called "Relation of Intemperance to Labor and Capital with Relative Statistics" (source: "A brief history of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union : outline course of study for local unions", section 36, from which I gather it means the comparitive consumption of alcohol between the working classes and the capitalists. Perhaps the term was used differently in New Zealand, so I am reluctant to add such an explanation to the article.
  • Thank you for your review, and if my changes are not satisfactory I am very happy to discuss further improvements.-gadfium 22:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Army of Sambre and Meuse

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the French army engaged in the Campaigns of 1795-96. It was part of a major campaign in 1796 which resulted, initially, in French incursians well into the Holy Roman Empire. With supply lines stretched, and infighting among generals, this army and the Army of the Rhine and Moselle were forced back to France. As usual, I have used a citation system common among US academics, and generally used in dissertations. It's what I know. This article has undergone extensive editing and perusal at the MilHist A-class review (and earlier). I look forward to your comments and suggestions. auntieruth (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png, File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png Green tickY added larger px
  • Generally scaling should instead be done using |upright=, unless there's a reason not to. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: what do the different colours represent? Green tickY
  • File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png: not clear to me from looking at this which colour would be considered "light cream" Green tickY
  • Suggest rephrasing caption of the location map to make clear that the "triangle" refers to the position of the three cities, rather than an actual visible triangle Green tickY
  • File:Fusilier_Révolution_française.jpg: on what source is this image based? Green tickY I've confirmed how these soldiers would hve been dressed, based on other sources
  • File:Armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse.png: what is the source for this graph? Green tickY
  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: what is the source of the data for this map? Green tickY
  • File:L'armée_de_Sambre-et-Meuse,_1795.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Jean-Victor_Moreau.jpg, File:Marechal_François-Joseph_Lefebvre.jpg Green tickY
  • File:Général_Jean_Étienne_Vachier_detto_Championnet_(3).jpg needs a US PD tag and a better source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Green tickY
Nikkimaria I think I did it right....Not sure on the upscaling....auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

  • The lead should have some mention of how many people the army had, and where they were mostly from (conscripts etc.). This can be tacked onto the (rather small) first para.
  • He and his fellow monarchs threatened ambiguous but serious consequences if anything should happen to the royal family. - why "ambiguous" - normally when someone says, "serious consequences" it can be undefined anyway.
  • The number of troops involved is ambiguous - does this mean merely "unclear" or were there two possibilities..?

Overall, the article reads okay - no other obvious prose issues. Topic is dry for me but I figured a non-military person's view was prudent. It has a lot of context but that seems on the whole sensible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, Ruth, I saw this at ACR earlier in the year and think it is pretty good, although I caveat that it is not a topic area I know anything about. I made a few minor copy edits tonight and have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • in the Background section, suggest linking "1789 revolution" to French Revolution rather than just "1789"
  • I suggest maybe trying to split the paragraph in the Politics subsection as it seems quite long
  • the specific date of "29 September" does not seem to be mentioned in the body of the article. I would suggest adding it to the last sentence of the "Reformation" sectionn
  • would it be possible to have "File:Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse.png" translated so that we use the English language version? Also, I think it needs a caption
  • the location of "File:Armée de Sambre-et-Meuse.png" is probably not ideal as it doesn't directly relate to the text which it appears near. I'd suggest maybe moving it to the Original formation section. Of course, that creates a dilemma with the images you have in that section, though. It might be possible to move the painting down, though, potentially to the 1795 campaign section.

Lawrence Weathers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Weathers was an Australian soldier who was awarded the Victoria Cross during World War I, although he was killed near the end of the war and before learning he was to receive it. When he returned to his mates after the actions that earned him the VC, his uniform was covered in mud, he had blood running down his face, and had five days' stubble on his chin. He was also festooned "like a Christmas tree" with souvenired German binoculars and pistols. He, assisted by a few others had captured 180 Germans and three machine guns. It is a fairly brief article, but his life was short, and I believe I've captured everything about him available from reliable sources. This is the latest from a long-term project I'm working on to get all South Australian VC recipients to FA. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria!
  • Support on prose. Seems small but perfectly formed to me; nice article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from JennyOz

Hi Peacemaker67, I'm happy to support but adding a few unimportant minor suggestions.

  • wlink HMAT Afric this SS Afric (per this and this)?
  • his battalion saw during the war, the Battle of Messines,[5] during which the 43rd Battalion incurred 122 casualties during a night-time operation - 3 x 'during's, swap one for 'at' or 'in'?
  • between the Ancre and the Somme west of - add 'rivers' after Somme?
  • battalion was responsible for clearing the village itself - wlink village to Le Hamel?
  • there is a bit on Trove about him having 4 brothers and 3 sisters, and a 2yr overseas trip prior to signing up. This one mentions Annie was known as Tess and was from Unley and their 2 children were aged 5 and 3 when he died.

Thanks for telling his story. JennyOz (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jenny! Very naughty of me to not check Trove before nominating... Added both sources and expanded the Early life section with that content. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for those additions PM. Yatala needs further dab'ing maybe the Rosewater one? Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support: Nice work, PM, as always. I reviewed this at A-class review and see that it has been further improved since then. I have a few observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  • ext links all work and there are no dab links;
  • there are no duplicate links;
  • the citations appear correctly formatted to me, using a consistent style;
  • I suggest adding alt text to the image;
  • training in the UK would most likely have been on Salisbury Plain, do any of your references cover this?
  • "night-time operation": do we know what the objective was?
  • do we know what Weathers' unit did between December 1917 and March 1918? Probably wintered in Belgium, rotating between the front and rear areas. I suggest possibly adding a sentence about this to the second paragraph of the World War I section, if you have a reference for this.

Sources review

Trivial points only:

  • "Australian War Memorial" and "National Archives of Australia" are not print sources and so should not be italicised
  • weird that the cite web template italicises them automatically.
  • Its because you were using "website=" rather than "publisher=". The website is the thing that's published, not the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ISBNs should preferably be in standardised 13-digit format per Wigmore and Harding
  • On a very minor presentational point: I don't think 27 footnotes warrants four columns

In general the sources are well presented and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review, Brianboulton! All done, although I have kept the columns to reduce whitespace. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: , this looks good to go. Can I have dispensation for a fresh one please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Feel free! --Laser brain (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ian -- like Rupert, I reviewed at ACR and, although the article is among the briefest bios I've read at FAC, I don't see major holes in its summary of what was after all a pretty brief life and career; having checked changes since ACR, I found a few places to tweak prose but overall it reads well and I'll take as read Nikki's and Brian's image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Brevity is a reality for many of the VC recipients, but as long as we reflect everything available in reliable sources, I don't see why they cannot get to FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

AirTrain JFK

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free). The article was passed as a Good Article in October. I think I have found all the high-quality and relevant sources about this topic that I can find, so I have nominated this page for Featured Article status. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. epicgenius (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Strong Support by AmericanAir88


  • Bibliography Number 6 is a Dead Link
  • Reference 126 is a Dead Link

Amazing work as always. As the Good Article Nominator of this article, I definitely Support this article.

@AmericanAir88: Thanks for the support, I have fixed these links. Also to clarify, you were the reviewer on the GA nomination. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "airport's operator, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey." It is more relevant here that they own the railway - maybe mention both.
  • "renovation of the three airports" What three airports - apologies if I have missed your explanation.
  • "This would provide faster service to JFK via a one-seat ride " Is one-seat ride USEng for not having to change trains?
  • There is a missing url error message on n 15.
  • Article looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: Thanks for the comments, and sorry for the delay. I've fixed all the issues you've mentioned above. You are correct, "one-seat ride" is the same as not having to transfer. epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This article has been promoted to GA status and has been stable for quite a while now. I have recently beefed up the lead section to better represent the material found in the body of the article, in anticipation of a Featured Article candidacy. Aside from that there have been very few edits since the GAC process and these represent minor if not superficial change. The article is very short but covers a wide variety of topics, while utilizing a decent amount of scholarly sources. The images are all properly sourced and licensed. As far as I know there are no glaring omissions of any major themes covered in academia that pertain to this topic. For anyone who's a fan of ancient history, including the reigns of Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, it will most likely be an entertaining and informative read. Enjoy! Pericles of AthensTalk 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: that's good to know! Thanks. Pericles of AthensTalk 20:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit dismayed that this hasn't attracted much commentary, as it's a very interesting subject. Just a placeholder to note that I intend to review this soon. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Iazyges
  • I've made edits to the page to ensure all sources have identifiers, and fixed some issues with using page ranges for single pages. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is a citation without a bibliography, the Adams 2010 cite, which I believe should have this as its corresponding book, but am not certain enough to add myself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Prose suggestions
  • Written evidence about Macedonian governmental institutions made before Philip II of Macedon's reign is both rare and non-Macedonian in origin. suggest:
    Written sources about Macedonian governmental institutions made before Philip II of Macedon's reign are both rare and non-Macedonian in origin.
  • although this issue of kingship and governance is still unresolved in academia suggest:
    although this issue of kingship and governance is still debated in academia

John Doubleday (restorer)

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

John Doubleday had several careers. In private life he was a dealer, but he is remembered best as the British Museum’s first specialist restorer. His “immortality as the prince of restorers”, as it was put at the time, was assured when a drunken young man smashed the Portland Vase, one of the museum’s most famous treasures, and Doubleday pieced it back together. Doubleday was also called upon to restore Babylonian clay tablets—the results were catastrophic—and to testify in criminal trials, including when another young man (this time sober) stole thousands of pounds worth of coins from the museum.

Doubleday’s life is enigmatic. Despite research by myself and others, all that can be said of the first 30-odd years of his life is that he was born between 1796 and 1800 in New York, and that he worked at a print shop in his youth; at the other end of his life, the disposal of his estate is curious. This article nevertheless represents an exhaustive look at the available sources, and has benefited by the input of multiple people. There is little more that can realistically be asked of this article, which is ready for FAC. Usernameunique (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:John_Doubleday_with_the_Portland_Vase.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:JohnDoubledayHC-NPG.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. The earliest publication I know of is in a 1989 book. Should an unpublished tag be used instead (and any suggestions for which tag)? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Typically an unpublished tag would only work for things first published after 2002 - 1989 is too early. Is it possible the NPG/BM would have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, in the US at least, should the copyright of unpublished works with author unknown not expire 120 years after creation, so here in 1965? ——Usernameunique (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a bit more complicated than that since the works are not originally American - see the Cornell chart. {{PD-US-unpublished}} specifies no publication before 2003. More details if possible would help nail down the status. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Usernameunique: The response there confirms my understanding of the situation - without more details we would need to assume this isn't PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Nikkimaria, sorry for the delay in responding. Also pinging Stefan2, who gave helpful advice in the now-archived post at WP:MCQ. It's possible the photograph was published before 1989 (have just sent the BM an email asking for clarification, and have also asked on the Portland Vase talk page), but I haven't been able to find any evidence of it. The 1989 book was a British Museum publication by a British Museum conservator (Nigel Williams) who had himself just restored the Portland Vase (and, incidentally, published a photograph of himself in identical pose—see Williams's article), so the publication of the Doubleday photograph was germane then in a way that it would not be for most previous publications. Of course, I may have just missed an earlier publication, especially as I'm not familiar with much of the Portland Vase literature. The 1989 copyright appears to be valid ("© 1989 The Trustees of the British Museum"). If this nearly 200-year-old photograph is still copyrighted in the US, would it still be under copyright in the UK, or would we need distinct license tags? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It would not necessarily still be under copyright in the UK, but that doesn't really matter if it is in the US - we'd need to host it locally, and locally we only care about US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Primarily looking at sourcing and source formatting, at least on this pass. First impression: you might want to think about two columns for the Bibliography.

  • Done.
  • I really don't understand when you choose to use {{free access}} versus {{open access}}. In my mind, open access represents a source published under the open access model, as distinct from one where a freely-accessible copy now exists. In any case, there's no clearly consistent rule being used here.
  • Open access is being used when the source is in the public domain, free access when it still might be under copyright but is nevertheless available to read for free online. This is per Firebrace's advice here, which is based on Open access#Gratis and libre open access.
  • Book-format sources that lack an ISBN (such as due to age) should have an OCLC identifier, when possible.
  • Which ones are you thinking of? I include an OCLC if it neither has an ISBN nor is available online (such as the 1856 auction catalogue), but if it’s an out-of-copyright work that’s available online (such as on Google Books), there’s no real point in double providing the bibliographic information.
  • Periodicals typically only require a publisher when that would be necessary or useful to identify the work in question (although you certainly have more cause to do so when citing 19th century publications). Publication location is discouraged for periodicals except where necessary for identification (it's fine with The Morning Post, for example). In any case, although there are some aspects of editorial discretion here, you should check the list for consistent application one whatever rules you set.
  • Added locations, and a few publishers, when possible. There are a few for which I'm unsure what the correct information is (e.g., Petrie, Sharpe & Hardy), and a few for which it seemed some information would be entirely redundant (such as the Report of the Architectural Society of the Archdeaconry of Northampton), but I've added a fair amount.
  • If you retain publisher locations, "Saonara" will absolutely need to include country.
  • Done.
  • Volume XXXII of Archaeologia doesn't display the volume number in bold. Honestly, I'll admit – I have no idea what is going on here. The rest of the entries display normally, and the template is formatted exactly the same.
  • Yep, this annoys me too. Apparently bold cuts out when the volume number is too long, so XXXI gets bolded but XXXII doesn’t. Solving this probably requires a template edit, which I have no idea how to do.
  • ISBNs should ideally all be presented as correctly hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • All post-2006 books have the 13 digit ISBN. Is conversion necessary for those published before 2007?
  • Any particular reason why it's best practice? Sorry if I sound incorrigible here; I don't mean to be, just feels weird to cite a book with information that's not contained within it.
  • If you need to cite the 1851 English census, is it possible to do so directly, rather than a summarized excerpt at FamilySearch? Consider whether there's a need to directly cite this sort of primary material rather than, for example, the National Picture Gallery capsule (already referenced elsewhere) that appears to include much or all of the same content.
  • I'm open to suggestions—just tried using {{cite census}}, but turns out that's particular to the US censuses. I think it's worth having in some form, for a number of reasons: there are very few primary sources about Doubleday, this provides a fair amount of information, and some of it (such as the names of Doubleday's daughters) is not included on the National Portrait Gallery page. Another option would be to link to Ancestry, which actually has a photograph of the page, although that requires a paid account (FamilySearch requires a free account).
  • Is there a reason you are citing two editions of The English Cyclopædia: Arts and Sciences for what seems to be the same fact? Should you list "British Museum, The" as the internal section / chapter cited?
  • Not a good one: removed. Added the chapter.
  • What is the benefit of referencing Timothy Miller Limited's commercial auction site for three specific example pieces? Contrariwise, are any of the images available of Doubleday's work outside of the British Museum distinctive enough to be worth a non-free use inclusion to illustrate his work as a dealer?
  • The benefit is that the links have good, detailed photographs of the items Doubleday sold, and they are also the only source for "Shakespeare's tree" and the lead seal. I’ve emailed both Millett and Shenton to see if I might use their photographs, but didn’t hear back. I would much like to add "Shakespeare's tree" if you think the non-free use is worth it—the images will also be undergoing a bit of a shuffle in a day or two, as I'd like to add an image of Doubleday's headstone to "Personal life".
  • There is some inconsistency about when you include a page number in the reference. At first, I thought you were omitting the page number when the reference was a single page (which I wouldn't do, but which is probably acceptable if done consistently). But at least in the case of the Notes and Queries reference, you include the (single) page number in the references. Personally, I'd prefer to see page numbers in the references for anything paginated, but what really matters is that your citation style is consistent.
  • That's what it was supposed to be, but you're right, Notes and Queries was inconsistent. I've gone through each footnote, and that's the only one that I could find to change. Three others might look inconsistent, but are that way for particular reasons: with Williams 1989 I'm citing to the entire book, Williams 1993 doesn't have the page numbers included in Google Books for some reason (I could ILL it if necessary, but it's a minor point in the article; tried asking Google Books, but their full copy doesn't have page numbers either), and Pickup 2017 (for which I have only a word doc version that Pickup emailed me, not a scan of the work as published).
  • I don't have access to the Panzeri & Gimondi work, but I do have a couple of questions about it. Is the content you are citing from this book independently authored and/or titled? Are you certain that the title is half-Italian and half-English? Indices I was able to find seem to list the book primarily as Amplius Vetusta Servare. Primi Esiti del Progetto Europeo Archivio Storico dei Restauratori Europei. Likewise, is the cited content in English? If it is Italian, it will need a language tag.
  • Good point. It's an independently authored section (by William Andrew Oddy), in English, that takes up a page or two in the book. I won't be able to add the details for about a week and a half (I'm travelling and the scans are at home), but my memory is that there are two titles pages, one in Italian and one in English, and that the English one retains the Italian title but translates the subtitle (see Princeton's catalog entry, e.g.).
  • Squeamish Ossifrage, I've just taken a look. First, I've added the correct information about Oddy being the author of that section. Second, there's only one title, but both the cover (see here) and the title page list subtitles in four languages (it's even more confusing than that, since there are two subtitles—First results of the European Projet and Historical Archive of European Conservator-Restorers—which are each given in four languages). Perhaps just eliminating the subtitle would be the best bet in the face of this confusion; alternatively, using the second one might work, as it is more apposite when considering that the portion used in this article is about a conservator-restorer. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is Caroline Shenton's blog a high-quality reliable source?
  • Surprisingly, the answer is probably yes. She wrote a book on the subject, The Day Parliament Burned Down, which is cited repeatedly in the featured article Burning of Parliament. Though Doubleday is also mentioned in the book, the blog has the benefits of being illustrated, and free to access.
  • The sale of his library probably needs a footnote given the rough equivalent of that value in modern currency; I know there's a semi-automated template providing that service for American dollars. I'm not sure if we have one for British currency.
  • Done.

In general, this is a very thorough examination of 19th century sources, but seems like it may be light on more recent scholarship. Julian Reade's article in this conference proceeding discusses Doubleday's conservation work with bronze artifacts from Nimrud, and contrasts his (admittedly unknown) technique with those of his contemporaries. I don't have access to this paper, but I'm fairly sure that someone will be able to help you out with a copy; indications elsewhere suggest there's some retrospective commentary on his failed attempts to conserve the clay tablets. Doubleday created a fairly impressive amount of cast copies of seals and coins; is there any discussion of their fate in the modern numismatic press (that answer might very well be "no"; I certainly didn't have much luck). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Re. the article suggested above (Reade, J., 'The Manufacture, Evaluation and Conservation of Clay Tablets Inscribed in Cuneiform: Traditional Problems and Solutions', Iraq 79 (2017), 163-202.), I've emailed you it in case you don't have it. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those; information from both is now included in the article. I haven't seen much on Doubleday recently—the 1993 Catalogue of Seals in the National Museum of Wales considers him briefly but uncritically—and until the two articles you provided, had thought I had done an exhaustive search of the available materials; have just done another full search on jstor without turning up much. There's also what looks to be a self-published work (link) from December that has more specifics (e.g., DOB & date of baptism), but these appear to mostly be larger leaps of faith taken off the same primary documents. How did you turn up the two articles?

Thanks for taking a detailed look, Squeamish Ossifrage. Bit of a drawn out undertaking today, and sorry for that, but I think I've now responded to all your comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Tentative support by Cas Liber

Ok, reading through now and most reads nicely. I must say I am not fond of the last sentence of para 1 of the lead - can it be reworded without quoting? e.g. "He was most proud of his 1845 restoration of...."

Otherwise nothing is really jumping out at me prose-wise. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Casliber. I’ve reworded the sentence you mentioned, taking out both quotations. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok - supporting now as it seems comprehensive and lacking any prose clangers, but I concede I know little about the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

V. Gordon Childe

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent and important archaeologists of the 20th century. Childe oversaw a number of important excavations, created important interpretative frameworks, and was a pioneer in using Marxist ideas to understand the archaeological record. It has been a GA for a number of years and underwent an FAC earlier this year, but fell by the wayside due to lack of contributors. Second time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Sorry I missed the first FAC. I recommend letting previous reviewers know about the renomination, if you haven't already.

  • Worth a category for being an academic in Sydney, given that he taught there? (Probably not...) London School of Economics?
  • I've added Childe to the "Academics of the London School of Economics" category, although his associations with that institution were not longstanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there categories for translators? Political assistants/secretaries? Librarians?
  • Oh I have no idea, to be honest. I've found "Category:Australian librarians" so I'll stick that one in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you provide a link for T.J. Smith? I think we're OK with redlinks on people's names now if we don't have an article (which we should)
  • I don't mind redlinks although a lot of editors seem to so I nowadays I'm often loath to add them. I've done some Google searching and I cannot actually find any reference to an Australian leftist politician known as T. J. Smith, but I wonder if it actually a reference to Tom Smith (Australian politician), whose initials were T. J. and who seems to have been active in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't want to guess, but presumably it wouldn't be too hard to find comprehensive lists of MPs from the period? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • A Google search hasn't helped much with this task, although there is probably a published list somewhere. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Schipenitz is presumably also worth a link
  • You introduce How Labour Governs twice. I also really don't link like the in-line external link!
  • Me neither. I'm not sure how that got in there. Removed the links. I've also removed the first reference to How Labour Governs. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "it reflect Childe's disillusionment" Tense
  • "W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J.G. Callender, Walter Grant" Any worth linking?
  • I think that Lindsay Scott is probably sufficiently known within certain archaeological circles to warrant a link. Actually, I'm just going to link them all, and people can remove the redlinks if they see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Involving them in experimental archaeology, of which he was an early proponent," Worth mentioning in the lead? (Also, you use that same "opening subordinate clause" sentence structure a few times in quick succession. I think some readers will find that irritating.)
  • I'm loath to lengthen the lede much more, to be honest, and I'm not quite sure that this is 'important enough' given that only one RS seems to mention it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Was Piggott really a "comrade"?
  • I've changed this to "colleague", which is perhaps more accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Earn's Hugh, Larriban, Knocksoghey, Wallace Thorneycroft, Finavon, Rahoy, Walter Grant... Worth links?
  • I've linked them all, but all but Finavon are presently redlinks. Hopefully those with an interest in the geography of Britain and Ireland could flesh them out at a later date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You claim in "London and early books", concerning The Dawn of European Civilisation, that "Its importance was also due to the fact that it introduced the concept of the archaeological culture into Britain from continental scholarship". You later say about The Danube in Prehistory that "The book introduced the concept of an archaeological culture to Britain from Germany, revolutionising the theoretical approach of British archaeology". This doesn't feel consistent!
  • You're right, it isn't, so I've checked the sources and made some changes to the prose. While Childe first used the culture-historical approach in The Dawn of European Civilisation, it was only in The Danube in Prehistory that he actually set forward a definition of "culture", which is what proved so influential. I've amended the prose to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for now. Great read so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more comments:

  • Perhaps not the most helpful comment, but I found the paragraph beginning "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford" a little tricky to follow.
  • I've made some alterations to the opening sentence, which now reads "In 1949 he and O.G.S. Crawford resigned as fellows of the Society of Antiquaries. They did so to protest the selection of James Mann—keeper of the Tower of London's armouries—as the society's new president, believing that Wheeler, a professional archaeologist, would have been a better choice". Was this sentence the problem or do you think that I should take the pruning shears to other parts of the paragraph too? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "History (1947) continued his belief that prehistory and literate history" Continued to defend his belief? Or something like that?
  • I've gone with "History (1947) promoted a Marxist view of the past and reaffirmed Childe's belief that prehistory and literate history must be viewed together, " Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anthropology is mentioned several times before it is first linked.
  • The section on Marxist archaeology is a bit quotefarm-y; I think most readers will be more interested in hearing what Marxist archaeology is and what Childe's contribution to it was, rather than what lots of people they may not have heard of said about Childe's relationship to Marxism.
  • I've gone back to this section, overseen a bit of a restructuring, and added in several further sentences about Marxist archaeology. This is an issue that Maunus also picked up on (below), and I hope that my edits have sufficiently improved the section. If it still needs more work, let me know and I'll see what I can do to make it clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I was slightly surprised by how much there was a challenge to the idea that he was a Marxist archaeologist. I wonder if there is a way to get these kinds of debates into the lead?
  • I think that this is a reflection of the sectarianism that seems quite endemic in social groups (like Marxism, but also many religious formations) where people get very invested in being the "true disciple". I'm open to the idea of putting something about this in the lede, although I'm just not quite sure how to go about it. I don't really want to lengthen the lede any more. Perhaps something brief in the fourth paragraph? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe's concept of "revolutions" were not universally adopted" Do you perhaps mean "Childe's conceptualisations of these "revolutions" were not universally adopted" or "Childe's concept of "revolution" was not universally adopted"? I'm a little puzzled by the current phrasing.
  • I've changed this to "Not all archaeologists adopted Childe's framework of understanding human societal development as a series of transformational "revolutions";" What do you think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • By "particularist", do you mean "an adherent of historical particularism"? If so, a link would be good. If archaeological particularism is a distinct ideology, a redlink would be good!
  • "probably the best known and most cited archaeologist of the twentieth century" This belongs in the lead (if it isn't already there)!
  • You're right; I've amended the fourth paragraph of the lede to make this claim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Many of the conclusions about Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe that Childe produced have since been found to be incorrect" This probably does, too!
  • I've added the following to the fourth paragraph of the lede: "Although many of his interpretations have since been discredited, he remains widely respected among archaeologists." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Various archaeologists have debated and disagreed over the importance of various different parts of Childe's work." Could I recommend dropping this? I don't think it tells us anything of consequence!
  • "who did the more to develop Childe's "most innovative ideas" after the latter's death than anyone else" A bit wordy
  • I've gone with "In contrast to this American neglect and misrepresentation, Trigger believed that it was an American archaeologist, Robert McCormick Adams, Jr., who did the more than anyone else to posthumously develop Childe's "most innovative ideas"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "in which Boasian particularism had been hegemonic within the discipline" Jargony
  • "Following his death, various articles were published that examined Childe's work from a historical perspective." Again, this is super vague.
  • I've replaced this with "Following his death, various articles examining Childe's impact on archaeology were published." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe is referenced in the American blockbuster film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). Directed by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, the motion picture was the fourth film in the Indiana Jones series that dealt with the eponymous fictional archaeologist and university professor. In the film, Jones is heard advising one of his students that to understand the concept of diffusion he must read the works of Childe." I'm leaning towards suggesting that this is dropped. I don't think it warrants a whole section!
  • I'm not sure about it either. I don't think that I was the one who originally added it, but I could be wrong. Certainly, I've never been totally comfortable with it. What I'll do is delete the section and move a brief mention of the film to an earlier point in the "Legacy and influence" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Really great read; I learnt a lot. That said, when reading the section on his theoretical contributions, I realised I'd come across this kind of thing before; presumably I was seeing Childe's influence without realising it. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, I really appreciate you taking the time with this one. Sorry it took a while to get through all of your comments; as always, I've been distracted with other articles. Let me know if there is anything else that you'd like me to work on. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is a very well put-together article on an important figure. To my (admittedly amateur) eyes, this looks very much worthy of support. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Carabinieri

Hi, very interesting article. I've changed a few things. Here are my first comments, but will probably be adding more:

  • Was Childe's father originally from Australia? Or did he first move there in 1878? In the former case, I'd suggest "They moved back to Australia in 1878". In the latter case "a middle-class couple of English descent" seems a little misleading.
  • Childe's father was born in London and he only moved to Australia in adulthood; Childe's mother also appears to have been born in London, but she emigrated to Australia as a baby and grew up there. This being the case, I'll change "middle-class couple of English descent" to "middle-class English couple". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Schipenitz referred to in the article is today's Shypyntsi, now Ukraine (Schipenitz was its German name). I've added a link. However, in 1922 it was part of Romania and named Şipeniţi. I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to change it in the article.
  • Childe referred to the settlement as "Schipenitz" in his publication, so I was following his lead here. I don't think it matters a great deal which term is used, although given Childe's example "Schipenitz" perhaps has the strongest case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm generally not a big fan of inline external links, but won't insist on anything.
  • Me neither. I'm not sure when the link to How Labour Governs got added, but it wasn't by me. I'll remove it (with apologies to whoever it was that did add it). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "This job meant that he came into contact with many of Britain's archaeologists, of whom there were relatively few during the 1920s" This is a little awkward (many vs few), maybe "most of Britain's archaeologists"?--Carabinieri (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Difficult. "many" and "most" are not quite the same thing and I am unsure if he actually did meet "most" of them. I'll try and take a look at the original RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've checked the original sources and amended the article as follows: "This job meant that he became well known in Britain's then-small community of archaeologists;" Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Some more comments:

  • "He nevertheless made friends in Edinburgh, including W. Lindsay Scott, Alexander Curle, J. G. Callender, Walter Grant, and Charles Galton Darwin, becoming godfather to the latter's youngest son" That long list seemed a little excessive to me, since most people won't know who those people are. Maybe it would make sense to shorten the list a little and explain who the remaining people are?
  • "he organised the BSc degree course so that it began studying..." would that be the degree in archaeology or prehistory?
  • I've checked the source and it seems to suggest that it was archaeology (I'm not aware of any courses on prehistory per se being taught in the UK, at least in recent decades, but I could be wrong about that). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • " he was particularly interested in the role of Soviet archaeology" Archaeology's role in what? In society?
  • Yes. I've gone with "he was particularly interested in the social role of Soviet archaeology". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've never seen Harvard University referred to as the "University of Harvard"
  • "something he believed pivotal in providing knowledge for "the masses"" the quotation marks feel a bit like editorializing, as if you're using the left-wing terminology mockingly. I would suggest omitting the quotation marks and maybe changing it to "for a mass audience". Or was this the way Childe phrased it himself? In that case, I would say so explicitly.
  • The latter. I've gone with "for those he called "the masses"." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "he had kept silent over his disapproval of government policies" This left me wondering what policies, especially since Childe's political views feature fairly prominently in the article. Are the sources any more explicit about this?
  • Unfortunately, they're not. I've looked at Green's biography of Childe, and it simple says "he felt obliged to keep silent over his disapproval of Government policies in case he prejudiced his chances of the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "called towns by their Slavonic rather than Germanic names" this confused me a little. Would this be something like saying Praha instead of Prague or Gdansk instead of Danzig? Saying that Prague is a Germanic name doesn't seem quite right, since Prague and Praha clearly have the same origin (a Slavic origin according to our article). They're just slightly different ways of spelling and pronouncing the same name. Also the name is different in other Germanic languages: Prag in German, Praag in Dutch, etc.
  • Yes, the source gives the examples of "Praha" for Prague, "Plzni" for Pilsa, and "Wroclaw" for Breslau. I've changed the prose to the following: "He further confused his students by consistently referring to the socialist states of eastern Europe by their full official titles, and by referring to towns by their Slavonic names rather than the names with which they were better known in English." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Might it be worth mentioning that Lewis H. Morgan heavily influenced Marx?
  • Hmm. I certainly have no great opposition to the idea, but I'm not sure how much this fact would really contribute to the article at this juncture, nor how it could be added to the pre-existing sentence without looking quite clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Feel free to revert any of my copyediting you disagree with. There's one thing I was curious about: I added an "it" to "Childe's theoretical work had been largely ignored in his lifetime,[206] and remained forgotten in the decades after his death, although would see..." because it sounded wrong to me. But I think there were several instances where the pronoun was omitted after an "although", so I was wondering if this is a normal expression in British English.
  • I'm no expert on grammar and punctuation and that sort of thing, but I think having no "it" after "although" is fairly standard, at least in British English. Then again, there's nothing at all wrong with having the "it" there either, so I'm more than happy with that addition of yours. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have two more issues, which I guess are more about personal taste. First, I feel like there are a lot of excessive footnotes in the article. I understand that there's a trend towards using an increasing number of footnotes, particularly in FAs. I think this is starting to get a little out of hand and I've never seen this kind of density of footnotes with nothing but source references outside of Wikipedia. I do think that every claim in an article needs a source, but references can be combined and they certainly don't need to be repeated. Since this is in keeping with what is becoming established use on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to insist on this, but I'll edit one or two paragraphs to condense the references and you can decide whether to revert my changes or not.

The second issue concerns the weight given to various aspects in the article. I felt like the "Archaeological theory" section could do with a little more context. It starts by mentioning diffusionism, functionalism, and evolutionary archaeology without explaining those terms and, as someone who knows nothing about archaeology, I immediately felt a little lost. The same thing goes for processualism and post-processualism. Maybe those things are too complicated to briefly explain to a lay reader, but if not I think a little more explanation might be useful. I also felt like some of the biographical details were excessive (including those on Childe's personal life), while I would have been much more interested to learn more about his views on archaeology and the results of his research (and maybe a little more about his politics). But, this is probably just a question of personal taste. In any case, despite not knowing anything about archaeology I thought it was an interesting article.--Carabinieri (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Carabinieri, your comments and time are appreciated. I disagree about the footnotes issue; I'm a heavy footnoter, that is certainly true, but I find that putting in a citation after virtually every statement and sentence saves time later when other editors come in and slap "citation needed" tags onto any sentences lacking them. Better to put the citations in now then have to rummage around for the original sources later. As for the issue of respective weight, I agree that it would be nice to have more about Childe's politics, but to be honest I've been constrained by what the Reliable Sources actually discuss, and none have really gone into great detail on this issue (bear in mind that he didn't actually write and publish on political issues much). Perhaps future publications on the subject will allow the article to be fleshed out more in these directions. As for a greater discussion of diffusionism, functionalism, processualism etc I again think your point is valid. I'm going to have a go at adding a brief explanation of processualism and post-processualism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Gordon_Childe.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I can't find any evidence that it has been published (at least in print). From what I can gather at the National Library of Australia website, it was taken in the 1930s and no specific first publication is provided. It may well be that the photograph was taken, never published, and placed in the National Library archive until being featured in their online archive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Orkney_Skara_Brae.jpg: what was the question asked of the author to get that response?
  • I don't know how to sort this issue, so I've replaced this image with another: File:Skara Brae - - 582968.jpg. This shouldn't pose any problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Bust_of_V._Gordon_Childe.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I cannot locate an appropriate tag, but have added additional information on the original work to the image and an additional tag making clear why the sculpture is covered by freedom of panorama laws in the UK. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Maunus

I am copypasting my comments from the previous FA which were never responded to before the review was closed. Please let me know if you have already addressed any of my suggestions: A very pleasant and interesting read. The article is clearly well-researched and thorough - I see no POV problems or major omissions. I tweaked some wordings that I found a little too quaint, and made other minor copyedits. The only issue sthat I thought I would want to change is that I think it could be a little clearer in explaining earlier on the difference between culture historical theory (which is diffusionist and particularist in Childe's version) and Marxist theory (which is evolutionist). I think these perspectives ought to be explained in simple language when they are first mentioned. I also think that the article does not allow the reader a clear understanding of how archeology can be Marxist - and what that means. Many might think of Marxism as primarily a political commitment, but Marxism is of course different from most political ideologies in that it also includes scientific theory of history: namely Historical materialism (which probably should be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article). So a descrption of how Marxism and archeology fits together would make the article more helpful for the reader who does not immediately see the connection (namely that Marxism explains historical processes as material and technological evolution that prompts social evolution, and that archeology studies material and technological developments, and therefore can use Marxism to infer social developments from the material developments they observe). This would be my only query: to be more explicit in describing his theoretical views and contributions in plain language.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:J Milburn raised similar concerns about the Marxist archaeology section. I'll get onto it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Right, I've restructured the section on Marxist archaeology and added a few extra sentences about Marxist archaeology to it. Do you think that those changes are sufficient or do you think more needs to be done? Regarding the discussion of Marxist archaeology in the lede, I'm a little more hesitant to make changes. The lede currently states: "Remaining a committed socialist, he embraced Marxism, and—rejecting culture-historical approaches—used Marxist ideas as an interpretative framework for archaeological data." While it might be possible to add a sentence or so on what Marxist archaeologically actually entails, I think that the lede is reasonably at the maximum length as it is (if I added another sentence it would, for instance, become longer than the FA-rated articles on Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin) and so do not think we could really expand it without cutting something else out. As for the issue of Childe's diffusionism and Marxism's evolutionary focus, the issue is (fairly briefly) dealt with in the "Marxist archaeology" section, where we supply a Childe quote presenting his argument that diffusionism should not be seen as contrary to Marxism. I'm not really sure how to expand on this, because I don't recall any reliable sources going into any depth on this particular issue, although if you had any suggestions I'd be happy to look them up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
How about either linking "Marxist ideas" to historical materialism or else writing "using the Marxist concept of historical materialism" (or similar). That would help the reader get more out of the lead I think?. I will go on to read your changes to the Marxist archeology section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'll add a link to historical materialism, that might help some readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I really like the changes to the Marxist archeology section, and am happy with the link to Historical materialism in the lead. I am happy to support.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Johnbod

  • We have Minyan ware, which is pretty obscure, so I would link it, even in the title of a paper.
  • Oxford University Fabian Society - some sort of branch of the student wing of the main Fabian Society, which should probably be linked. Their history suggests that 1915 was far from "at the height of its power and membership" - they say "the OUFS membership was solid, standing at around one hundred every year throughout the 1900s and early 1910s" but "it’s a terrible shame to see OUFS membership collapse at the outbreak of war in 1914, when clearly its membership were needed for the front. The minutes for 1915 indicate that the OUFS was then merged into the Oxford University Socialist Society." Hmmm.
  • There is already a link to Fabian Society later in the sentence, so I wouldn't want to duplicate that. However, your concerns about the OUFS being "at the height of its power and membership" are well taken; I'll remove that prose from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok thanks - I literally hadn't read to the end of the sentence!
  • "the government-imposed conscription" - I added the hyphen, but what sort of conscription isn't imposed by the govt?
  • "served mostly as a centre of radical labourers within existing unions" - isn't "labourers" a bit over-specific? "workers"?
  • "Fuller thought Childe's job unnecessary," maybe, but surely the job was a political appointment one would expect to change when the ruling party does?
  • Perhaps. I'm not sure that such a scenario would conflict with the present wording, though. If there is something here that you think is specifically incorrect then I'm happy to change it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "it was released when the few archaeologists across Europe were amateur and focused purely on studying their locality" - is this really true for 1925? I don't know, but it seems rather sweeping. If no one else, the museums employed professionals, and the big ones no doubt looked beyond their "locality".
  • I've gone back to Green, which states the following: "... it is necessary to realize that in 1925 archaeology was still widely regarded as an amateur pastime. There was only one Chair of Archaeology in Britain, at Cambridge, and correspondingly few people trained in the methods and literature of archaeology. Nor were museums, other than the British Museum in London, concerned with wider themes than their own localities. The only notably attempt to summarize archaeological research in Europe which pre-dates Childe's was Dechelette's Manuel d'Archeologie, the prehistoric part of which was published in 1908." Given this, I'll make some tweaks to the text in the article to more closely mirror Green's wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've gone with "An important work, it was released when there were few professional archaeologists across Europe and most museums focused purely on studying their locality". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "the theory that civilisation diffused northward and westward into Europe from the Near East via an Indo-European linguistic group known as the Aryans" - a plethora of possible links here - Indo-European migrations, Corded Ware culture or Yamna culture. Though WP never uses the "A-word" if it can avoid it, versions of the theory are far from dead.
  • "established by deed poll in the bequest of the prehistorian Lord John Abercromby" - no doubt it was, and deed poll explains why this might be so (though one would think a deed poll would need to be done before death) but I'm not sure this rather abstruse point is needed. Strictly he's not "Lord John Abercromby" is he? John, 5th Baron Abercromby maybe, or Lord Abercromby.
  • "Looking into Australian prehistory, he found it a lucrative field for research" - there was money in it? "Profitable" allows a wider meaning.
  • "In the 1950s, Childe was comparing the role culture-historical archaeology among prehistorians to the place of the traditional politico-military approach among historians" - missing word - "had"?

More later Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We do use the A-word for the Aryans of ancient India and Iran, who speak Indo-Aryan languages. But yes, we should probably note that the early 20th century use of the word was more similar to Proto-Indo-European than to indo-Aryan.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Resuming - a few links added, ok I hope. No more points, except that ideally it would be good to have more specifics on which of Childe's ideas and interpretations have and have not remained part of current thinking. Tricky, I know, but at present this aspect is nearly all at a high conceptual level. Otherwise, very nice job. All previous points addressed ok. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I am reading this with great interest, but without expertise so my comments are likely to be superficial. This rather stark sentence in the lead rather pulled me up: "Upon retirement, he returned to Australia's Blue Mountains, where he committed suicide." The main text gives a fuller explanation, but the lead-reader is left somewhat under-informed. You could add slightly with: "...where, apparently in fear of senilty and increasing physical incapacity, he committed suicide." Just a suggestion – I'll have a few more points which I'll post later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • " continued his research into European prehistory " You have only said before that he studied classical archeology.
  • "through various journeys across the continent" Doing what in these journeys? Also it should be Continent when referring to continental Europe. (You could add as below "in order to study prehistoric artefacts").
  • I'm not sure about switching "the continent" to "the Continent"; I know that the latter is sometimes employed in reference to continental Europe, but Childe also spent time traveling in Britain, which is obviously not part of the continental mainland. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • You could say "the Continent (or continental Europe) and Britain". "The continent" could mean any continent. It is like saying the mountain without specifying which one. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reverend Stephen Henry " I think you should give his full name here.
  • "a second-generation Anglican priest" I assume this means that he was the son of a priest, and I think it would be clearer to say so.
  • "strange appearance " What strange appearance?
  • I've changed this to "physical appearance". If you see photographs of Childe, I think it fairly obvious that he doesn't quite fit with conventional beauty standards; indeed, many would probably think him ugly. I'm cautious about actually calling him "ugly" in the main article—beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all—but I think that this point needs to be acknowledged. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Childe worked as a translator " I think you should have details in his early life about his philological training and what languages he knew.
  • I've looked at Green and it doesn't say which languages he was actually translating for Kegan Paul, although the text notes that he independently translated works from French, Italian, and German. As for his basis in philology, it seems that his university theses used philological data but beyond that he did not have any firm training in philology, as far as I can see. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "he performed experiments to understand the vitrification process that had occurred at several Iron Age forts " You should link to Vitrified fort rather than glass making.
  • "Regularly travelling to London to visit friends, one notable colleague was Stuart Piggott," This is not grammatical.
  • "he made the decision to commit suicide should the Nazis conquer Britain" This is a bit too strong. I would say he said that he would commit suicide as he might have decided to flee Britain instead.
  • I've double-checked Green's biography. It seems that at this juncture Childe considered suicide specifically to avoid being executed by the Nazis. I'll make some tweaks to the article to reflect this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • " titular Bronze Age" Why not just "Bronze Age"?
  • "Childe's pessimism surrounding the war's outcome led" I would say "about" rather than "surrounding".
  • Agreed, "surrounding" is not the best term, but I've gone with "regarding" rather than "about", which I think works better still. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Isokon building is famous and architecturally important. It should be called that not Lawn Road Flats.
  • "the latter being intolerant of the shortcomings of others, something Childe made an effort never to be." I see what you mean, but it could be more clearly expressed.
  • I've gone back to Green and used it to flesh out this sentence as follows: "Childe's relationship with the conservative Wheeler was strained, for their personalities were very different; Wheeler was an extrovert who pursued the limelight, was an efficient administrator, and was intolerant of others' shortcomings, while Childe lacked administrative skill, and was tolerant of others." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1952 a group of British Marxist historians began publishing the periodical Past & Present, with Childe joining the editorial board" This is not quite right. It was launched by Marxist historians, but explicitly involved non-Marxists from the start. See 'Past and Present. Origins and Early Years', P&P 1983.
  • I've changed this sentence to "Childe joined the editorial board of the periodical Past & Present, founded by a group of Marxist historians in 1952." Do you think that that does the trick? I think it important to state that it was a Marxist-started publication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Binary search algorithm

Nominator(s): Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most ubiquitous algorithms in computing. Binary search is usually one of the first algorithms taught to computer science students. The premise is quite simple: given a sorted list of numbers, binary search eliminates halves of the list in which the number you are looking for cannot lie until it finds the number. However, binary search has lots of subtleties. Surprisingly, when a famous programmer asked his students to implement binary search, 90 percent could not provide a correct solution. I have wrote this article to not only cover those subtleties, but also compare binary search to other search algorithms, placing the algorithm in context. I believe that this article is FA quality as I have strived to place every relevant detail that I could find on binary search, which is surprisingly a lot of details and subtleties that the average textbook chapter on search algorithms neglects to cover. Esquivalience (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. Nice work! Interesting article, I especially like the diagrams & the comparison with non-sorted array datastructures. My own preference would be to use very tiny sample Python programs rather than the mathier description of what the program does, but I respect that if it was done that way, there might be a problem with random students replacing it with their own code.
There may be copyright issues if code is copied verbatim from a book (mostly for the CS students needing to plagiarize binary search code), and if I write binary search code based on the information in the article in Python for example, there may be verifiability concerns. In addition, the mathematical description is more abstract and eliminates language-specific implementation details. However, I will consider adding a pseudocode version like in Euclidean algorithm#Implementations Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
as binary search trees can effectively be structured in filesystems.

I think "efficiently" might be more clear here?

Good suggestion; replaced. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If the array must first be sorted, that cost must be amortized over any searches.

Kinda sorta? Phrasing is a little weird too, with "must" sounding like accountants are being ordered around. If we're talking about a hypothetical system, The opening sentence of the section already notes that constantly sorting the array is kinda inefficient; future binary searches presumably would still have to sort the array, because they aren't sure if a previous check happened and already sorted it, so it's not like the cost gets to be amortized through these. Could have an "isDirty" type function that would remember if the array has been modified since it was last sorted of course, but that's getting too much into the weeds I think.

I agree that it's kind of obvious that the cost of sorting needs to be considered, and given that the target audience really is new computer science students, communicating such an important aspect with concepts like amortized analysis is confusing, so I decided to only mention that the array needs to be sorted and leave it at that. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Exponential search

Can the diagram (File:Exponential search.svg) be modified to clearly be unbounded? Seems misleading at a glance... if nothing else, have the right edge with a "...".

I still have the TeX file, so I'll add the ..., however it can also be applied to bounded arrays. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Fibonacci search

This section is not real clear at the moment. There's something to be said for not taking too much space, and letting people who are curious about more click over to the article, but maybe give it a once-over if there's a way to still be precise but also accessible? It's great there's a diagram, but maybe call out the green highlighted section a little more in File:Fibonacci_search.png to show that section "won". If nothing else, I would recommend highlighting in the first or second sentence that rather than a specific answer (like in binary search), Fibonacci merely returns a range where the answer might be.

I think it's better to remove it, because it is only vaguely similar to binary search. It's more of an optimization algorithm rather than a "search" algorithm, and an obscure one at that. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The noisy binary search problem can be considered as a case of the Rényi-Ulam game,[49] which Alfréd Rényi introduced in 1961.[50]

Why is the date it was created relevant? I'd say a description would be more helpful. "a case of the Rényi-Ulam game, a variant of twenty questions where the answers can be wrong," say.

I think it is better to put it in a footnote, as it does not add much to the main description, and I have adopted your proposed wording. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In 1946, John Mauchly made the first mention of binary search as part of the Moore School Lectures, the first ever set of lectures regarding any computer-related topic.

There is no way this is possibly true as phrased - there are tons of computer-related topics, like math, that people have been giving lectures on since the ancient Babylonians. Not sure what TAOCP was saying here, but judging by the Wikipedia article, maybe something like "the first and foundational college course in computers?"

Reworded it a bit, but I decided to use "seminal" instead of "first" as there is no way of knowing whether it is the first course on computing (some can say that the study of logic and abstract machines counts as a computing course, and those fields were studied decades before). Esquivalience (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
ninety percent failed to provide a correct solution after several hours of working on it,[57] and another study published in 1988 shows that accurate code for it is only found in five out of twenty textbooks

I think the article is taking Bloch & Bentley at their word a bit in a way that will confuse casual readers. Binary search, while not quite fizz buzz, is a sample easy problem generally that takes 5 minutes to solve, and surely Bentley's complaints were on hyper-specific issues. I would add in "rare edge case" or the like in discussing the overflow error in Programming Pearls and Java; it's arguably not even really an "interesting" flaw, because arrays are already size-capped in most languages to the size of the index (unsigned int, say), so this error was merely not taking advantage of the maximum amount of space available. (And heck, even with BigInteger array indices, declaring too large an array will already cause an out of memory exception unless you are on a Turing Machine with an actually-infinite tape.) SnowFire (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I added the wording about many of the errors being rare edge cases for Bentley's assignment, but textbooks should be expected to provide correct code that works on edge cases, so I left the textbook sentence as is. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Thanks for the suggestions, and I hope my changes have addressed your concerns. Esquivalience (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Good to see a CompSci article at FAC. Some interesting tidbits in the article. Some comments:

  • Alexandrescu (2010) and Leiss (2007) are not referenced in the article. Suggest removing them.
  • Suggest removing the wiki-links to Childs, Landahl & Parrilo 2007 and Høyer, Neerbek & Shi 2002 (which just points to the reference) as we already have footnotes.
  • No reference on the second last paragraph of "Implementation issues"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Added the ref and removed the redundant citations, thanks for the suggestions. Esquivalience (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Great to finally see a computer science article here. Some comments on the lead to start with:

  • "and the search continues on the remaining half until the target value is found" --> I think the first paragraph of the lead should explain the next step better. This is too vague. Perhaps something along the lines of "and the search continues on the remaining half, again taking the middle element for comparison, repeating this until the target value is found"
  • the O is Big O notation, and log is the logarithm --> An example here would be good. "For an array of 100 elements it takes at most .."
  • I don't think it would be accurate to say that for some number of elements, it takes some amount of time, because Big O notation is related to how fast the time complexity grows. For example, a O(log n) algorithm can take an eternity if, say, the algorithm must do a lot of computation before processing the data. The log n really states that the time complexity grows quite slowly. Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I think that's exactly the kind of info the lay person needs. So if you feel an example is not appropriate, then mention this. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • this paragraph about complexity would also be the best place to contrast the algorithm against the simplest alternative, serial search, which I think is needed for the lay-person.
  • Although the idea is simple --> Bit of a random mini-paragraph. Conceptually this sentence fits better at the end of the first paragraph
  • Done.
  • The lead says nothing about unsorted arrays. I think it should. Briefly.
  • Mentioning unsorted arrays would be relevant only to the comparison with linear search, so I mentioned that the array must be sorted first for binary search. Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the feedback. Esquivalience (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedure for finding the rightmost element --> I feel this section is a bit overkill. It makes it look like a textbook. I'm not sure such drive for completion is necessary in an encyclopedia. I'd leave it out.
  • It is necessary for the successor searching, that is, finding the smallest element that is larger than the target value. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This problem is solved by binary search --> What exactly is "This problem" referring to? Maybe a little rewrite could help me?
  • The problem is already explained in the paragraph, so I just said that "By dividing the array in half, binary search ensures that the size of both subarrays are as similar as possible." Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Fractional cascading can be used to --> perhaps add a short explanation of fractional cascading. Oh I now see that comes later. That's a bit unfortunate. Do we need it even here? Is it not sufficient to have it only under the Variations section?
  • Removed from performance section as it repeats the information from the section. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a weird character between ref 17 and 18
  • Enormous n --> would be nice to give some indication of size ... billions?
  • It depends on the time it takes to do arithmetic operations on the computer, which varies from system to system, so it is not really possible to give an exact or even approximate amount. A more detailed analysis is given in footnote (c), but it is still very specific and is only used to illustrate why it is that way. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition, all operations possible on a sorted array can be performed—such as finding the smallest and largest key --> I think this is describing binary search, but then the word "key" threw me off and now I'm not sure
  • key refers to an element, but I replaced "key" with element and clarified it a little.
  • This applies even to balanced binary search trees, binary search trees that balance their own nodes—as they rarely produce optimally-balanced trees—but to a lesser extent --> not so easy to read. Maybe see if a rewrite could help
  • although the array needs to be sorted beforehand --> I think it is necessary for this article to describe the cost of sorting. The reader will wonder what typically happens in cases where the array is unsorted.
  • Different sorting algorithms as well as different computers take different amounts of time to sort an array, so it is not possible to say that sorting has the same cost as n binary searches, but what can be given is that it takes a multiple of n log n comparisons, so I added that.
  • Binary search also enables efficient approximate matches and other operations --> we already knew this from earlier section, but what is missing here is something about linear search with respect to these matches and operations
  • Set membership --> it's a bit out of place. Maybe introduce this kind of problem earlier so that this problem can be discussed within the hashing, trees and linear search sections as well
  • I introduced set membership in the first paragraph of the section to put it in context.
  • A bit array is the simplest --> perhaps a short description of what this is would be useful
  • which may improve the algorithm's performance on some systems. --> why?
  • (L + R) / 2 --> this one and a few others probably need a math template to prevent wrapping
  • Done
  • any reason why multiplicative binary search is only mentioned in the See also section?
  • Multiplicative binary search seems to be quite niche and I don't think it's used often compared to the other variations. The Art of Computer Programming does not cover it even though it is generally considered to be a "comprehensive" resource. Looking at the article, it's basically a special method of storing a binary search tree, so if it belongs it belongs in that article instead. Esquivalience (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The references need a bit of cleaning up as there are some inconsistencies:

  • ISBN numbers are sometimes ISBN 10 and sometimes 13. Also need hyphens. I'll do this once I have time.
  • Done
  • Some Articles Are in Camel Case, but some others are not
  • Quite a few have no page number. Knuth especially
  • For the Knuth sources, I only have the eBook version which doesn't contain page numbers for some reason. But that reason is probably because Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming has a famed error bounty program. If a reader finds an error in one of his books, including TAOCP, then Knuth sends a check to the reader who made an error, and which is usually framed as memorabilia for obvious reasons. Even though Volume 3 was published 20 years ago, there have already been at least 26 republished versions with error corrections, which messes up the page numbering. For the Sedgewick and Wayne versions, the authors have provided a condensed, summarized version of the book for free online, so chapter and section numbers are better for guiding readers to the right page. I'll try to add page numbers for the other sources shortly.Done. Ref 52 has no page number given by the publisher however.
  • the link to PDF for 55 seems wrong
  • Don't know how it got there, but I removed the link. It's an old article, but not in the public domain, so there is no preprint or copyright-free version.

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 1991 comic book series that served as primary inspiration for this summer's massively popular Avengers film. I dug into lots of old print sources to flesh it out and I believe it's about a comprehensive as it can be. Please comment quickly, before Thanos snaps his fingers and you lose your chance. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Uh, Argento Surfer, I don't feel so good... but I'll comment before I disappear. JOEBRO64 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

First round of comments. This is just from a quick glance (don't have much time), so I'll be leaving more comments in a bit:

  • "although other writers had scripted some tie-in chapters of the First Thanos War" is uncited.
    • I added two citations, one is a third party website that mentions a different scriptor, and one is a primary source directly citing a tie-in comic. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "George Pérez is a popular artist known for drawing comics that featured large casts" seems to start in the present before shifting to the past.
  • Aren't the "I" and "G" in "infinity gems" supposed to be capitalized?
    • Possibly! The comic is written in all caps so it's not immediately obvious, but it's capitalized at Infinity Gems. I capitalized them here as well. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If my understanding is correct, plot sections are supposed to be limited to 700 words. The "plot" section of this article in the synopsis is 791 words.

JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Part two:

  • "He also did high-profile work for DC Comics, such as Batman and Cosmic Odyssey." Wouldn't linking to Batman (comic book) make a bit more sense here?
  • "...but Editor-in-Chief Tom DeFalco..." Sort of the opposite of "Infinity Gems" here: I'm don't think the "E" and "C" need to be capitalized.
  • "the start of the second act was spun off into the two-issue limited series Thanos Quest, released in Fall 1990." Watch out for WP:SEASON.
  • "but the sales of Thanos Quest were high enough to warrant another spin-off." This isn't a big deal, but I don't think "spinoff" needs a hyphen. The hyphen also isn't used later in the article, so I'd be consistent in how you use it.
  • "However, some characters, like Thor and Quasar, were wearing outdated costumes on the cover of issue 3..." Single digits should be spelled out.
  • During production, Pérez was also pencilling War of the Gods for DC Comics" You've already linked to DC before, so linking it here is overlinking.
    • removed
  • "One aspect of the promotion was sending Direct market retailers..." Why is the "D" in "direct market" capitalized?
    • Probably because I copy/pasted the article name. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You link to DC again in the tie-ins section.
    • removed

I'll be back with my final comments soon. JOEBRO64 19:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Round three:

  • Some of the characters linked in the characters section (Thanos, Warlock) were previously linked in the publication history section.
  • My only comment about the synopsis section is that it technically doesn't need references, since a creative work's plot section is assumed to be sourced to the work itself and does not require references unless it contains original research that requires verification.
    • I follow that guidance in articles on comics that take place all in one title (Archie vs. Predator or The Fade Out), but since parts of the synopsis came from Silver Surfer, Thanos Quest, Warlock and the Infinity Watch, and Doctor Strange, I felt it was worth noting the source for each plot chunk. It also alerts readers that the tie-in issues are not directly referenced. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "the different styles continues to be an issue for some critics." "Issue" is considered a word to avoid.
  • "When Capital City released their top 100 best selling single issues of 1991, Infinity Gauntlet issues fell between the 42nd and 64th positions." This is just a minor suggestion, but could you add a footnote explaining where all the issues placed on the list? Some readers (including myself) might be interested in this.
    • I can add this, but it might be next week before I can dig up the sales lists. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its sequels were poorly received by fans, and Warlock and the Infinity Watch was cancelled in 1995." While it looks like the article is written in American English, "cancelled" is British English.
    • I had no idea. I just went with it because it didn't have a squiggly red line under it. I have removed the second l. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's it. Overall this article is very clean and well-written (indeed, I actually based a few of my articles on it!) Once these comments are addressed, I will gladly support promotion. JOEBRO64 17:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. This is FA-quality now. Well done! JOEBRO64 18:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't have anything substantive to add to the FAC, but I will commend you on bringing this article into a much better shape than it was when you started working on it in February: [11] BOZ (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest that in some cases it would be worth adding citations to captions
    • I added two references to the caption in the plot section. I think everything else it BLUE, but let me know if you disagree. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Think the caption on the final image also needs citing - the accompanying article text cites more general inspiration, but not this specific image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I've removed this image. There won't be any sources that directly compare it to the cover. I'll just trust that anyone who makes it that far into the article will be familiar with the film's imagery. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Infinity_Gauntlet_1.jpg: elaborate on purpose of use statement
  • File:Sleepwalker_number_7.png: not sure we can justify the full cover just to show the marking - a crop of the top third would be sufficient for that, and the FUR needs to be stronger
    • I originally considered cropping the image, but chose to use the full cover to give an accurate impression of the relative sizes of the triangle and the cover. If it's cropped, that frame of reference will be lost. I have expanded the purpose statement to make this clear. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Not convinced by this, particularly given the number of non-free images, but interested in if any other reviewers have an opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
        • If no one else weighs in, I'll crop the image to be the upper right quarter. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For both File:Infinity_gauntlet_excerpt_Perez.png and File:Infinity_Gauntlet_excerpt_issue_6.png, the content currently in the "not replaceable" section of the template belongs in "purpose of use". Same with File:Thanos_Avengers_Infinity_War_promo.jpg. The FURs are particularly important to given the number of non-free images in this article - as a general rule, the more you have the harder you need to work to justify each
  • File:Infinity_Gauntlet_Toys.png: see commons:COM:TOYS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link. I have revised the licensing based on File:Alternator smokescreen robot mode.jpg. If that doesn't work, then we can scrap this image. I think it's useful for showing the variety of toy types since most people don't know the difference between a minimate and a Diamond Select, but not 100% needed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Argento Surfer, this seems to have stalled in recent weeks and will be archived soon if it does not attract some additional review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I requested input from the Comics Project and specific editors I thought might be interested on July 6. I'm hoping one or more of them will respond. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hijiri88

I have very little awareness of comic books as comic books, and so only checked the page for problematic content related to the recent Avengers films, and was pleasantly surprised to see it doesn't make the problematic claim, often cited to unreliable sources that predate the film's release, that the most recent entry in that series is "an adaptation" of this work. Kudos.

My one further concern would be that Since Thanos made a cameo appearance in the 2012 film The Avengers, there has been renewed interest in The Infinity Gauntlet among fans and reporters. is not necessarily accurate, as I was aware of this renewed interest months before the film's release, having seen a video essay on The Escapist in summer of 2011 (I'm pretty sure the video itself predated the release of Iron Man 2, though, as I recall it speculating that a "Donald Blake" might cameo in that film). I can get the exact link tonight when I get home, but I don't want to use data right now. I'm pretty sure this interest goes back to a Comic Con where the Infinity Gauntlet prop was on display, and before seeing the trailer for The Avengers I fully expected Thanos to be the main antagonist of that film, based on said earlier speculation.

I know this is something of a WP:TRUE complaint, so others can take it with a grain of salt if they so wish, but the sources to which this content is attributed are less than ideal. is a primary source, which obviously can't be used for the claim that there has been renewed interest among fans and reporters, let alone since a specific date, while the other is late enough that it could well have "forgotten" that the interest predated the reveal of Thanos in the actual film.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Thanks for taking a look. I'm wondering if the interest you're remembering was localized, or limited to idle talk only. According to Comichron, the Infinity Gauntlet TPB didn't garner enough orders to appear on the March or April 2012 charts, but it did appear in May, June, July, and August (where I stopped looking). There was no bump corresponding to the 2011 Thor movie in May or June 2011 despite the new edition released that year. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: I dunno... I think the problem might be the wording we currently use: "fans" and "reporters" already are "local", and not only were they already speculating about the relationship between Thanos and the Infinity Gauntlet and the Avengers film franchise pre-2012, but their doing so wouldn't be expected to directly cause a large increase in sales of the reprint (since they already have copies).
Would saying "the general public" not be better? The bump in sales would have been from "casual fans" like myself (except that they have more disposable income or don't know how to use the internet) who heard that the mysterious character who showed up in the last shot of the film was elaborated on in this 20-year-old comic book. But the fans and reporters had a renewed interest before that.
As I said above, though, this is a really minor nitpick, and you can take it or leave it; my interest in, and awareness of, this topic area is fairly limited.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I rewrote the sentence to avoid specifying who became interested. I think it reads better this way, so long as you don't think it's too weaselly. Thanks for taking a look at something outside your normal purview. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it reads better that way, and it addresses my concern too. Thanks for your effort, and good luck with the rest of the review! :) Hijiri 88 (やや) 20:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Russian occupations of Beirut

Nominator(s): Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This article covers an unusual series of events in the history of Beirut. In both 1772 and late 1773-early 1774, the city came under brief Russian occupation as part of a wider Russo-Turkish war. It marks the first occupation of its kind for an Arab city and the first time Beirut falls to a European power since the Ottoman conquest of the region in 1516. With the exception of a German-annotated map in the lead (which I hope is not a serious issue), I believe it meets all the FA criteria. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Now there's an English version of the map. Credit goes to Don-kun. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support Comments: G'day, interesting topic and nicely done. Makes me realised there is so much I don't know about history! Fascinating. I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • there are no dab links, and the ext links all seem to work (no action required)
  • suggest adding alt text to the map
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • in the lead, suggest adding the years that the occupations occurred to the first sentence
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "small Russian squadron": suggest wikilinking to Squadron (naval) here and on first mention in the body
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Instead of providing soldiers to the Porte...": as a lay reader, I wasn't sure what "Porte" meant here. Could this be linked, or explained? (Potentially in a note?)
Done. I linked to Sublime Porte instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done (plus alt text). But it reads as "Battle of Çesme" in the caption instead of "Battle of Chesma", as it appears to be an officially given name to the painting. Hope it's okay. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine with me, although potentially a note might be added explaining the difference in spelling. Not a warstoper for me, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. I added a separate note group within the caption. Tell me what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "550,000 qirsh worth of loot": per MOS:NUMNOTES it is best to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Suggest maybe changing it to "A total of 550,000 qirsh..." or something similar
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • in the Sources, suggest adding a translation for the title of the Marti work. The cite book template supports "|trans-title=" as a field, which could be used to format the translation
Not done. I don't feel comfortable adding my own translation or that of Google Translate, as I'm not an Italian speaker. Do you have someone in mind who could help with that? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps mariomassone can verify a translation from Italian? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Bear with me, it's 18th century italian; "History of the war in Syria in the year 1771: From the arms of Aly-Bey of Egypt and the further successes of the aforementioned Aly-Bey to the present year of 1772" Mariomassone (talk) 09:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Added. Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest maybe reducing the width of the table in the Second occupation section. It might look a bit less stretched if it was at 60 per cent, or thereabouts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • Nice to see this here, your first FAC? Will review as I read along. Too bad Al Ameer son isn't around anymore, I think he would have been interested in this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
My first one, yes. I was actually talking to Ameer a couple of years ago about Ali Bey, asking whether he had relevant sources that could be used to expand articles in this topic area. Too bad indeed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "In response to Russian violation of the Ottoman border while suppressing a Polish uprising, among other factors" Kind of long and confusing sentence. Who was suppressing the Polish uprising? I of course assume the Russians, but the wording here could go both ways.
Done. But in doing so, I had to expand a little, which some might consider a bit off-topic. Sources treating the occupations wouldn't mention the casus belli of the war. In fact, Persen intentionally omits it: "For reasons which are outside the limits of this paper, the Sultan declared war on Russia in 1768." Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's good with this extra context. This is not a research paper after all, but should be able to stand alone. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ali Bey and other things only linked in the intro (like Druze and Beirut) should also be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "at the Battle of Chesma" This is spelled "Chesma" in the linked article, and "Çesme in the adjacent image caption. Perhaps there could be consistency, what is the most common spelling?
The battle article calls it "Chesma", but the town's name on Wikipedia is Çeşme, which also appears in the name that was officially given to the painting, either by Aivazovsky himself or by the Feodosia gallery hosting it. A bit like Gdańsk/Danzig. No idea what should be done about this though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hope this solves the issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Could maybe be good for orientation to show an image of how Beirut looked at the time, if such are available. Perhaps under "aftermath".
There are none on this project that I'm aware of. But it would be great if someone uploaded the maps analysed and recreated in this initiative. One of them can be found here (second map in the bottom second row of the gallery); it's from the Atlas of the Archipelago. Another one, which is the main subject of this study, is the von Palen map that is currently in the Russian State Navy Archive. Thing is, the image policy and I don't seem to get along that well. So there isn't much I can do about this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, maps that old would definitely be in the public domain by now, see the PD Russia template:[12] I think one of them could be a great addition to the article, they don't have to be recreated. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I can upload the one from Atlas of the Archipelago. I prefer the von Palen map though. But I couldn't find it on Google Images (the one in the PDF I linked contains a blue frame and removing it may disrupt the map's quality). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Tell me what you think: File:Beirut in the Atlas of the Archipelago.png. I hate the quality though. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Better than nothing, I'll see if I can extract it in better quality, otherwise someone will probably do it down the line if they see it in the article. There is a way to download full res images from those weird tiled flash things, but I never got the hang of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Maghrebis" links to Maghrebi Arabic, which I'm not sure is appropriate (we're talking about people, not a language). Maybe a link to Maghreb would be better.
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Persen played down", "Perminov" Why not give full names to all historians?
Persen's first name is already mentioned in the 'First occupation' section. That said, done. As for Perminov, I honestly don't know his full name and Catlemur (see the GA review) couldn't explicitly figure it out either, apparently. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "described it as an early manifestation of modern Soviet assistance" This could need a date for context. Also, how exactly does he phrase it? Seems a bit strange to give the Soviets credit for something that happened long before they existed...
Regarding date for context, I mentioned the Cold War, per the source. I felt like the article needed a Russian/Soviet perspective, and this is probably the only prominent one I could find throughout my research on the subject. Since the scholar's full name is already an issue, do you think the sentence should be removed altogether? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine to keep it for perspective in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - not much to nitpick to begin with, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Ivan_Constantinovich_Aivazovsky_-_Battle_of_Çesme_at_Night.JPG needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Which particular template do you have in mind? This one? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I think an additional tag like the one here[13] is what could be added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Here. Didn't notice "additional" in your comment. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

An interesting read, some comments. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • You should link (at least) Ottoman Empire, Acre, Sidon, Black Sea at the first occurrence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • imprisoned and died a few days later— how? No indication whether he was executed, already injured, ill or whatever
  • Hard to confirm. He was most likely poisoned on the orders of Abu al-Dhahab (du Quenoy, p. 135). Wouldn't it be a bit off-topic to delve into such controversies in this article? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really, if you did know it would just be a matter of a couple of words to clarify whether he was killed or not Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Abu al-Dhahab to turn against Ali Bey and that he would be made ruler of Egypt in his stead.—I'd try to avoid he... his when they are different people
  • Reworded. Let me know what you think. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps mention that the Druze are not Muslim in any standard sense?
  • Done. But I have to admit that I'm not entirely fond of that, largely due to the fact that it's not mentioned by the sources used in this article (and for a good reason). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Butting in here, I was almost about to ask why you even had to mention their sect, as this is not mentioned for any of the other actors, but I guess in this sense it is more like a "tribal" designation than of strictly religious significance. But as such, I don't think it has much relevance whether they are considered Muslim or not. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, not a big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope you can forgive me for this. Druze is already linked twice in the article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why have you linked to Google Books in your refs? Unless free full text is available, it's annoying for readers and reviewers to click through and find nothing worthwhile, and you are just linking to a sales site that's giving nothing back in return. Even if there is some preview text (not the case for me in the UK for those I checked) accessibility varies from country to country and isn't permanent, so personally I don't even previews in my own FAs
  • I tend to avoid WP:LINKVIOs as much as I can when it comes to books. Which kind of link do you have in mind? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added better links for Anderson and Mariti for now. Will you check the link to the former and tell me if it's okay? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Anderson is fine, thanks. I'm thinking of links like eg Khalaf and Solov'ev which link to pages that have no actual text, just links to sales sites, in one case complete with a price. At best a waste of time following the link, at worse links to sales sites. I'm not going to oppose on this point, the fact that you do it and I don't doesn't mean I'm right, but I'd be interested to know your reasoning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added links with search results. I used the Solov'ev and Mariti books only because they contained the full names of the admirals (Kozhukhov's and Alexiano's respectively). I couldn't find a Solov'ev version that has a good preview besides this, which I added. The Khalaf e-book I found doesn't have page numbers, so I replaced the link in the article with this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I guess the point I'm getting that is that hard sources like books and journals don't have to have a link because they can in principle be verified elsewhere. My just-promoted Ham Wall had only three of seven books courtesy-linked since the others didn't have full free text, similarly some of the journals were unlinked, eg refs 4 and 26-28. Anyway, I said I wouldn't oppose on this issue, so changed to support above, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I like the idea of having no links at all. Most of them are useless previews anyway (even the Anderson book I feel uncomfortable with), and there is of course the possibility that you'll encounter some copies with different/invalid/lack of page numbers. Okay if I removed the whole lot of them? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I've said, I'd only keep any link if it gives permanent free access, which mostly applies to out-of-copyright material and some reports not controlled by the academic publishing companies. But your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've decided to delink them all except for Mariti's book, because it has two volumes that can be easily mixed up by readers (happened to me during this review). I don't trust e-books to remain freely accessible forever. And, like you said, the validity of such sources can be easily verified elsewhere. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I've no access to these sources. From my perspective they look reasonably comprehensive, many of them recent studies, and thus appear to be of the appropriate standard of quality and reliability.

One tiny presentational point: the page range in ref 2 should have a ndash not a hyphen. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo

Read for: 1b weighting, 1c (completeness, sourcing, HQRS, historiography, PRIMARY/TERTIARY use, "white myths," gender, plagiarism style check), 1d neutral, 2b weight & structure, 2c citation check, 3 (quotes, tables, illustrative narrative digressions) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

  • 1b: Comprehensiveness reflects the source basis.
  • 1c: I'm happy with the research completeness, it looks like English language exhaustion, and given the Russian historiography noted I'm not sure other languages will prove fruitful given they've been addressed in historiographically commenting recent articles.
  • 1c: HQRS basis looks good. Khalaf's publisher seems to be letting him down in terms of printing quality, in contrast with his previous outlets for Expert works on Lebanon in Colombia UP for example.
  • 1c: Similarly the use of a variety of HQRS with a recent paper central. Given the size of the literature I think this counts as reflecting the scholarly consensus.
  • 1c: Historiography good weight, oh Russian historians I understand the limits you have worked under, but. Well done.
  • 1c: Checked for appropriate use of PRIMARY: appropriate. No Tertiary sources.
  • 1c: I don't see a "white myths" or "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht" risk, due to the detached nature in time and place of scholarly myths, and the up front nature about pillage and hostages in the narrative.
  • 1c: Query: As far as the social history trio go, I think gender may be the concern. Based on your reading of the HQRS consensuses do you feel the article appropriately covers gendered in terms of weight in the HQRS source basis?
    • Could you elaborate? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Any WEIGHT around women civvies. Any WEIGHTy mention of masculinity / competing masculine conceptions in your HQRS? Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • None as far as the sources are concerned. The only female person mentioned throughout the sources is the Tsarina. I also recall one of them (not sure which) trivially mentioning Princess Tarakanova who was involved in Orlov's Livorno affair, but that is off-topic IMO. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 1c: Plagiarism style check. Checks out. Consistent voice and style throughout.
  • 1d: Neutral tone follows scholarly basis.
  • 2b: Structure and basis seems to follow literature mapped onto MILMOS conventional article styles.
  • 2c: Fixits: citation check
    • fixed dashes / en spacing for you in two footnotes
    • I don't know what you mean to fix it for you: "{{Harvnb|Solov'ev|1991|p=102}}{{rp|endnote, p. 287}}", do you mean {{Harvnb|Solov'ev|1991|p=102, endnote at p. 287}}?
      • This is what I meant, yes. I wanted to include Kozhukhov's full name in the article (other sources only mention him by his last name or by "M. G. Kozhukhov"). I found his last name on p. 102 of the Solov'ev book while p. 287 has his full name, both of which confirm his involvement in Beirut. And I didn't feel comfortable citing the endnote alone. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Arguably a pretty printing issue?: There's a mix of references to the template for your short-footnotes of sfn and harvnb. They're ALMOST but not quite the same style, "Template {{harvnb}} inside a <ref> span can be used to create a Shortened footnotes that is linked to the full citation at the bottom of the article. Template {{sfn}} (without the use of <ref>) has the same effect and it also combines identical footnotes automatically." sfn count: 41; harvnb: 23.
      • It's just a visual preference of mine. I don't like seeing more than one reference at the end of a sentence, especially when it follows a comma. I adds too much space between the punctuation and the new sentence, which I find very unpleasant to look at. So I chose to merge them into combo refs, and I very rarely add more than two. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Not a pretty printing issue: Trailing full-stops, (chuck 'em at the end of <ref>{{harvnb}}; {{harvnb}}'''.'''</ref> if you go with harvnb?)
      • Anderson 1952, p. 278. versus,
      • Anderson 1952, p. 282; Gallant 2015, pp. 18–19
    • Wouldn't Khalif deserve a page number?
      • The e-book I referred to doesn't have any page numbers, and I couldn't find one that does. Dealing with this may necessitate a visit to a local library/bookstore hosting this book, and I'm too busy to be doing much about it these days. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
        • This is a cite what you use do issue. Use the |at= parameter in cs1 or by hand "found at paragraph starting "Foo bar baz bok…" Thi she will allow your eager reader to follow you. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
          • lmftfy. Harvnb uses |loc=. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • 3: The quotes, tables and digressive narratives in notes are appropriate, don't dominate, and illustrate the article. Didn't check any images.
    • Fifelfoo, are you happy with responses above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Very happy thanks Ian Rose. Remaining comments easily resolved or questions for the chief editor to consider. Support based on the above areas. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Sorry Fifelfoo, another question: did you undertake, or would you feel like undertaking, a spotcheck of a few citations for accurate usage and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing? This is apparently the nominator's first FAC, and the spotcheck is a hoop we like newbies to jump through. Pls don't feel obligated though, I can request the check at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
          • @Diannaa: If you're not too busy, could you take a look at this? Is full access to the sources required from the software(s) you're using? Seems to be the case when it comes to Earwig. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
            • The only source I am able to access is Gallant; no violations found there. (Automated tools are not helpful when the sources are books.) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Hyūga

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Built during World War I, Hyuga didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Hyuga's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and any remnants of AmEnglish. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago, during which there was much discussion of some of the images. I deleted the images until I could prove to my satisfaction that they were official photos and thus war booty. I've reinstated and retagged them with the appropriate license. I believe that the article satisfies the FA criteria and stand ready to address any issues identified by reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment Support from Vami_IV

  1. I advise the use of harv references. –Vami_IV✠ 02:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, won't be happening. I much prefer my own idiosyncratic style that involves less typing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Acceptable, but unfortunate. I have nothing else to offer but my support. –Vami_IV✠ 13:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things.

  • " In addition, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time ..." the reader may take the "in addition" as building on the quote immediately preceding. I might say "during the reconstruction" instead of "at this time".
  • " Captain Shigeushi Nakagawa assumed command on 30 April[13] and the ship was completed on that same day, too late for service in World War I.[18] " I might cut "on". Also, as we are using UK spellings (armoured), should "World War I" be "the First World War"? (plus obviously similar usages for WWII)(also are you going Pearl Harbor or Harbour?)
  • There isn't actually a strong national connection between the UK and First World War, etc. I've got plenty of British-published books on hand that use WWI.
  • " Beginning on 27 March 1932, she patrolled off the coast of China during the First Shanghai Incident, together with her sister ship Ise and the battlecruisers Kongo and Kirishima.[13]" Our article on same says the Shanghai Incident ended on 3 March 1932.
  • Good catch.
  • "When the war started for Japan on 8 December,[Note 4] the division, reinforced by the battleships Nagato and Mutsu and the light carrier Hōshō, sortied from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands as distant support for the 1st Air Fleet attacking Pearl Harbor, and returned six days later." I imagine the sortie had to have begun before 8 December, if so, possibly the language used is a bit ambiguous.
  • The Bonins aren't very far from Kyushu and it appears that they did sail on the same day as the Pearl Harbor attack.
  • "she returned to Kure for repairs." Kure is linked on a second use.
  • Good catch
  • "the same day that the conversion officially began. It actually began two months later.[13] " I might say "Work" instead of "It".
  • Excellent idea.
  • "and began flying to bases in Southern Kyushu;" I'd lower-case "southern".
  • You are inconsistent on the capitalization of "Main Body".
  • Sometimes the IJN formally designed parts of the fleet as the main body for various operations, while other times it's just a handy collective noun.
  • " The convoy reached the Matsu Islands, off the Chinese coast, on the 15th and was unsuccessfully attacked by the submarine USS Rasher before they reached Zhoushan Island, near Shanghai, China, that night." I would cut ", China" as unneeded.
  • After referring to cruising off the coast of China after the First Shanghai Incident that seems reasonable.
Otherwise excellent as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt review; see if my changes address your concerns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have looked at the pretty minor changes since, and consider it meets the FA criteria. A single nitpick:

  • During the reconstruction, the forward pair of 14-centimetre guns in the forecastle were removed at this time. Redundant, as we've already established when this happened at the beginning of the sentence.

That's me done. Great job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • There are no citations to Whitley, listed among the sources
  • I don't really see the point of adding the subscription template when there is no online link
  • The sources section would look tidier if isbn formats were standardised into the modern 13-digit format.

No spotchecks carried out. Subject to the above the sources look in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Whitley moved to a new further reading section.
  • Subscriptions are available through the editor, who publishes his email for interested parties. I can add that if thought necessary.
  • I see no need to convert existing 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit ones as both are equally findable in our software.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. It is the inconsistency that jars. I don't know why you're so resistant on this point, which I've raised with you before. Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think Brian has a point here. Every FAC I’ve seen brings up this issue if it exists. It shouldn’t be that card to convert the citations to one format or the other?—White Shadows Let’s Talk 06:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I suppose it does look jarring, but to me, it's a matter of Emerson's consistency and I'm not willing to spend the effort to make them consistent. If some great soul like White Shadows chooses to spend the time to do so, kudos to him, but I'll not do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've got to say, that comes across as rather flippant. It took literally 45 seconds for me to update the ISBN and make them consistent. If we're promoting articles to FA-status, surely being "willing to spend the effort to make them [ISBNs] consistent" is something that isn't too much to ask at an FAC.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 03:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Arrogant rather than flippant, I'd say, not to mention self-defeating - more time spent evading the issue than dealing with it! Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy

  • I'm no expert on BrEng, but isn't it "modernised"?
  • "During the ships' modernization during the 1930s" - can we lose one of those "during"s?
  • I'd link fuel oil
  • I'd shift the images in the design section to the left, as they're being pushed down by the infobox on (I would assume most) computer monitors, which is then pushing the rest of the images from the sections they should be in.
  • "sailors aboard the sailing ship" - there's something about this that grates on me - I don't know if it's the repetition of "sail" or what, but I might suggest "the latter ship" or something along those lines.
  • "22,000 metres (24,000 yd) ahead of the convoy" - it strikes me odd to measure that distance in meters, rather than km/nmi.

That's all for me. Nice work, as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

    • Good eye. Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Support - nice work. Just a suggestion, it might make sense to put the photo of her original configuration in the infobox (or the aerial shot in 1927) and put the colorized photo in the Cape Engano section, since the ship only appeared in her converted form for, what, a year and a half of her nearly thirty years in service. Parsecboy (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
        • (But it's such a great photo!) I have to agree with your reasoning.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Fifelfoo

This review should be read as fully supportive. The three outstanding questions probably just require a "no, no, no" (as expected from this reviewer) from the proposer. Lack of ability to recognise centrally cited source, 1c/2c. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Q: Myth of a Clean Wehrmacht issues in your sources?
  • Q: Social history issues: workers, women, "racial" I'm thinking here Korean issues in construction?
  • Q: Does this article WEIGHT a historiography section for its topic?
  • Published by whom, where, "Lengerer, Hans (March 2011). Ahlberg, Lars, ed. "The Japanese 14"-Gunned Battleships: An Abstract of the Fusō and Ise Classes – Part I". Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Paper X): 5–42.(subscription required)" and others such. I'm not troubled by quality, but by finding the work based on the citation.
    Ahlberg, Lars also appears to be the publisher. Lengerer is pretty obviously EXPERT and HQRS, as is Ahlberg. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    I think this comes down to the difficulty of getting a handle on what kind of document is being cited, due to wikipedia's template's inability to handle the unusual publication mode of this journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline I don't have enough citation information or reference to determine if a central source set, Lengerer, is HQRS.
    • What is the relevance of the first three questions to this article?
    • The issues are irregularly published and can be purchased from Ahlberg. If necessary I can send copies of the issues used here to a source reviewer, but I'll be offline for the next five days or so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
      • 1bcd, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral. Sample answers might be, "No acts of criminality appeared in the construction and deployment of Hyūga in the reliable sources / Hyūga's shore party engaged in X during the Sino-Japanese war, this was not raised at any post-war tribunal, as it is discussed in the article;" "The HQRS have been fully used to cover social history topics / Korean women workers engaged in a riot during conversion which was put down which appears in the article;" "There is no historiographical debate on the history of the Hyūga in the HQRS / initially the Johnson school believed X, but this was refuted by the Bloggs school in the 1990s which appears in the article." I'm asking because you'd be best placed to know having mastered the sources, and because the questions go to 1bcd of the criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Ah, a light bulb goes off. If anything like any of that stuff was in the sources, I'd have added them, just to fill out the material on the ship's first couple of decades, for which there is very little material available compared to Western ships. I was completely thrown by your reference to the Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht and couldn't figure out the connection. Just as a general point, aside from a few ships' crews involved in the 1937 Shanghai Incident, the IJN's ships played very little part in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and the general Japanese refusal to discuss or acknowledge the atrocities committed by its troops during that time really isn't relevant, like it would be for an article on an Army infantry division that participated in the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
          • Cheers. As you might understand because of a project wide criticism of under attention to "unpleasant" or "unlawful" acts in history articles I'm asking all proposers. I thought I'd also chuck the "social history big three," and "whether there's any historiographical debate," onto my standard list as well. Construction / conversion and labour came up, as many of us know that shipyards are some of the most conflict ridden industrial sites, and I know the Home Islands were not the best at respecting Japanese, let alone Korean, labour. Some proposers/editors aren't aware of the role of these topics in "completeness." Thank you so very much! Happy editing, look forward to reviewing more articles! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
            • I think that there's only a single book on a Japanese shipyard in English and I'm not sure how honest it is about labor relations as I believe that it was commissioned by Mitsubishi. I'll have to try and track down a copy through ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
              • Definitely an "above and beyond" issue, but hopefully it will help with many articles in your area of expertise and interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm satisfied with the author's expertise, I've just been banging my head against the citation to clarify it without an extensive note, but I think the citation is adequate to allow a reader to contact Ahlberg and acquire the material. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Where are we with addressing the last several bits of feedback, etc? --Laser brain (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delay in responding, but everything should be good now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Did I miss an image review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • No, lemme ask Nikkimaria and see what she thinks of the new licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the recognition drawing
  • File:HyugaAerial.jpg needs a publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about is the first element recognised to have been discovered in Asia, and we can hope that there will be more in our march to the end of the periodic table, wherever that happens to be. ^_^ It's just finished going through a peer review and I believe it's ready for FA now! Double sharp (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by R8R

Support. My comments have been addressed. Note: I actively participated in the pre-FAC peer review and a majority of my comments was dealt with then.--R8R (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A few comments:

  • Preliminary experiments in 2017 have shown -- looks like "showed" would be better;
  • targets, and significantly increasing -- looks like the comma doesn't belong here;
  • the yields from cold fusion reactions -- I'd not use the article here;
  • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory -- interestingly, this laboratory is referred to by Livermore rather than its acronym LLNL throughout the article unlike, say, GSI or JINR. Is there a reason for that?
    • Not really, so I've changed it to LLNL. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • JINR–Livermore collaboration published its results -- I notice that the collaboration is referred to as a singular noun, but some time ago the GSI team was referred to as a plural one: The GSI team attempted to similarly synthesise element 113 via cold fusion in 1998 and 2003, bombarding bismuth-209 with zinc-70, but were unsuccessful both times. Consistency would be great;
    • Changed so that the GSI team is referred to in the singular. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In June 2004 and again in December 2005, the JINR–Livermore collaboration strengthened their claim for the discovery of nihonium -- it would be best not to use the name "nihonium" here as it will only be established as official in 2016. I suggest element 113;
    • I agree; I must have missed this one somehow. Changed. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Further experiments at the JINR in 2005 fully confirmed -- as is, this is seemingly too bold a claim as the JWP did not recognize that;
    • Actually, the JWP did recognise that the data was consistent: they write in their report "The first two events in each chain showed excellent mutual agreement for both decay energies and lifetimes" (on the 2007 studies), and "The 2013 Oganessian collaboration [21] and the 2013 Rudolph collaboration provide redundancy to the three 284113 chains observed in 2004 with the alpha energies being in excellent agreement among most of the events. ... Much of the minor discrepancies in energy are accommodated when sums are considered." What they did not recognise was that this data was from elements 115 and 113, because they considered that Z had not been convincingly established. I've changed it to "experiments at the JINR in 2005 confirmed the observed decay data", to avoid mentioning Z. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • halogens (the group containing fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine) -- it is important to note when talking about the superheavy elements that halogens are not necessarily a group as element 117 may not be a halogen. Perhaps you could use set of elements or the like.

Other than that, the article seems great.--R8R (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One last thing I'd love to see is the three-level location introduction for LLNL (all other places have that so this would match the current writing style) and then I'll be ready to support.--R8R (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Added. Double sharp (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep

  • The lede now says: Nihonium has been calculated to have some similar properties to its lighter homologues boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium, and is predicted to behave as a post-transition metal like the heavier four. I think "lighter" is not needed (distracting from the fact), and "the heavier four" is not clear right away (use "the latter four"?). - DePiep (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: I've changed this to "Nihonium has been calculated to have some similar properties to its homologues boron, aluminium, gallium, indium, and thallium. All but boron are post-transition metals, and nihonium is expected be a post-transition metal as well." Double sharp (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Green tickY (N.B. per FAC procedure: as I did not "oppose", I think it better not to write "support" either, especially since I cannot FAC-judge the whole article). - DePiep (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by XOR'easter

Looks pretty good!

  • In the intro, it says Nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability" — perhaps this should be At least one isotope of nihonium is expected to be within the "island of stability". As written, it's a slightly confusing bit of backtracking.
    • Replaced with Some nihonium isotopes are expected to be within the "island of stability". Double sharp (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have the feeling that many readers will be more familiar with a different meaning of the term "cold fusion". (In the disambiguation page, the sense of fusion reactions "where the product nuclei have a relatively low excitation energy" comes fourth of four.) Perhaps a brief note should be added to clarify this, particularly since the term occurs early enough that fairly casual readers are apt to bump into it.
  • It looks like a couple words are missing just after footnote 47, perhaps "to reference" or "to honor".

XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to support the nomination now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: You're welcome! I still plan on addressing your well-founded criticism of our quick introduction of the term cold fusion, and have in fact been thinking about what to do about that. I'm currently leaning towards just adding an explanatory footnote at its first occurrence, since it has to be introduced very early and explaining it then means that we're already going slightly off-topic before the reader has even gotten a clear sense of what the topic actually is. Of course, I'll be most grateful if you have a better suggestion than that. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
An explanatory footnote at the first occurrence sounds good to me; I can't think of anything better. XOR'easter (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@XOR'easter: I've added an explanatory footnote, reusing text from the unbinilium article. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Comments Tentative support by Cas Liber

Had a read-through. The lead strikes me as needing some sort of covering sentence, "Very little is known about nihonium as it has only been made in very small amounts." or something sort of like this. The lower paragraph just segues into predicted properties. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, it's a bit dry but then again that goes with the subject matter really...

I've added an expanded version of your sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph of the lede: "Very little is known about nihonium, as it has only been made in very small amounts that decay away within seconds." Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, it is definitely comprehensive, and nothing specific is jumping out at me prose-wise so I think we're there...but my eye for detail ain't great so someone else might pick up a few things. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Billy Martin

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a larger than life figure, even almost 30 years after his death. Growing up in the New York area in the late 70s, Billy Martin was on the front pages, or the back pages of the tabloids, very often. I was at the Old-Timers' Day in 1978, and I well remember the crowd cheering for 15 minutes ...Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Info: He played baseball. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes well I figured it went without saying ... it does say Major League Baseball in the lede sentence...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm going to do a sweep for any writing issues as time permits and expect to find myself supporting afterward. One thing I notice immediately is that ref 138 is a bare link. That needs some further formatting. Otherwise, I look forward to sinking my teeth into this article and will report any further issues I find. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I've fixed that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've cleaned up a few things in the article and just have the following source-related comments to offer:
  • Note c could use a cite, as it doesn't have one at the moment.
  • Haven't checked the relevant pages, but it looks like refs 1 and 168 could be duplicates that can be combined.
  • Done.
  • Ref 145 (the Neyer book) needs a page number.
  • Since ref 194 is to a website, that one needs an access date.
  • Did this one myself to move things along. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Publisher of ref 192 should be italicized, because that's to a newspaper article.
  • Some of the date formatting is inconsistent in a few places, and should be made internally consistent.(UTC)Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I've got everything. Thank you for the edits and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Support – An enjoyable read which appears to meet FA standards to my eyes. Hopefully we'll get some more reviewer activity here soon, because the article deserves it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for leading the way. Thank you for the kind words. Hopefully we will see more action.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Image/Source review: All the images have the appropriate info and check out copyright-wise. Was surprised but impressed that the one video was in the public domain, was not expecting that. For sources everything checks out except for a couple admittedly nitpicky things. There's a few web links that don't have accessdates (the ones that have physical page numbers i wouldn't want them, but the once that dont id like to see accessdates added), and for the Sports Illustrated reference I would like to see an archive link added. I only ask that as SI is notorious for rehauling their site with some frequency, completely breaking their links in the process. I'll try to make a prose review in the future but I'm on here so sparingly anymore it's unlikely. Wizardman 16:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review. I've done what you asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo

yes, even on biography Fifelfoo (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Not resolveable: oh gods the sports category boxes, my eyes. Damn them.
  • Impressed with selection in bibliography for bio[graphy]-diversity
  • Reference diversity good
  • Excellent media "BILLY, JAX CLASH IN DUGOUT" I do not normally review media. But this is excellent.
  • I think it is an appropriate length given the sources
Thank you for the review and support. I'm glad you approve of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

...and manager who, as well as leading other teams, was five times the manager of the New York Yankees. - I can understand the crescendo of this sentence. But it is a bit odd that his main claim to fame is later rather than earlier in the sentence...
It would be hard to make it too much earlier, I don't think you could put it before the basic description, so might as well leave it as is.
Yeah I'll pay that. Looking at it, any other wy of rejigging it makes it sound funny so nevermind...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
His skill as a baseball player gave him a route out of Berkeley. "Berkeley" repeated - this maybe could be worded better. I get what you mean.
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
.. but was inhibited by the fact that the second baseman ... - not fond of "inhibited"...maybe "hindered", "stymied" or something more Anglo-Saxon?
Deterred seems good? Although it seems a bit French.
..his skills as a player never fully returned after leaving the army. - unless he had amnesia I think we are talking about prowess. i.e. he has skills but his ability declined...
I've changed it but I'm not sure there's much difference. The idea is that he probably could not have made the catch against Robinson in 1955.
Martin had good reason to believe his days with the team were numbered - unless the source strongly suggested this might be better to just say, "Martin suspected/concluded/surmised his days with the team were numbered"
I put worried.
After a poor April, Martin's players turned it around, winning seven in a row to surge to within 4​12 games of the first place Red Sox near the start of June. - you could eliminate the "turned it around" (it is a bit fluffy anyway) and let the facts speak for themselves.
I see it's already gone.
With Detroit winning, those hostile to Martin among the players subsided. - umm, sounds odd. Needs rephrasing.
The Tigers lost Game One in extra innings. - err, should there be an indefinite or definite article before "innings"?
No. Standard terminology.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
With Martin at the helm, the Yankees went 30–26 in their final 56 games of the 1975 season; they ended the season in third place, where they had been when Martin took over - there's two "Martin"s in the sentence.
Martin worked with Paul during the offseason [to make trades] to dispose of players - could argue bracketed bit is redundant
That's deleted.

Overall a fascinating article. Striking the right balance between mimimalist, succinct prose and a more flowery engaging one can be tricky in these articles. I think it is (on the whole) okay here, though others might think it needs a bit of tightening...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Although there are phrases here and there that could be cut, and I've been doing so, the major reason for the length is that there are nearly a dozen narrative arcs as Martin is hired, does amazing things on the field and less happy things off it, and is fired. All that requires words. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

I started working my way through the article and copyediting soon after it was nominated but have been waylaid at several points -- I'll certainly try and resume soon. The main thing that has come out of it so far is that I found a fair bit of minor detail to trim but I've noticed that Wehwalt has been cutting some non-essential stuff as well, which I expect will make the remainder of my ce a bit quicker and simpler. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to cut some, but see no point in cutting two or three words that won't add up to much over the course of the article. Thank you for your comments to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, although I've always been interested in baseball, I don't know Martin's story so I'm not really in a position to judge whether entire statements are vital or not, thus I'm mainly trimming what I see as excess wording, not removing content per se. There's clearly a lot to this guy's story, most of it very interesting to read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, apologies this took so long -- as I suggested above, highly detailed but not boringly so. Outstanding points, not affecting support:

  • "The Tigers won the first two, though they lost the meaningless third game, making them the AL East champs by a half game." -- I realise we mean the third game didn't affect the outcome, just trying to think of a better word than "meaningless"...
  • "making John Hiller a successful closer" -- might want to link closer
  • "Martin had pledged to bat Jackson cleanup" -- might want to link cleanup

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review, and for the support. It is always good to get the thoughts of someone who is not particularly into the subject matter. Excepting the meaningless, I've done those things. Meaningless is used by the source, and it had no effect on the standings, and I can't come up with a better word.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
No prob -- the expression I'm used to is dead rubber, but you decide if you want to try and work it in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid that it is not current in American speech, alas.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Lana Turner

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about film actress Lana Turner, who had a prominent career in Hollywood over multiple decades. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Read more about her here: Lana Turner Online Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publisher and/or location
Applied locations to local newspapers and other bibliographic sources that didn't have locations; is this necessary for nationally-known publications like The New York Times or Los Angeles Times, where the publication is famous and the location self-evident? --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
No, but it should be consistent - for example, Chicago Tribune sometimes has no location, sometimes "Chicago", sometimes "Chicago, Illinois". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • FN4, 107: formatting is incorrect
  • Note that the numbering has changed since my initial comments; these are now FNs 10 and 130, the former of which still has issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm assuming you are referring to the Speed & Cameron-Wilson citation missing the location and ISSN, which I've now added. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes Geni a high-quality reliable source?
  • Don't italicize publishers
I couldn't find an instance of this.
Examples include UT San Diego and UPI. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN15: title is incorrect, and if you're using via for Google News why not for this?
  • FNs 31 and 43 and 58 are to the same publication, but are formatted differently - check for others
Unsure if you were referring to the Wayne 2003 reference—if so, I'm not clear on what is formatted differently as these are shortened footnotes that anchor to the publication.
Now 36, 49 and 71. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
The Life magazine articles--got it. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN36 needs time codes for specific references, and why the IMDb link?
  • Associated Press is an agency not an author
  • FN121: video has been removed from YouTube due to copyvio issues - check for other linkvio instances
I have attempted to find a video source for this, but cannot find it; the quote cited does very much appear in the program, which is a small (around 10 min.) interview with Turner's daughter on MacRae's Born Famous series.
Major concern here is rather the linkvio issue, which hasn't been fixed - looks like FN245 has also been taken down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I've pulled the YouTube links to prevent the violation issue, but have retained the references as they are still useful.--Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn148: complete date?
Pulled this source and replaced with a bibliographic one. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and if so how
  • FN197: see RfC
Not sure of the implication here, but I'm assuming it has to do with there not being a third-party reference about the Frank O'Hara poem, and rather a link to the Poetry Foundation's entry for the poem itself. My only response to this would be that the poem should be included here because her name is referred to explicitly in the title, and she is the subject of it. If need be, I can find a literary studies reference that corroborates the poem's title, but I'm not sure what the point would be.
The point of the RfC is, it's not enough to demonstrate that the reference exists, but rather that it is significant, which requires secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Introduced secondary bibliographic source --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • FN208 is missing italics
  • No citations to Parish 1978
  • GBooks links should be trimmed down
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Brown 2004 publisher is incorrect. Check for other such issues
  • Still incorrect, please review. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where you are seeing that the publisher is incorrect; Da Capo is the confirmed publisher according to Google Books, Worldcat, etc. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Parker 2003 appears incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken as I removed and replaced the Parker source earlier --Drown Soda (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: thanks for the source notes; I'll address these points and do another run-through for consistency. You're definitely correct about the Geni source; this was added by another editor and I didn't didnt want to excise it if I didn't have to, but I've unfortunately been unable to find other sources that corroborate the birthdates and deaths of her parents--in the end, that information is not vital to the integrity of the article and can be excised without creating any issues. There are plenty of sources pertaining to their names, which should suffice. I'll start work on your points within the next day or so; I'm currently out of town and do not have my computer with me and it's a bit impractical for me to make these changes on my mobile. I will return to this soon and make note of when they've been cleared up. - - Drown Soda (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed the above notes concerning sources; I combed through all of the book references to add proper locations and publishing houses, cleared up the abbreviated page references, and also made time-stamped footnotes corresponding to the documentary source. The only points above that remain unaddressed are ones I've responded to specifically in green text. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3

I've done some light copyediting to the article in the hopes that it will help in this FA process (hope you don't mind!please feel free to revert!). Will write some comments about the content here.


  • "relocated to nearby Wallace" — year (or approximate) needed
  • "hard times" — perhaps a bit too euphemistic, I'd go with something more specific. I take it the reason was the Great Depression? If so, mention it.
  • "profound effect" — this is minor, but how did this profound effect manifest itself? E.g. did Turner develop mental health problems, or later in life refer to the tragedy in some specific way?
  • How did Turner begin attending the church with family friends? Are confirmation names really worth mentioning?
  • "reportedly" — Weasel word alert, it's better to write who reported this or leave it out altogether (i.e. if undisputed).
  • "overseer" – or manager? If she did not play an 'official' role like that of a manager, maybe just write that "after Turner was discovered, her mother began managing/overseeing/etc. her career".
  • Are there any photos of Turner as a child?


  • First film: how major was the supporting role? If only a couple of lines or scenes, it's worth specifying instead that she had a minor role. If she was one of the main supporting actors, it's worth mentioning her role.
  • Why did Turner change studios? If she was successful at WB, why did the studio give her over to MGM?
  • "graduated from high school in between filming" — what was she filming?
  • Is LeRoy's role in the studio change actually disputed?
  • If she was already cast as the star of several MGM films in the late 1930s, you should go into a bit more detail about their reception, her roles, etc.


  • Why did these film projects fall through?
  • Again, there needs to be more about the reception of these films.
  • Turner's first marriage hasn't even been mentioned, and now the section mentions her second divorce. You should briefly mention the marriages, even if you have a separate 'Personal life' section; the reader doesn't want to jump back-and-forth between sections.
  • It would be good to add maybe a quote on Turner's thoughts on Gable. Were they friendly?

Postman section:

  • What were her characters in Green Dolphin Street, Cass Timberline and Home Coming?


  • Had she actually begun filming Bedeviled?
  • Why did the Topping wedding delay beginning filming?
  • Was it just announced that she'd be starring in the Cukor film? Unclear as the first sentence makes one think she began filming it in '49, but the next sentence states the script was shelved?
  • TCM is not a reliable source, I'd try to look for a better alternative.
  • Were the films made in Europe dramas, musicals...? What roles did she play? Again, more detail on the projects is needed.
  • Why was Turner reluctant to appear in The Prodigal?

Last section:

  • "She followed this with the lead role in Bittersweet Love (1976), a romantic comedy about a woman who unwittingly marries her half-brother" — erroneously implies she plays the woman who marries her half-brother
  • The Van Welder quote is awkward, given that Turner doesn't even play Patricia, the main character.
  • How were her theater performances received?

Personal life:

  • In the childhood section, she is described as a devout Catholic, but here it's stated she only became one in 1980?
  • It's mentioned that Turner suffered multiple stillbirths... how many exactly? One would think these were made public, as 'stillbirth' implies she was in the late stages of the pregnancy when they occurred. In general, this seems like such a major issue in Turner's life that more than a brief mention is needed.
  • It's also not clear why the blood type would lead to stillbirths. A brief (no more than one sentence) clarification would be a good addition.
  • Why weren't Lana and Cheryl close until the former's later years? It's also a bit awkward to jump then to something that happened when Cheryl was a teen.
  • Why is Tyrone Power's marriage significant enough to warrant a mention?
  • No lists are permitted in FAs to my knowledge, I would make a separate section for this, and perhaps merge it chronologically with the other section on relationships.
  • "habitually married" — sounds tabloidy, revise
  • Shaw marriage — give some background the marriage: how did they meet? why did they elope on their first date (which is pretty unusual)?
  • Same with Topping; how did they meet, etc.
  • Who is Judge?
  • Details about wedding ceremonies (i.e. clothing) don't really belong to an encyclopedia unless very notable (e.g. Diana & Charles's wedding, Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love's wedding...).
  • Once again, background is needed for the Barker and May relationships.
  • Stompanato:

- clarify how they met

That's all for now! In summary, you need to add more background to Turner's roles (e.g. what characters she played, how did the projects do in the box office, how did they fare with the critics, what were her opinions, did she undertake any specific training or other preparation for the roles...) and to rewrite 'Personal life' so that the marriages are no longer in list-form.

Good luck!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

@TrueHeartSusie3: I've addressed most of your notes here, and eliminated the marriage list and converted it into prose. I've tried to find as much as I can on the critical reception of Turner's films, but it is difficult to track down information pertaining to some (specifically in regard to mentions of Turner's performances themselves, exact box office receipts, etc.) In regard to Turner's training, again, there is little discussion/published material on this; she was a product of the studio system, though I've found no information regarding her acting style, method, etc. I'll look some more and see if I can find something about this arena of her career. Let me know if you find any pressing details I've missed; there are still a few things that could use brushing up I'm sure. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Great work! I'll try to take a closer look next week, but this article is definitely close to FA. Have you asked any particular editors to review it? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
@TrueHeartSusie3: I have made posts on talk pages on a couple of WikiProjects looking for editors, but so far no one has expressed interest. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Tentative Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • Why using bold for her name in body of text? Should be italics or double quotation marks...
  • James Agee of Time magazine was critical of Taylor's performance, and noted... - Taylor has not been mentioned previously.

Overall looking good. The article has 53kb of prose and shouldn't be any bigger. The article does a good job of trying to cover all work and adding enough detail so it doesn't come across as listy. The personal life is so intertwined with her career that it makes sense to thread it through chronologically. I think we're nearly there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: I believe I've addressed these two concerns in previous edits (the bold and the quote confusion). --20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it seems comprehensive and is a nice read, so I think we're over the line. Not that familiar with Lana Turner hence support dependent on others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

IP comments

One minor point, one slightly larger question:

  • The Manual of Style says to format the dates was 2016–2017, not 2016–17
  • I hate seeing partial lists of films in articles when most (or all) have already been written about. On what basis were those films selected? You should mention the rationale or it will leave the article open to people adding the film they just saw on TCM. Alternatively, just drop the whole section off to the list and add a link to it, rather than select things without rationale. - (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed the partial filmography as it doesn't entirely serve a purpose. Per the dates & MoS, are you referring to the years in the subheaders? (i.e. "1937–39: Discovery and early work")?
  • There are several points where the mos should be stuck to, particularly Wikipedia:Logical quotation, where there seems to be some changes needed.
    • I changed a couple but was reverted by User:Jeremy Butler. Perhaps he should look at the mos, rather than third-party style guides? - (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 13 years, but I did not know that English Wikipedia prefers the British style of punctuation (aka, "logical" quotation). I undid my reverting of your edit.--Jeremy Butler 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The image captioned "Turner and second husband Stephen Crane at Mocambo, February 1943" should be on the left so the pair look into the page, not out of it.

- (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it standard to position images based on which direction the subjects are looking? I have no problem changing that and it does look more sensible, but this is the first I've heard of that being suggested in an article. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
It is suggested in MOS:IMGLOC, "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." It is not mandatory, but seems logical and aesthetically pleasing. (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Good to know; I made this change yesterday and have rearranged/replaced some photos with ones that are more appropriate/pertinent to the text & trajectory of her career. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

@Drown Soda: Are you still tending to this nomination? I see you are editing the article, but you should respond and follow up with reviewers here as appropriate. Otherwise, we can't monitor the progress of the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: apologies for the delayed response. As you pointed out, I have been tending to the article and periodically reviewing the comments and suggestions here. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from nominator

Hello all; wanted to let everyone who has provided input thus far that I appreciate it. At this point I believe I have addressed the issues/inconsistencies and other points raised by the above contributors and have hit something of a wall with the article (in other words, I don't think I can take it any farther, nor do I think it really needs much else in terms of content). I've pored through it many times now over the last couple of months since the nomination and feel it's probably in the best shape it's been in yet (largely thanks to input provided from other editors here). If there are other outstanding issues that would prevent an FA promotion, I'm happy to look at them. Thanks again. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Edmonds station (Washington)

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 04:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a fairly normal train station in an American suburb, with Amtrak and commuter train service. It has been rebuilt three times on the same site and has seen train service come and go over the past 120 years. I hope that this article can form the backbone of a future Good topic on commuter rail stations in the Seattle region. SounderBruce 04:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:GN_Railway_station_and_residence_in_Edmonds,_Washington.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The picture was taken in 1925, but I don't know when it was first published. The library's collection says it came from the studio's archives, but I can't find anything more than that. SounderBruce 06:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Okay, so how do we know it was published in the date range given in the tag and without copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Is this point resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Support by Squeamish Ossifrage

I haven't previously reviewed (or examined, really) any of our train station articles, so it's entirely possible that some of my concerns have been accepted by the community. If so, I'll be happy to be informed of it. But that notwithstanding:

  • Let's start off with the name. Is this "Edmonds", a station? Or is it "Edmonds Station"? Sources seem split on the issue (along with a few other options). The Travel Washington site gives a clear image of the signage at the station though, which certainly reads "Edmonds Station" to me. Is there a reason why you opted for the format you did?
    • The article uses the WP:USSTATION naming convention, which prefers the lowercase form since it does not include the word station in its proper name on platform signage (picture).
  • §Description lists quite a few amenities (ticket machines, waiting shelters, restrooms) that seem like they would be assumed to be a part of a train station. Indeed, what seems to be the relevant notability essay provides that "listing ... every ordinary or mundane facility may be considered excessive", calling out toilet facilities specifically as unlikely to be notable for inclusion (and being the subject of past editor disputes). I'm not certain of the acceptance level of that essay but, to me, its argument is compelling.
    • Some of the amenities listed (restrooms, non-ticket vending machines, a staffed waiting room) are unusual for a commuter rail station, so I think it warrants mention.
  • Near the end of §Description, you have a spaced em dash. You can either use a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash, but not what you have.
    • Changed to a regular, unspaced em dash.
  • "A formal investigation of stations across Snohomish County by the Washington State Railroad Commission in 1909 led to a court order for Great Northern to improve their depots, including a modernized depot for Edmonds at James Street, which the railroad appealed and lost." This construction is awkward, and on first read suggests that the railroad appealed the depot (rather than the court order).
    • Reordered the last bit.
  • §Early stations: Any appropriate link target for "shingle mills"?
  • "railroad paraphernalia"? I honestly have no idea what this is implying.
    • Changed to "knock-knacks"; paraphernalia was the wording in the source, so I went with it.
  • That paragraph also has a flow problem. You announce its opening, then talk about trains serving it, then describe it, then talk about trains serving it again (or, in this case, the lack thereof). Consider reworking it such that the description comes before train service?
    • Reordered.
  • §Modern depot and Amtrak: The section about Railpax is confusing as written. You introduce the Railpax plan with its purpose of "operat[ing] unprofitable transcontinental passenger services that railroads sought to cut", so the expectation for the reader is that Railpax would seek to preserve lines through this station. But in the next sentence, you describe how Railpax actually shut down service to this station. In isolation, both of those sentences are true, but the wording needs to be addressed to avoid a bait-and-switch for the reader there.
    • Reworded to emphasize the Railpax was about consolidating redundant private lines, which meant that some corridors had to go.
  • Do sources say who maintained the station in the absence of passenger service? Railpax? Burlington Northern?
    • Clarified that Burlington Northern kept maintenance of the passenger side.
  • "...passenger service. Passenger service..." Rework to avoid back-to-back use of this phrase.
    • Broken up.
  • "Edmonds, ... was slated to lose [services] at Edmonds station ..." [emphasis mine]. In principle, I think the first "Edmonds" there is intended to be the city, but since you refer to the station as "Edmonds" quite a bit, the repetition seems tautological.
    • Fixed.
  • Any idea why Amtrak left it in service?
    • Newspaper article says the following:
      • The Edmonds train station is not among those slated to be closed or automated, Amtrak officials decided last week. "The revenue production has been good" there, said Art Lloyd, Amtrak's director of corporate communications.
  • So, it was designated a high-speed rail corridor in 1992, which required raising the train speed. But that was opposed by locals in the 1980s? I'm pretty sure I know how the sequence of events actually worked (that is, it was discussed well before the official designation). But that's not what the article says.
    • The speed debate was started because of the normal Amtrak trains (headed east to Chicago, not on the Vancouver corridor), but later encompassed the Cascades trains.
  • §Commuter rail: In this section, and this section only, you suddenly start calling the city the "City of Edmonds".
    • Changed to "city government"
  • "The multimodal project, named "Edmonds Crossing", was evaluated in the 1990s and a preferred alternative was chosen in 1998..." As written, this makes it sound as though an alternative [to the Edmonds Crossing project] was chosen. But then it turns out that's not what happened.
    • Reordered the sentence to emphasize that it was the choosing of a "preferred location"
  • What or where is "Point Edwards"?
    • Added a general location description, but I think it would be better served with a link to a yet-to-be-created article.
  • Link commuter rail?
    • Done.
  • References: Print sources accessed online do not require access dates. The idea is that Google books or other online reproductions of a print sources are essentially convenience links. And while web-exclusive content can change at any time, print... doesn't.
    • I've seen Google Books links get updated or removed from time to time, so I've kept it just in case. I can remove it if it really is an issue.
  • You're not real consistent about whether you link publishers and publications. There are three ways to do this (link 'em all–or at least all that would bluelink, link on first appearance only, don't link), but consistency is important. For example, you tend to link Amtrak in the references, but not other publishers. And then there are those two redlinks at the end of the list.
    • Removed the extra Amtrak link, which brings all references up to links at first appearance only; also created two redirects for those red links.
  • I am concerned about how much information is cited to non-independent sources. To a certain extent, citing Amtrak or Sound Transit is to be expected here. But, for example, as another other than Amtrak itself discussed the station's Modernist architectural elements?
    • There doesn't seem to be other accessible sources on the station's design, though I am able to cite a newspaper article that describes the windows and Modernist style.
  • HistoryLink's formal name is Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, which it recommends for use in references.
    • The short form hasn't been deemed an issue before; I prefer it, as other references use short forms (e.g. Amtrak, Sound Transit).
  • The model railroad association that occupies a room in the station isn't notable enough to warrant a name-drop in the text; why do they get an external link?
    • Removed.
  • Regarding the licensing problem raised by Nikkimaria above: This is the library's current (and more verbose) description of the Juleen Studio Collection. Some, but not all, of the images in the collection were previously published (as, for example, postcards). If this image was not previously published, then the image entered the public domain in July 2005, 70 years after the death of John Juleen. On the other hand, if it was published as a postcard (or anything else) it would be in the public domain unless there was a notice and registration, and that registration was renewed by the studio. I can't confirm that Juleen did include a notice of copyright on the images he published as postcards (example here from the secondary collectibles market); so the burden is likely on the editor to confirm that there was not both a formal registration and a renewal of copyright (although I consider it very unlikely that there was both registration and renewal here). Absent that determination, you'll need to play it safe and treat this as potentially non-free media.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above to the best of my ability. For now, I'll remove the Juleen image and send an e-mail to the library to determine its copyright status. SounderBruce 04:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Just checking in again. Does it look better? SounderBruce 05:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Support. Apologies for the slow response. Travel and this project don't always cooperate. I don't see any fatal problems here. I would really like to see the historical photo back, even if you have to license it as non-free media, but the article as it stands certainly checks all the criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by AmericanAir88

Support Fantastic Job AmericanAir88 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Laser brain

  • Sources are fine, and formatting is fine. I did note the large number of older sources that list "p. 1". Is this a one-sheet? Is the real page number unavailable, or simply all the articles were on the front page? Just verifying we got the correct page numbers here. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @Laser brain: The newspaper is indeed multipage (usually 5-8 per issue) and the page numbers are direct from my scanned copies. SounderBruce 13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from Fifelfoo

I mostly look at 1c/2c Fifelfoo (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

  • A number of PRIMARIES are used, I am not concerned by their use here: I believe their use is appropriate from sampling and reading the full text.
  • I am kind of surprised that there isn't a HQRS from the Railfan community? Given your awareness, is this an area that has not encouraged HQRS production from among that knowledge community?
    • I haven't been able to find, let alone obtain, many reliable sources regarding railroads in the Northwest. There are a few indexes of stations and other tidbits, but that's about it unless I want to muck around with self-published books.
  • For a 40K population I don't expect a relevant local history on this topic, but did you double check for local histories held at Edmonds library for example?
    • Several of the sources used were donated or referred to by the Edmonds Historical Museum, so I think I've done my due diligence in finding sources.
  • Varieties of English issue: depot for me as an Australian English speaker connotes a holding or loading or servicing place for trains, is this true? If so, ought the depot to be made more of in the appropriate section? The picture seems to indicate a solid "yes."?
    • @Fifelfoo: In American English, depot is used interchangeably with station, though often in a historical sense (e.g. current stations are just stations, but historic stations may be called a depot). SounderBruce 12:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Do you believe the weight applied to the depot in the appropriate section is relevant to the article regarding the station? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I've cut out a few instances outside of the 1910-56 section. SounderBruce 22:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the quality of writing

Weak support from Ian

Like Fifelfoo, I think the writing is good, so only a very light copyedit from me. It seems quite comprehensive as well, and I'll take Nikki's and Andy's image/source reviews as read. The "weak" support is because I didn't really get a feeling from the article as to what makes this a particularly notable train station, though given what appears to be a reasonable amount of info from third-party sources, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it doesn't meet WP:NOTE guidelines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. There's a duplink in Commuter rail and several in the Services section -- I wouldn't think the article is long enough to warrant them so pls review/rationalise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll admit, it's a rather ordinary station; at best, it's noted for its Modernist architecture, as oppose to other historic stations. I have removed all but two duplinks (which I feel are needed to maintain standalone comprehension for the Services section). SounderBruce 04:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk) and Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Neil Armstrong, who walked on the Moon and, for a time, on the Earth. I hope this article can be run on the front page on the 50th Anniversary of his Moon walk in July 2019. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Factotem

Completing the partial source review I conducted for the article's MILHIST ACR


  • Koestler-Grack's Neil Armstrong appears to have been published in 2010, not 2009 as stated in the bibliography.
    Changed to 2010. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • My bad for not picking this up in the ACR, but the ISBN and OCLC links provided for Kranz's Failure is not an Option: Mission Control From Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond both link to Chaikin's A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. The correct Worldcat entry for Kranz's work is here
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Worldcat entry as linked by both ISBN and OCLC for Nelson's Rocket Men gives the publisher as Viking, not John Murray. Would also point out, purely as a matter of curiosity, that the Book's subtitle in the title of that listing is different from the one given in the bibliography, though the latter is what is printed on the cover image in the Worldcat listing, which is odd, but not an issue for FAC.
    The subtitle is correct. [14] Changed the ISBN and OCLC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


  • What makes Mach 25 Media a reliable source? Also, p. 25 states "Scheduled to check out MH-96 system", but it's not clear that this was the first flight of that system as stated in the article.
    Evans wrote a book on the subject, The X-15 Rocket Plane, and published this portion that was left out on the web. Added a reference from Hansen to support first flight claim. It can be inferred from Evans, but Hansen is explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes reliable?
    Replaced with a NASA link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes reliable? Also, there doesn't appear to be anything on that page to support the assertion that Armstrong "talked about the exploits of the Brazilian-born Alberto Santos-Dumont"
    Added reference from Hansen to support this; removed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes reliable?
    Replaced with a Hansen reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Factotem (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: Anything else you see that needs correcting? Kees08 (Talk) 19:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

All looks good to me. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2018 (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) 20:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Delighted to see this and that we will likely have something to run a year from July. A few comments:

  • I think the lede deserves some mention of the quiet, indeed reclusive life he led in his later years, which isn't mentioned much in the body either.
    I need to go through my sources, but I am pretty sure he was perceived as a recluse more than him being an actual recluse. Heck, I saw him speak live without going out of my way to. I will do my due diligence and look through the sources, and at least try to address the perception of reclusiveness. If I find the sources calling him reclusive, I will also put that in there. Kees08 (Talk) 05:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    I hope to get to this this week. Kees08 (Talk) 07:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    Kees, did you get to this? If so (or when you do, hopefully soon) pls give Wehwalt a ping so he can have another look. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    Not yet; a combination of work related travel (limiting access to my books) and skimming the books to find the relevant sections are slowing me down a bit. Should settle out starting next week, I will start documenting my progress on the talk page of the Armstrong article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Can you give a summary here?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
    Of course; check Armstrong's talk page for my progress (did not want to clutter up this page). Kees08 (Talk)
    @Hawkeye7 and Wehwalt: Hawkeye, feel free to copyedit what I wrote. It both feels too long and too short to me..Wehwalt, let me know if this is satisfactory and if you have anything additional comments. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Houston replied" Consider saying the Capsule Communicator replied and name the astronaut who was serving as such.
    It was Charles Duke. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Among the very few personal items that Neil Armstrong carried with him to the Moon and back was a World Scout Badge.[11]" I might cut "and back". I don't think cutting it carries any implication that he left it there.
    But astronauts did leave trinkets there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we know when Armstrong returned from Korea?
    In May 1952. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "with music from Gilbert and Sullivan with new lyrics." I might change the second "with" to "but" to avoid repetition
    Good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • " High-Speed Flight Station.[33]" Double linked in same paragraph. You might want to mention he was accepted once a position opened, as I assume happened.
    Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "and attended a conference there co-sponsored by NASA on space exploration." I would move "on space exploration" to follow "there".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "They practiced a "phantom rendezvous", carrying out the maneuver without a target.[63]" "They" is, I assume, Cooper and Conrad. However, Armstrong and See are the last people referred to.
    Changed to "cooper and Conrad" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The mission launched on March 16, 1966" given the discussion in the previous paragraph, I would sub "Gemini 8" for "The mission".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "while Armstrong served as Capsule communicator (CAPCOM).[83]" I have more often seen "communicator" capitalized. I assume he wasn't the only one?
    Yes. They normally work in shifts, along with the Mission Control teams, since there has to be one there around the clock. They are normally drawn from the backup and support crews. But it's not unusual for other astronauts to be assigned as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a little more buildup to the launch of Apollo 11. Can you discuss the training perhaps? And on the journey to the Moon?
This one remains, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, I am reading and digesting the material and hopefully will have something written by the end of the week. Kees08 (Talk)
@Wehwalt: I wrote a paragraph on this. Tried to keep it brief but informative. Does this satisfy your concern? Kees08 (Talk)
I don't see anything on training/preparation. Presumably they went someplace to practice lunar conditions, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
That is what I added; they only went on one geological training expedition. Kees08 (Talk)
There is a whole paragraph on training:

To give the astronauts experience with how the LM would fly on its final landing descent, NASA commissioned Bell Aircraft to build two Lunar Landing Research Vehicles (LLRV), later augmented with three Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV). Nicknamed the "Flying Bedsteads", they simulated the Moon's one-sixth of Earth's gravity by using a turbofan engine to support five-sixths of the craft's weight. On May 6, 1968, 100 feet (30 m) above the ground, Armstrong's controls started to degrade and the LLRV began rolling. He ejected safely. Later analysis suggested that if he had ejected half a second later, his parachute would not have opened in time. His only injury was from biting his tongue. The LLRV was completely destroyed. Even though he was nearly killed, Armstrong maintained that without the LLRV and LLTV, the lunar landings would not have been successful, as they gave commanders valuable experience in the behavior of lunar landing craft.

They only went on one geological mission because this was not the focus of their training; unlike the later missions, they were not going to be on the lunar surface for that long, or wander very far. Most training was in the simulators, but the Apollo 8, 9 and 10 crews all had priority. Apollo 11 only had top priority to use the simulators after Apollo 10 had flown in May 1969 (after which they only had to share with the prime and backup crews of Apollo 12). Later missions had far more time time to train and less competiotion for resources. Since most parts of the mission profile were covered by the earlier missions, Armstrong prioitised training for the part that was new, the lunar landing itself. As the article notes, training was also disrupted by crew changes; he lost his original CMP (Lovell) to Apollo 8, so Aldrin had to take over as CMP and Haise as LMP until Collins returned. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • " disputed that he had ever claimed coming up with the line spontaneously during the mission.[122]" Claimed coming up?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2011.[207] " I might change "the" to "a" as when Congress votes one, they make a new design.
    I did not know that. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    I actually added an image of the medal in Collins' article, in case you wanted it here. There are some photos from the ceremony but I did not see any that were very high quality. Kees08 (Talk) 22:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    It is a nice image, but I think we have enough here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    Agreed on total quantity of images. If anything, I would replace the Obama picture with that picture, since the Obama photo is not mentioned at all in the prose but the Congressional Gold Medal is. I do not have a strong preference, I just did that with the Collins article. I leave the decision to you. Kees08 (Talk) 22:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    I've switched it with the George Bush image, because it suits the layout better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, it all looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS

Hopefully this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Can you confirm the image review is complete and addressed satisfactorily? Kees08 (Talk) 00:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done yet; File:F9F-2 Panthers VF-51 over Korea 1951.jpg still needs at least one more readily accessible source URL rather than something that requires a login, and I'm still not comfortable with using a potentially misleading caption in File:Frase de Neil Armstrong.ogg given how it's disputed whether Armstrong actually said "for a man" or just "for man". It would be better to paraphrase in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
See [[Talk:Neil_Armstrong#"That's_one_small_step_for_[a]_man,_one_giant_leap_for_mankind"_in_introductory_paragraph|this talk page post]]. The [a] is exactly as it should be: he did not say it but intended to, hence the brackets. Kees08 (Talk) 00:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Refactoring quotes like that with brackets is inappropriate as it incorrectly implies people used certain words when the truth is they didn't. That could easily give readers the wrong idea. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not agree here, as the brackets indicate that text was added that was not originally said. Here is a guideline on formatting. The exact quote from that guideline is [square brackets] for added or replacement text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text (see WP:ELLIPSIS for details). If a reader is confused by the use of brackets in a quote, then there is nothing we can do for them if they do not go out and learn about them. The same goes for emdashes, semicolons, or any other literary element. The article text also makes it very clear on what he said, if anyone does not understand the brackets and needs additional clarification. Kees08 (Talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It is an historic quote, and paraphrasing makes no sense at all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I will let you take care of the F9F-2 photo however you wish to. Kees08 (Talk) 01:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Our standards do not require a more readily accessible source URL rather than one that requires a login, but added a link to the National Aviation Museum facebook page Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Support from John

In the test pilot section, Armstrong's record altitude is mentioned three times (all with slightly different altitudes!). It should be possible to rewrite this so it flows better. --John (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

  • See what you think; I've had a hack at it.--John (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

*The alt-text descriptions need some work; they are no longer a requirement but if we are to have them they should be better than this. --John (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC) I sorted out the alt-text, and removed a couple of pictures I thought were superfluous. I'm happy to support now. Nice work. --John (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes, especially to the ALT text. Much appreciated. Moving the bit about the boy scouts into the footnote was a brilliant idea. Wish I'd thought of that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Also would like to thank you for alt text, did a great job! Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I've begun the checks, but I will be offline for most of the next 48 hours. Here's what I have so far (ref numbers are per this version):

  • Ref 6: "CBS News" is not a newspaper, as you have it in the template. The "publisher=" field will get rid of the inappropriate italicisation.
  • Ref 14: pp error
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 26: I would give the publisher as "Purdue University", rather than just "Purdue" which is meaningless to non-Americans
  • Ref 66: publisher clarification required – it is Yaroslavl Regional Government
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 79: I think the publisher is "Military Times Hall of Valour" tather then "Military Times"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 171: ndash not hyphen required in page range
  • Ref 190: (Twitter) How can this citation be verified?
    Replaced with a NASA reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be back to complete the review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuing the sources review (ref numbers per this version):

  • Ref 110: This and ref 111 both link to the same source. One or other of them is presumably wrong.
    They are both correct; 111 also contains some commentary on touchdown time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    Ref 110 is titled: "The First Lunar Landing, time 109:45:40". This time signature does not appear in the source: I believe it should be 102:45:40, hence the confusion. Incidentally, the quotation from Armstrong that you've incorporated into the reference needs a citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 112: How to use this? AS11 PA0 does not feature in the links
    It does. Switched reference to point to the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    You've switched to a 580-page document, with no page reference, so this is not useful. As it's one of three citations to this sentence, do you actually need it at all? Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 117: What makes a quality reliable source?
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 123: Paywall, therefore add subscription template
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 125: CNN should be de-italicised (see Ref 207)
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 128: Why is "University of Pennsylvania" shown as publisher of the Language Log?
    It's on their web site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    Does the university have editorial control over the site? The fact that it's run by one of their staff doesn't mean they have responsibility for it. I'm not questioning the site's reliability, just the publisher detail
  • Ref 133: The publisher appears to be ThoughtCo, not (which I believe no longer exists)
    Switched to the archived version. article is not what we want. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 133: Italicise per Ref 121
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 154: Is Atlas Obscura a print source? If not, italicisation inappropriate.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 179: see 133 above does not take you to the right place, so switched to the archived version. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 185: see 125 above
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 186: Wall Street Journal requires italics
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 215: Paywall, see 123 above
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 220: I'm not sure that "Federal Department Library program" can be described as the publisher here. Probably US Government Publishing Office.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 222: Compare format with Ref 124
    Compared. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 224: Check link – this doesn't appear to go to the right source
    Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    Me too now. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 226: Fox News a reliable source?
    Yes, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 237#Is Fox News a WP:RS Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A couple of points for the bibliography: ISBN formats should be constant, and "Penguin books" should be "Penguin Books".
    US government publications don't have ISBNs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    That's not my point – I'm talking about ISBN formats. See Kranz and compare with all others.
  • One final point. You have made extensive use of Hansen's 1999 biography, but none at all of Jay Barbree's more recent Life, published after Armstrong's death and therefore covering the subject's whole life. Any reason for not using it?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't have a copy. Hansen's biography was authorised, so it was authoritative enough for me. Jay Barbree is a journalist known for his purple prose, and the reviews were underwhelming, so I didn't feel like springing twenty bucks for it. Kees08 might have more to say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    I have the audiobook; which I believe has some good information on his reclusiveness, I will check if I have a print copy. Been busy IRL so slacking a bit on responding in this review. If I do have it (even if I do not, I can buy it), were you looking for me to expand the article with information from the book, or to replace/bolster the existing citations? Kees08 (Talk) 09:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    There's no need to bolster or replace any citations, nor is there is no requirement to use every available source. If you have it and it has something of value, sure. I note that some reviewers have challenged what he said about Armstrong's exclusiveness. He was more reclusive than Meghan Markle, but no more reclusive than most ordinary folk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about bolstering or replacing citations. Barbree's book may have alternative "takes" on some of the information in the article, and perhaps a few insights that Hansen doesn't have. The argument about not having to use every available source doesn't really apply here – at the moment you're using one biography, written nearly 20 years ago when the subject was still alive, and ignoring a much more recent one – that bothers me from the aspect of FACR 1c: "[the article] is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I've read a few of the online reviews of the book, and while they often include criticisms of style and approach, they are in the main positive rather than "underwhelming" or dismissive. Is the audiobook a complete text? If not, I'm sure a library copy can be found. It would be worth spending a little time investigating this source. Brianboulton (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The book has no footnotes, so I will not use it. The reviews on Amazon are poor: "First Man was much better, more detailed, more scientific, more meaty. This book is fluff and narrative", "There are other, and much better, Armstrong biographies out there. This one reads and feels as though it was rushed to press immediately after the astronaut's death, and is absolutely full of inaccuracies", "I mostly quit reading after the statement in the account of Gagarin's launch, '...his weight being increased constantly by the pull of gravity'", "Having read most of the available biographies of the Apollo astronauts, this is one of the poorer ones... a simplistic re-telling of the Apollo era, with many inaccuracies and speculations", "shallow and basically 1960's hero worship. Not much technical information. Mr. Armstrong's post-FAA career and life is rather trivialized". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    Not all thew reviews take this line but, fair enough, you have made a case for not using the source and I won't pursue it further. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

In the lede:

  • "When he stepped onto the lunar surface on July 21, 1969, he said: "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind."" feels a little like random trivia. This is, I feel, particularly because of the place in which it is located. It just feels very random. I'd put it into the third paragraph, when we actually discuss the moon landing itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    I always hate the first paragraph of biographies, they never flow well. I moved that statement into the chronological location for it. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Why no mention at all of his childhood at the start of the second paragraph? I think that it would be interesting to give a very brief mention of his place of birth, class background, that sort of thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    The second paragraph is pretty long already, and I think adding the childhood would be a little excessive for it. Kees08 (Talk)
    It's only five and a half lines long (on my browser), which is pretty short by Wikipedia FA standards. I mean, the FA for Happy Chandler, which was on the main page a couple of days ago had a second paragraph that was nine and a half lines long. That example, in my view, is unnecessarily lengthy, and puts of readers. But Armstrong is a major 20th century figure and can warrant more than five and a half lines. On a personal level, I feel that a happy medium regarding length is a maximum of eight lines for the second and third paragraphs of the lede (I used that for Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela). Now I'm not saying that you must pack the paragraphs out to eight lines, but I really think that you could boos it up to seven easily without any harm to the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why nothing on his impact, legacy, and historical assessments? The fourth paragraph would be ideal for that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Because of the sheer quantity of awards and things named after him, it would be difficult to prune that list down for the intro. Maybe the Flight Research Center, First Man movie, and Congressional Gold Medal? Which things do you think should be added? Kees08 (Talk)
    You don't necessarily have to list the awards in the lede, but the fourth paragraph would be a great space to simply say that he was given a wide range of awards and that lots of things were named after him. Give the reader a quick impression of his cultural impact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Addressed comments. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Pinging again, can you respond to the above? Any other comments? Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, apologies for the delay. I saw the original ping but got distracted and then forgot about it. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Truthfully, I'm a little bit concerned by the comparatively minimal use of material from the published biographies of Armstrong; I think that the article could be a lot stronger on that count, instead of relying so much on free web sources (The Guardian, Wired, Atlas Obscura etc) as much of the article presently does. There are many areas that I imagine could probable be fleshed out using those sources, particularly the "Life After Apollo" section. Despite this, I don't think that I would go so far as opposing the article at FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: been busy can you take a look at this? Kees08 (Talk) 03:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: I went out of my way to add citations that were not from his books. I try to diversify the sources, so we are not relying solely on his life the way that he wanted it told. I will see if there are any important life events we missed in Life after Apollo. Did you have thoughts on my responses above? Kees08 (Talk) 03:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So did I. I didn't want the article to lean too heavily on a single source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl I finished up his teaching section; I plan to expand the other sections more. Let me know if the teaching section contains all the information you would like. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Forgot my books at home, but I should be back from work travel early this week and will try to finish this up. I want to focus on a comprehensive summary of the jobs he held in his post-NASA career. Kees08 (Talk) 06:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: Can you take another look at this? I expanded out his life after Apollo. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 04:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Carabinieri

Hi, I hate to be the voice of dissent. I have not reviewed this article in depth, but since this review has been open for a while, I thought I'd post my comments, lest this FAC is closed. I have only checked a few claims in the article, but found some issues:

  • The article claims that "Armstrong is generally referred to as a 'reluctant' American hero". There are two sources for this paragraph. The first doesn't mention any facts from this article. The second only claims that his relatives referred to him as a reluctant American hero ("Praising Mr Armstrong as a 'reluctant American hero,' his heartbroken relatives expressed hope his legacy...")
    I think there are enough sources to back it up, but I've changed the text to say "Armstrong's family described him as a 'reluctant American hero'", and added a couple more references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, those sources weren't cited in that paragraph. If there's a reliable source claiming that this was a common description of him, I'd certainly encourage you to restore the claim.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The article claims: "In March 1983, the U.S. State Department responded by issuing a global message to Muslims saying that Armstrong 'has not converted to Islam'". According to Hansen, this was only a message to American embassies and consulates in Muslim countries.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Use of Armstrong's name, image, and famous quote caused him problems over the years. MTV wanted to use his quote for its now-famous identity depicting the Apollo 11 landing when it launched in 1981, but he refused". This doesn't make any sense to me. How did Armstrong's refusal cause Armstrong any problems? If anything, this was a problem for MTV. By "identity" do you mean "logo"?
    What got my attention was "now-famous". Removed per MOS:PUFF. Replaced with station identification and a bit of explanation, as it's quite possible that it may change in the future. There's a law dating back to the days of crystal radio sets that says that a TV station has to identify itself every hour or so. They can just display the logo, but more often have a bit of audio and video too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm also not impressed with the sources used in the article. I'm seeing a lot of press releases, random websites. Surely, higher-quality sources are available for such a high-profile topic? Here are two specific instances:

  • "In May 2005, Armstrong became involved in a legal dispute with his barber of 20 years, Mark Sizemore" The source for this is the letter Armstrong's lawyers sent Sizemore. This is hardy the most impartial source and it also doesn't mention Sizemore was Armstrong's barber for 20 years.
    Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "At Purdue, he was also a member of Kappa Kappa Psi National Honorary Band Fraternity" This is sourced to a website that merely lists members of Kappa Kappa Psi and doesn't give any further context.
    What's the problem? The statement is supported by the source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, it only shows that the frat claims him as a member. I listened to the lecture by Hansen about Armstrong cited in one of the footnotes and he makes the point that people would consistently make up connections between themselves and him and that one should generally be careful about believing such claims. But even if we do accept its claim that Armstrong was a member, the site gives no further context as to how relevant this is or whether there is some other aspect to this that would have to be mentioned. The guidelines tell us to generally be careful when using primary sources and the FA criteria call for high-quality sources. I don't know that this is a high-quality source and have my doubts about a few of the other sources used in the article.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
As a note, Kappa Kappa Psi is a FA and we should make sure that it aligns w/ the Neil Armstrong article with respect to the outcome of this discussion. Hawkeye, can you find this in either of the Armstrong biographies? Kees08 (Talk) 06:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no mention in Hansen or Barbree, but I found a better source, which provided context [15], and have corrected the article accordingly. The claim was added (unsourced of course) on 22 June 2007. When I added sources to the article, I merely lifted the source from the Kappa Kappa Psi article. My bad. I might have removed it, but these things are often important in American military prosopography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There are some inconsistencies in the footnotes. Some names of newspapers are not in italics. One footnote citing an LA Times article lists the newspaper's owner. Same names of TV channels are in italics. The order of the author's names in footnote 119 is inconsistent.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I have corrected these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are a few more (the numbers of the footnotes refer to this version):
  • FN 130: Should those blog entries be attributed to their respective authors?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FN 160: Shouldn't the author (Sarah Bruhns) be listed?
    It should; added Kees08 (Talk)
  • FN 166, 208: Washington Post not italicized
    Should it be? I am getting confused on when to use newspaper and publisher parameters. I thought it had to be published in a newspaper for it to be the newspaper parameter, and online publishing received the publisher parameter. Can you or someone else correct my thinking on this? Kees08 (Talk)
    Okay, I think I have sorted out when to use those parameters. Changed parameter to newspaper for those two. Kees08 (Talk)
    In a {{{cite news}}} template, use |newspaper= for newspapers, |publisher= for TV stations etc. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FN 175: This is a talk given by Hansen. Shouldn't he be listed as the author or mentioned in some way? In any case, I don't quite understand why this is used. The Hansen book backs up the claim in its entirety and is certainly of higher quality than an off-hand remark during a Q&A.
    Removed fn 175. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Should footnotes referencing reports that come from a news agency mention that agency? FN 201 does, 127 and 243 don't.
    I don't normally, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FN 206: Shouldn't Aldrin be listed as the author?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, added. Kees08 (Talk)

@Carabinieri: Let us know if we missed anything, and if you have further comments. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to answer. I'll get back to you this weekend.--Carabinieri (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi sorry again. I've only managed to go through the first couple of section. Here's what I've found:
  • Footnote 6: Most of the information that precedes the footnote is not in the source.
    Added a bit from Hansen, with footnotes. It appears that originally the citation was correct, but some additional unsourced information was subsequently added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "After returning to Purdue, he met Janet Elizabeth Shearon, who was majoring in home economics, at a party hosted by her sorority, Alpha Chi Omega." This is a little ambiguous. Does "After returning to Purdue" refer to this second stint at Purdue, to a later visit, or did he return for a longer time after that?
    Deleted "After returning to Purdue" to remove repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Armstrong returned to Purdue, where his best grades came in the four semesters following his return from Korea" Hansen doesn't really say that, as far as I can tell. He only lists a bunch of courses he did well in and then later says his grades slipped afterwards. That slip would also have taken place in those four semesters, no?
    No. Hansen is clear that his grades were now higher. "Sharper focus and greater maturity resulted in improved grades". But he had some sixes before (p. 58), so I've just tweaked the wording slightly. I've linked to Academic grading in the United States, specifically the six-point system used by Purdue at the time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

--Carabinieri (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Support from MONGO

Having read the article twice and a third and fourth time with editing window open can find nothing major to complain about. Ran the various bots and the refs all come back as live and formatted appropriately overall. The article appears to cover the major details in sufficient depth to be both informative but not excessively so and properly balanced. I also checked duplicate links and found none in the article body that stood out. Noticed no missing non-breaking space issues. Saw a contraction like "didn't" but that one example was in a quotation anyway. Its an enjoyable read. All I can say is I am not sure why we cannot show current retrieval dates for the refs rather than from 10-12 years ago. Retrieved August 28, 2007 just looks like its not a current thing but that's a little quibble and does not impact my support.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The Thing (1982 film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To paraphrase: "I know I'd make this a Featured Article. And if you were all these things, then you'd just not make it a Featured Article, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to promote Featured Articles, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to prevent this becoming a Featured Article. And then it's won."

The Thing is a 1982 horror film, it bombed at the time but has since become recognised as a milestone in the horror genre. Read, be enlightened, feedback, and hopefully this can become one of our top articles! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One of my all time favorite films, of course I'll take a look at it. I was going to comment how there was no analysis section, but then I saw the cinematic analysis section. Here are a few more articles I was able to find on JSTOR about The Thing:

  • White, Eric (November 1993). "The Erotics of Becoming: Xenogenesis and 'The Thing'". Science Fiction Studies. 20 (3): 394–408. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 
  • Leane, Elizabeth (July 2005). "Locating the Thing: The Antarctic as Alien Space in John W. Campbell's 'Who Goes There?'". Science Fiction Studies. 32 (2): 225–239. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 
  • Gomel, Elana (July 2012). "Posthuman Voices: Alien Infestation and the Poetics of Subjectivity". Science Fiction Studies. 39 (2): 177–194. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 
  • Jones, Kent (January–February 1999). "John Carpenter: American Movie Classic". Film Comment. 35 (1): 26–31. Retrieved April 5, 2018. 

While the cinematic analysis section looks rather in depth as it stands, you might want to at least skim through what these journals have to say about The Thing. I'll have a close look at the article tonight. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Hobo I will take a look. Sorry I didn't see this update to the talk page. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, defer to FH on source coverage.

  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Further reading should be a separate section, not a subsection, and should not include Wikipedia articles. Also, formatting should match references, although additional information can be included
  • Why include a location for Los Angeles Times and not New York Times? Should be either neither or both
  • FN6 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other books
  • FN7 is malformed, same with 39-41
  • Newspaper refs without URLs should include page numbers
  • GamesRadar should be italicized, as should website names like - check others
  • FN 49-50: why no spaces?
  • Formatting for FN51 doesn't match similar sources, same with 167
  • Magazine titles should be consistently italicized
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations or not
Think I hit them all Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting a rather heavy use of sources that are either written by or interviews of people directly involved in the production
  • Box Office Mojo should not be italicized, nor should UPI, nor BFI, etc - check others
As I mentioned below, the template emphasises the use of the website parameter over the publisher one, and the website template italicizes its contents. UPI may be the publisher but is the website. The only thing I can do here is change the contents of "Website" to "" instead rather than just explicitly stating UPI. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not correct. While the use of the website parameter is emphasized, that doesn't mean any other approach is prohibited, nor that the website parameter should be used in cases for which it is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it is inappropriate but I just want this FAC over at this point, I'll sort it once SerialNumber has finished with the refs. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FN74: page?
  • What makes Strange Horizons a high-quality reliable source? Alt Film Guide? Screamscape?
  • Rather than Goodreads, just cite the edition directly
I am really struggling here, it's virtually impossible as far as I can see to find information on this that isn't a fansite, that's why I cited GoodReads initially. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned, this particular detail doesn't require secondary sourcing - you can cite the edition directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I mean I can't find information on those issues to cite, they're apparently in the back of an entirely different comic so I can't find the info to cite the original texts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FN123 doesn't match formatting of other sources
  • FN127: archive link doesn't appear to work correctly
  • FN131: use |via=
  • Per WP:ROTTEN, RT and Metacritic's reliability is limited for pre-2000s films
  • Review aggregators may be cited if the film in question has been reappraised in modern times. Patience, Slightlymad 05:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • But they are being cited here more broadly, not simply in the context of modern reappraisal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

oppose pending resolution of some of these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

  • The locations were included for newspapers where it was literally a newspaper. If it's online there is no location because the website is the source.
  • You're not following that logic consistently - for example FN79 has both a link and a location - and I don't know that that approach is compatible with the guidance for CS1. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In the case of FN79, I cannot find the original article so I can't give a page number. I included the link not as a source but because the particular content is quoted in it so people can at least fact check it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic aren't given any point of prominence in the article, it's just used to mention how it is perceived in a broad sense, it is not used in anyway to indicate modern appreciation, there's a whole load of text before the RT/MC mention that goes into detail about it.
  • Although they are not the only sources provided, they are fairly prominently featured within the Critical reassessment section. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that is true. Those sources are the bottom of that section, they're not at the top or discussed first, they're literally the last thought of that subsection.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • But are a complete paragraph within that section. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strange Horizons has an article. Seems perfectly fine for what it used for. Alt Film Guide is mentioned here, I'm only using it because it's literally the only place offering the information it is citing, but I'm not attached to it so if necessary it can go. Screamscape probably isn't great, I have no idea, again it's just one of the only sites mentioning the information being cited.
  • Strange Horizons is a non-profit that has been nominated for awards and the submission criteria sounds adequate and thorough, and the author Orrin Grey is a published author. Not a HUGE author but a published one. Removed ALTFILMGUIDE and associated content.Removed Screamscape, the information present is supported by the other references present. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The website parameter italices the sites automatically. Only thing I can think of is to add things like BOM and UPI as publisher and a separate website parameter.
  • Using the website parameter is not a requirement; in many cases the publisher parameter makes more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So I'm trying to read through this Template:Cite web page, and it says "Website" paramater use is suggested while "Publisher" is optional, and it uses "Rotten Tomatoes" as an example of what would go in the "Website" parameter, which would become italicized when it perhaps shouldn't be. What you're asking of me here seems to be clashing with their guidelines unless I'm reading it wrong. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • RT is a website, so that parameter makes sense in that case. But something like UPI is a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You'll have to forgive me if I'm being dense, but the source is still a website so the website parameter is referencing the website. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There s a heavy use of sources by or interivews with cast and crew as they are all that is available. I can't really do much about that.
  • Famous Hobo suggested above that there were other sources that may have been missed - have you looked at those already? Where else have you looked for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • His references are on thematic analysis, which I have read through. They're not related to production. There are not many (any) sources I've been able to find that detail the more intricate aspects of the production. I don't know why that is, I was surprised as I expected the visual effects at least and design history to be more extensively detailed, but that is all I've been able to find using search engines. I don't have the BFI book, and I'm not buying it after the one I bought for the Shawshank Redemption article had no information about the production in it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You might see if anyone at WP:RX has or has access to the BFI book. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What was the outcome of this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I got the pages that I could, but it isn't the full book. I have read through it though there wasn't anything in it not already in the article and not really any kind of minute details I could use and/or replace content with. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I date ordered the bibliography.
  • I disagree on Further Reading, a small subsection created to house like 4 links is unnecessary and visually unappealing. Where it is is logically fine, alongside navigation templates, categories, wikiquote, etc. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Navigation templates, categories, wikiquote etc are in the External links section. At the moment the Further reading section is visually unappealing, and combines the function of that section and See also. If you would prefer not to have a separate section for Further reading, two of the three publications in there are potentially citable, and the third already has an article link inline. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Nikki, I'd like to try and close this unless there's anything outstanding from your perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Have flagged a few pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Ping Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Refs are sorted Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Definitely much better. It looks like you're representing refnames as author names in Bibliography, which I'm not a fan of - suggest using a different coding method. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment Have only skim read, and while the prose could do with some tingtening, they are largely fine, and am sure reviewers will work through issues (I have started light copy editing). Its a great film and very please to see the article here. Ceoil (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support: that was a delightful read. Thank you for that! I think the prose looks fine, to be honest. I will support this article on the condition that something be done about standardizing all of the citations. You seem to mix both the Template:Sfn "shortened footnote" style with the method of providing full reference information for every inline citation. I think you should choose one or the other. For instance, see the Template:Sfnp citation style for my featured article on the Mosaics of Delos, using both print sources and online media. Aside from that issue, congratulations! I have a strong feeling that this nomination will sail through the gate on its way to victory. And Kurt Russell himself will approve it with a thumbs up. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'd maybe have made parallels to WP:sock-puppets for the introduction here (or would that be more fitting for Invasion of the Body Snatchers?), but anyhow, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "pursues an Alaskan Malamute" How has the exact breed been identified here? Perhaps better to just say dog (or sled dog), as they do in the film itself... In any case, I don't see why mentioning the exact breed is in any way important to the plot.
  • "The Norwegian shouts at the Americans, but they cannot understand him and he is shot dead by the station Commander." Perhaps important to note here that he actually shoots at them first?
  • "Blair transforms into an enormous creature" Isn't this creature composed of many other individuals, though? There is even a dog poking out of it.
This doesn't seem to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you want it to be changed to? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It is clear that the creature doesn't just consist of Blair, but if the sources only refer to it as a Blair-Thing, then we should too. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Cohen suggested that he read the original novella. He found the "creepiness" of" You could name Carpenter instea dof the second "he" for clarity, as it isn't entirely clear it is not Cohen you refer to.
  • "of workers employed under Bottin" Full name and link needed at first mention outside lead.
  • "including Nauls' confrontation of the "box Thing"." Which is what?
  • There is some duplicate linking, try this script to see:[16]
  • "was special make-up effects designer Rob Bottin" Seems he is presented after his first mention, so some of that could be cut.
  • "Masur described his character as not really interested in people, but who loves working with dogs." Something missing here.
  • "He went to a survivalist store and bought a flip knife for his character that he uses in a confrontation with David's character." The change of tense here seems odd.
  • "and the wolfdog Jed appears" Present and link at first mention instead of here.
  • "They would make the 27 miles (43.5 km) hike up a small, winding road" Sure about this measurement? That seems extremely long, and I can't find it mentioned in the two online sources used for it. Did they walk this distance every day?
  • "sometimes because there was too much dialogue slowed the pace and undermined the suspense." something wrong here.
  • "Approximately three minutes of scenes were filmed from Lancaster's script that introduced the characters more directly." I'm not sure what the significance/meaning of this is in context with the preceding paragraph. More directly than what? A former version of the script?
  • "as part of film's soundtrack" The.
  • The section titled "The Thing" Could maybe be titled The "Thing", as you do elsewhere, otherwise it seems to just replicate the filn's title, instead of referring to the creature. I would maybe retitle it "creature effects" or "special effects" instead, for clarity.
  • "At the age of 21, Bottin was hospitalized for exhaustion, double pneumonia and a bleeding ulcer, caused by his extensive workload" During or after working on the film?
  • "A cast was made of Lance Anderson's arm" He could be presented.
  • "The team originally wanted to shoot the film in black and white" Why?
This seems not to have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't answer this one. It's not elaborated on in the source, just something they discussed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and commercially successful E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ($792.9 million)" It seems unfair to list that after only listing what the Thing grossed in 1982... That number includes earnings from the 2002 re-release, according to the film's article.
  • Aww, you can't help but feel bad for Carpenter after that receptions section!
  • It seems the "Cinematic analysis" could need in text attribution for its statements, in the same manner as the review sections. Now these conclusions are just stated as absolute fact, though these are just interpretations by various writers. Especially when it goes into speculation about homosexuality and what not, which seems extremely subjective.
Any news on this, Darkwarriorblake? FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I've added names for the more personal claims. I think the mistrust theme is more obvious. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Thing has been analysed as" Another case in point, you need to say by who, not only that it has been.
  • " Bravo listed a scene from The Thing at" Which scene?
  • I've deleted it for now. ATM it's impossible to evidence the scene (The blood test scene). I can find the series in one long cut on Youtube but can't evidence the actual episode number so can't properly source it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It would seem the short story and art book mentioned udner cultural impact may be more fitting udner merchandise?
  • They're both not official works as far as I can see but things influenced by it. I class merchandise as licensed goods sold to profit from the film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "These were published in an omnibus edition entitled The Thing From Another World Omnibus by Dark Horse Books in 2008" I can't find a good reference to this collection anywhere but that Goodreads link, not even on Dark Horse's website. Was it ever even released?
  • The impact on later film-makers could be mentioned in the intro.
  • Support - it looks fine to me now, especially after the added author attributions under analysis. FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I was surprised not to find a link to body horror, of which this is probably one of the most famous cinematic examples. Might be worth working in somewhere with suitable refs. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

  • Many reasons have been cited for its failure to connect with audiences - so what does "connect with" mean as it is a vague expression? Why not just say "impress" or something?
  • ...since there were no women the men had no one to posture for, allowing for a unique psychology -I'd remove the "allowing for a unique psychology" as it isn't unique (for being all male) and is fluffy, and losing it does not lose meaning.
Err.I meant remove the whole segment "allowing for a [unique/different] psychology" - it doesn't say anything. It's not really "psychology" except in a loose sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok. Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • He blamed some of the issues on his directorial method... - who is "he" here? No subject has been mentioned in the section
  • While finalizing the film, Universal sent Carpenter ... - why not just "finishing the film"? ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Anything about Carpenter being more satisfied or vindicated about the film in retrospect now?

Overall, a fascinating read. I loved the film when it came out....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I am happy enough now...the one outstanding issue is pretty minor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Where are we with addressing the various sourcing and citation problems listed here? I see some threads that seem open or unresolved. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly fine, the comments want less first hand experiences, which... it's 1980 in the Antarctic, so there aren't any. As for the citation style, I've raised the point that the template advises the use of "Website" parameter and so that is what I have used. It's usage is per the guideline so I can't resolve the issue being raised. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
There were comments about consistency in citation style, as to how you're mixing the shortened citations with full citations. --Laser brain (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a format I've used in Featured Articles before, I have to cite page numbers for books, which I don't have to do for the websites. I wouldn't reformat all the web references for the fewer book references. I've tried to separate out the book refs from the web refs but can't see a way to do it, but the refs are all correct and clear. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: want me to deal with the refs? I did one as an example, and if you're feeling a bit dispirited then I'd be happy to help. But it would be a bt of an undertaking and certainly not one to undertake without permission. It would certainly be a shame for all this work... etc., you know. Say ye? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
If you really want to do it and can do so without losing the content or archives, then have at please. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Laser brain and Darkwarriorblake: Deepest apologies, I totally forgot about the poor old Thing; I'm about a quarter of the way through the refs, and you can see that what I've done so far shows (I think) that the issues raised are being / will be eventually sorted. Can you consider, for formality, that they are finished? I'm going to continue work on them, but they will take a while, and it seems a shame to hold up promotion of a fine article just for something mechanical / belt and braces like reformatting refs. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 10:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Brief cmt

Image review appears to be missing, perhaps overlooked? Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review:
No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  • File:The Thing Score Sample.ogg: Here's the issue that always nags me with such samples: Does the reader's understanding of the article topic suffer from their absence? Regular music scores arguably don't meet that standard, is this score particulary important?
  • I think there is a reasonable level of discussion about the soundtrack to justify it, particularly because it's just used so much throughout the film that even a short sample is representative of the type of music and it's tone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that the complex nature of the designs makes it difficult to understand in just words. Particularly the dog thing (I've seen a much clearer picture of the actual model before being covered in shadow and slime that could be used also. Especially if you haven't seen the film, stating that a chest opens into a mouth might be difficult to understand? Maybe I'm over thinking it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
No ALT text that I can see.
  • XD It's like showing Nightmare on Elm Street to a sleep study group. I assume they have a choice if they want to sit in on the screening. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, could I get your response to these? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Whoops. Should have replied earlier. It seems like the non-free images are barely adequate based on the explanations here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR)

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


Notified: WT:MCB and WT:PHARM

I am nominating this featured article for review because it objectively fails WP:FACR criteria 1b (comprehensiveness), 2a (lead section), and 2c (consistent citations).

  • Issues with 1b: There's poor coverage of synthetic antioxidants in the article's Antioxidant#Drug candidates section, which lacks context. Notable plant-derived antioxidants are completely missing from this page (e.g., Quercetin, among many others in this topic's navbox {{Antioxidants}} and which are mentioned in general-purpose reviews like PMID 20716905). Mention of a class of dietary antioxidants (polyphenols) is, however, scattered throughout the article. There is a "Further information" link to articles about dietary antioxidants (Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols and List of antioxidants in food) under Antioxidant#Levels in food, but this is a very brief section which contains no information on plant-derived antioxidants. Some antioxidant biomolecules are entirely omitted (e.g., melatonin). Thus, the article does not currently comply with criterion 1b because these are highly notable subtopics within the scope of "antioxidants" that are not covered or even alluded to (e.g., via passing mention) in the article.
    • By far the most significant omission in this article is the lack of coverage of the transcription factor Nrf2, the master regulator of cellular antioxidant responses.[1][2]
  • Issues with 2a: The lead is very short for an article this size and inadequately summarizes several parts of the body. As an example, the 4th paragraph is a 1-sentence long summary of an entire level 2 section.
  • Issues with 2c: The citation formatting is inconsistent. This is the least significant problem with the FA criteria and is easily fixed. I mention it only because it needs to be fixed along with the 2 other issues above.

I attempted to address some of these issues on the article's talk page at Talk:Antioxidant, but was met with opposition. That said, at least one other editor (Jytdog) has indicated that they think this article no longer meets the criteria. In order to start resolving the issues this article has with the criteria, the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize and be consistent with the body, the body needs to be significantly expanded (including the creation of an entirely new level 2 section) to include the subtopics mentioned above (plant-based and synthetic antioxidants) that are missing but well within this article's scope, and the citation formatting needs to be fixed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Re 2c: I fixed the date formats in this edit; however, in the current revision (Special:Permalink/849739302), page formatting is inconsistent in the journal refs (some are truncated like 123–6, some list the full page range like 123–126), some of the web references are missing publication/update dates which are listed on the cited webpage (e.g., ref numbers: 2 and 189), and some (e.g., ref number 2) are missing publishers. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Aguilar TA, Navarro BC, Pérez JA (December 2016). "Endogenous Antioxidants: A Review of their Role in Oxidative Stress". A Master Regulator of Oxidative Stress - The Transcription Factor Nrf2. InTechOpen. doi:10.5772/62743. ISBN 9789535128380. Retrieved 15 July 2018. 
  2. ^ Vomund S, Schäfer A, Parnham MJ, Brüne B, von Knethen A (December 2017). "Nrf2, the Master Regulator of Anti-Oxidative Responses". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 18 (12). doi:10.3390/ijms18122772. PMC 5751370Freely accessible. PMID 29261130. 


Notified: Gary, Chisme, Dank, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Software

I am nominating this featured article for review because, after much discussion across the years, it has been pared down (changing significantly the content that was once promoted to featurement) and concerns of WP:NPOV have been raised. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Scene7 was swallowed by Adobe in 2007, eleven years ago. It has not been heard from since. The article as it stands now IMHO is about right considering the import and significance of the company. If anybody can fill out what happened in the last eleven years, I'm in favor of rewriting the article. But otherwise there is no point in beating a dead horse. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Notified: WP Television Episode coverage, ‎WP Television, ‎ WP Comedy, Hunter Kahn, no other active unblocked significant contributors

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Note, @PresN: reviewed the images, so they should be good. I promoted this article, so will not be reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Good as in the sock didn't review the images, but not good in that it was literally 8 years ago... Anyway, sure, re-reviewed, they're fine. --PresN 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment An obvious, and significant, deficiency with this article is that the 'reception' section only presents assessments written at the time this series was first broadcast. No use is made of sources looking back at this series at a later date, including after Parks and Recreation finished up. As I understand it, the general view is that this was the worst series in the show's run, and the show was only successful after a lot of changes were made. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I was the primary author of this article when it was brought to FA review. I will look into some additional sources to add to address this, but I likely won't be able to until after the holiday. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected NickD, but I've added some new information about reviews of the first season following the run of the show (from 2015 onward), in response to your comment. In doing so I also found an additional source and added some additional facts elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you think any changes or further improvements are needed! — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Those changes look very good - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates


Notified: WikiProject Rock Music, WikiProject Heavy Metal

Review section

This article was promoted through FAC in 2007, and was FAR'd in the same year but kept. Looking at it now, I see lots of reasons to be concerned that this article does not meet FA standards. Its primary author that made it through FAC, User:No-Bullet, has been inactive for quite some time. I am concerned that this article fails WP:WIAFA 1a and 1c: there are several areas where the prose is what I would call unprofessional including short paragraphs and structure issues, as well as plenty of paragraphs that don't end in a citation, a bright red flag to anyone reviewing the article. Red Phoenix talk 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As a gut feeling, if this article was at B-class or lower now, I think it would take a significant amount of work to get it to GA, let alone anything else. The group's history is extensive but line-up changes (until recently) have been few and far between so there is a risk of falling into a pattern of "in 1983 they did this .... in 1985 they did that .... in 1988 they did the other" which gets monotonous after a while. It really needs a subject expert who knows what sources should take priority in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Film noir

Notified: WP Film

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, a high score at Earwig's Copyvio Detector appears to be due to the listing of same refs etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I did the image review 8 years ago; it's mostly the same, but 3 fair-use music samples have been added. They're all pretty short, but frankly having 3 seems excessive, I'd cut to 1. --PresN 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Size also a concern for me. Look at the copyvio tool, the main element driving it up seemed to be film titles. Removed two of the audio files. Article has been heavily edited since promotion, and since the first retirement. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've read through both the promoted version of the article and that which exists today, and I don't see any major red flags in the differences between them. In fact, in some ways today's article is better; the prose has been tightened up in places, and there have been a couple of layout improvements. On the copyvio front, like Ceoil I don't see any issues; the Berkeley page similarities are down to article titles and film titles, while the other high % match appears to have cribbed from our article for a couple of sentences. Of some small concern is the slight bloat in size from the promoted version. Some of this is well-cited, and I'm not bothered so much by kB count (it's very large, but not precedent-setting), but by the occasional insertion of detail that is not cited, appears to not have fresh citation to go along with it (to all intents an purposes looking like it's cited to whichever one was there for the existing material), or has resulted in content where even with a new citation it's now unclear what's referencing what. The current last paragraph of 1980s and 1990s] is a good (bad) example of the latter two issues; without access to the original sources, it will be difficult to wrangle this into shape. I also share some of the concerns that were brought up by several people during the original FAC, most especially by Moni, regarding the structure. These concerns were brushed aside by one or more socks and consensus seemingly reached, but the problem remains. Long story short, the Identifying characteristics section does not work at all where it is now bolted onto the end. This should be tied to Problems of definition somewhere closer to the top to aid those readers unfamiliar with the subject. However, I don't know if this can be done without significant rewrites elsewhere to ensure context is kept. As Moni put it, "Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre." She wasn't the only editor to point out that on such a large subject it would make more sense to to "[start] with the basic and [get] more cognitively complex". What does everyone else think on this point? Steve T • C 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Steve, yes and my gut feeling about the socking, born by many years of experience, related and not related, is that Geist was too involved, arrogant and proud of his contributions to have made deliberate mistakes on sourcing. It just doesn't scan. I have already mentioned my concerns on focus and length. Its your area of interest, so if editorializing is needed, you would probably be the man for the job and as such you might go for it. ps, we all miss Moni. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be right about the sourcing; digging through the history, I was set to use this diff as an example of added content to multiple sections with no cite, but it turns out that DCG went back later to add the necessary (e.g.). After another read through, I think this needs less of a rescue job than did Tenebrae. To begin with, I'm going to put each section through a better diff checker than Wikipedia's, see where we might have problems with uncited or unwanted additions. That might take some time, but after that I'll have a better idea of whether we need to alter the structure and if we do, what might need to be rewritten to accommodate that. Steve T • C 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I read through this today and I agree with previous comments that the article organization is not ideal. It seems that Steve has not been active since April so I don't know where this leaves us. I believe DCG was a breed of FA writer who didn't want to compromise their vision for anyone, and used socks to help ram it through. It's a good article but not as good as it could be. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to work on this recently; work commitments have left me with very little free time these last 6 weeks. As far as the quality of the article stands, I've been through every section diff-by-diff, and have removed those unwanted and uncited additions that have crept in over the years, along with some other minor clean-up. However, this is still fundamentally the same article that passed the original FAC. It is a good article, and doesn't exactly bring shame to the gold star, but the organisational problems still exist and whichever way I imagine it, no natural structure presents itself. I had a mind to bring Identifying Characteristics to after the Background section, but that doesn't quite work either, owing to the section's reliance on examples that span several decades, which I think would then sit oddly with the strictly chronological nature of the subsequent sections. What do you think? Steve T • C 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get more input on organization and related issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

KaDee Strickland

Notified: Extraordinary Machine, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Women

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated to include information on Strickland's career since its promotion as a FAC. Information in the "Career" section ends around 2007, and one can see just from looking at the "Television" and "Film" tables in the "Filmography and performances" section, that there is a large gap of Strickland's career unaccounted for. As for more minor notes, reference 6 is also a dead link (a permanent dead link?) and I noticed that there are several instances of WP:SHOUTING in the reference titles.

I have left a message on the talk page and pinged @Extraordinary Machine: as this was the primary user during the FAC process. I think that a lot of wonderful work has gone into this article, but it requires so much updating that I feel that it no longer fulfills the criteria for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Extraordinary Machine hasn't edited since this past September, so I'm not sure that user will be around anytime soon to help improve the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I apologize if this question has an obvious answer, but I am assuming that this is left open to allow other users to comment and potentially improve/revise the article even though Extraordinary Machine is no longer active on Wikipedia? I am very unfamiliar with the FAR process so I am just uncertain about things work from this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. They can also comment here on issues found within the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Chiming in from oblivion - I assumed this had been demoted already! As well as the article being out of date, I'd imagine standards/criteria for featured articles have rightly changed since this article got promoted (13 years ago... how time flies!). Unfortunately I have neither the time nor inclination to bring it back up to scratch, but don't let that stop anyone else! :) Extraordinary Machine (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response! If I have more time in the future, I might try to expand on the article. Either way, I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred on coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Article is unbalanced with career prior to 2007 described in detail and career afterwards not at all. DrKay (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

Top six editors blocked or no longer active. Notified WP Rock music, ‎WP Las Vegas, ‎ WP Mississippi, ‎ WP American music,‎ WP Tennessee, WP Pop music, ‎ WP Elvis Presley, ‎ WP Musicians

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • (partial, limited) image review There are no obvious issues with the images currently in the article, but about half of them are claimed as PD-US under "pre-1963/1977, no copyright renewal". Given the previous image review was performed by one of the socks, the absence of a renewal cannot be presumed accurate and should be audited by someone qualified (which is not me, sorry).
    The one that potentially raises some red flags for me is File:Girls Girls Girls Poster B.jpg. The upload is in sufficiently low resolution to preclude reading the (1960) copyright notice that is present on the original, almost as if it was intended to pass a fair use check (that it wouldn't need if it was really PD), but the given source for the image has a much higher resolution version available here (where the copyright notice is legible, including the names of the physical persons holding the copyright). The image was also uploaded by one of the socks.
    Again, I didn't find any obvious problems, but once good faith can no longer be presumed, there're enough red flags to suggest thorough checking. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment: This is one I'm not concerned about. It has a lot of (independent) eyes on it, disputes are readily discussed on the Talk page, and there is ongoing effort to keep the sourcing of high quality and stop the never-ending scope creep and trivia creep. Over time some undesirable passages have snuck in but DCGeist actually undertook a cleanup effort in early January. Despite the socking issues, he did a fine job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to dig a bit more before I make a declaration. Between the socking and Xover's evidence that there may have been deliberate copyios, I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with assuming good faith about anything this guy did. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I read through this article a while back; I wasn't in "reviewer mode" but I certainly didn't think "who on earth thinks this is an FA", so I can't imagine there's that much wrong with it. Your best bet is to ping 7&6=thirteen as he's good at fixing Elvis-related articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, I did not promote this article, but I did archive it once, so have asked at WT:FAR whether people think I should recuse from review. As with all of DCGeist's articles, the WP:SIZE issue is a concern for me, and I never saw any reason he was excused from a perfectly doable compliance with WP:SIZE. This article is HUGE, and unnecessarily so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to recuse. I recall you voicing your size concerns and they are still present. Every time someone finds an eggplant that looks like Elvis they want to add a paragraph to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Laser brain on this comment and the others. The article gets a lot of careful attention from reliable editors, so I think it merits its FA status, but it errs on the side of inclusion (though the "eggplant Elvis" crowd would beg to differ). Contributors tend to be fans, and they sometimes lose sight of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedic biographical article. I would vote that it be edited for length, but not demoted. Pstoller (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have concerns with the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) of WP:Featured article criteria: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. From a glance, this article doesn't even mention many of his film roles within article prose after Wild Country, which is a glaring omission when he starred tons of movies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This article includes a complete filmography plus a link to a second article, Elvis Presley on film and television. Even that much is arguably redundant. It is neither necessary nor productive for a biographical article to discuss details of every film in which a primarily musical artist appeared, especially when those films are formulaic and held in low critical esteem. One may as well ask why every song Presley recorded is not discussed. The answer is, it's not necessary in order to say the article "neglects no major facts or details." Pstoller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not saying we have to go into all of the production bits or casting process, but the films at the very least should be mentioned by name, especially when their soundtracks spawned hits for him. As for music, I'd say the same with album titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I repeat: All the films are mentioned by name at the bottom of the article in a complete filmography. This is in addition to a link to a separate article devoted entirely to Presley's films and TV appearances that also lists all the film titles. There are likewise separate articles for Presley's complete singles discography, complete album discography, hit albums only with chart information, and all songs recorded by Presley, in addition to the partial single and album discographies in the present article. The reason there are separate articles is that, without them, this article would be too long. Thus, adding that information back into this article would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Simply mentioning them in a filmography section isn't enough if they're not cited anywhere in the page. It otherwise looks like one is using WP:CIRCULAR referencing by trying to use another Wikipedia page as a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
First, the other Wikipedia page is not employed as a source: it's a separate article devoted to detail on a subsidiary subject, just as the discographies are. External sources provide the information in both articles. So, it is not at all WP:CIRCULAR, nor does it look like it. Second, if listing all the film titles within the article is not sufficient, then what would be? Again, these films are widely regarded—critically, popularly, and historically—as being without significant individual merit, either as cinema or as examples of Presley's artistry. The article text thus deals with them categorically. That is the the appropriate framework. Otherwise, an already overlong article would become considerably longer still by expanding on the creative nadir of Presley's career. An article, even a feature article, cannot go into detail on every aspect of its subject's work or life, but at best provides a comprehensive overview. To gain a decent understanding of Presley's cultural significance or personal character, it is entirely unnecessary to call out Kid Galahad, Harum Scarum, or Change of Habit. In fact, to manage this article (which, without counting filmography, selected discographies, or notes, is already pushing 100kB) per WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, I would recommend deleting the included filmography, as it's entirely redundant with the linked filmography article. Each of those films in turn has its own article, just as all the albums issued during his lifetime and over half the songs contained therein do. All that information and more may belong on Wikipedia—but not in this article. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get a better sense of current status for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Film Booking Offices of America

Notified: WP Companies, ‎WP Film, no other active significant contributors ‎

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its FAC. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes, this is a 2007 promotion, on only three supports, so should receive a full review, including images. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments. The size is manageable (atypical for this nominator), and has not changed significantly since the article's 2007 promotion. Inline citations were just coming in to requirement when this was passed, and it appears they are covered here. Table of contents is reasonable (an issue I find on other DCGeist articles).

On scanning the citations, I noticed that one is a "note", so went to see how it was being used:

  • The first of R-C's own feature productions to be released was The Wonder Man, directed by John G. Adolfi and starring Georges Carpentier, which debuted May 29, 1920.
    • REF: For a description of the film, see the anonymous New York Times review, May 30, 1920 (available online).

The cited source does not verify if was R-C's first, nor does it name the director. So, WP:V should be reviewed more thoroughly.

I cannot decipher what this sentence wants to say, and the source is paywalled:

  • The business began in 1918 as Robertson-Cole (U.S.), the American division of a British import–export company and Robertson-Cole was formed by the English-born Harry F. Robertson and the American Rufus Sidman Cole.
    • REF: "Screen; Again the import tax". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2014. 
      Rephrased, and took out mention of Rufus Sidman Cole, who is not mentioned in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I skipped down to one section, where a prose issue was found:

  • With Thomson's personal contract with Kennedy due to expired in mid-1927,

So, a complete review is in order, and it would be grand if someone had access to the hard-print sources for Verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Sandy, "due to expired" was introduced in 2014 here, ie well after the first retirement.. While I am the last person on earth to degenerate on typos and confused spelling, I don't think they were a feature of Geist's work. But, on the other matters, I don't have access to the sources, and agree, a full review would be no harm. Have the noms watchlisted and will give views. Note, I'm not that enamored by edits since he first retired (as apposed to his recent quote "retirement" unquote), so might in the end urge review of a roll backed version. As time goes on and articles depreciate, I guess this will, alas, become more common. Note also, I am not seeing these through rosy glasses of nostalgia, being disillusioned by the cross over in the two account's editing. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

House (TV series)

Notified: NewTestLeper79, Music2611, WP House task force, WP Television, WP American television task force

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive2. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes. I promoted so will not be participating in review. Original nominator appears to be inactive, Socks account for the majority of the edits, and the top contributor has not edited since 2010. I can say that the socks were entirely influential in my promotion of this article, and I agreed with the Opposer, who mentioned WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY. Image review by David Fuchs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • As has been remarked I retired from Wikipedia a long time ago, but it so happened I noticed this today during a trip down memory lane. Looking over the article it is clearly visible that the article would benefit from some work to bring it up to date for developments in the show post-2009 as the show was still running at the time this article as promoted. However, it appears the majority of the article's main body is still of high quality, though an argument based on lacking quantity could be made. From the discussion you mentioned regardin WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY I can only judge that this is a question of interpretation, one which appeared to be ultimately resolved by the promotion of the article (i.e. majority rule). Yet if sockpuppetry was influential in this promotion (how unfortunate! Quick sidebar, I was about fifteen at the time and I remember spending a lot of time on this), I understand the grounds for reconsideration. All in all, I'd say what the article mainly needs updating and maybe some tweaking here and there. Having been absent for such a long time I do not consider myself in the position to judge whether the tilt in favor of the first 5-6 seasons is appropriate grounds for removal, but, again, as far as I can tell, general quality has not dropped significantly. Let me know if I can be of any further service, I'll check this page to watch the developments.--Music26/11 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include size and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sound film

Notified: WT Film, no active significant contributors

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Note: this is a 2006 promotion, with scant support-- should receive a full review. It was reviewed in 2010, but that review was also influenced by socking. I see no image review. I did not promote this FA, and will be participating in the review, particular concerns about WP:SIZE and lack of WP:SUMMARY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Size is not bothersome-- I don't see anything that would be better summarized to a separate article.

  • Since 1934, with the sole exception of 1952, India has been among the top three movie-producing countries in the world every single year.
    • Robertson (2001), pp. 16–17; "Analysis of the UIS International Survey on Feature Film Statistics" (PDF). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. May 5, 2009. Retrieved December 13, 2009. 

Source is dead link. Info is dated (a 2001 source). Prose. How about,

  • Between 1934 and 2001, with the exception of 1952, India was among the top three movie-producing countries in the world.

In fact, that sentence does not seem to be about sound film at all, but without access to the source, hard to know.

Several dead links, that might be found in, but it is not cooperating for me today, so I tagged them.

There is only one section (Early steps) in the History section, so why does it need a heading?

Hard to know which source applies to which person (verification requires sorting through three books):

  • While the introduction of sound led to a boom in the motion picture industry, it had an adverse effect on the employability of a host of Hollywood actors of the time. Suddenly those without stage experience were regarded as suspect by the studios; as suggested above, those whose heavy accents or otherwise discordant voices had previously been concealed were particularly at risk. The career of major silent star Norma Talmadge effectively came to an end in this way. The celebrated German actor Emil Jannings returned to Europe. Moviegoers found John Gilbert's voice an awkward match with his swashbuckling persona, and his star also faded.
    • REF: Crafton (1997), pp. 480, 498, 501–9; Thomson (1998), pp. 732–33, 285–87; Wlaschin (1979), pp. 34, 22, 20.

But because the page numbers aren't in order (???), one can guess that 32, 22 and 20 refers to Talmadge, Jannings and Gilbert?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concerned sourcing, although review of other criteria is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Susi Kentikian

Notified: WikiProject Boxing, WikiProject Women's sport

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because (copying my comments from article's talk page): This article has a few issues that should be addressed if it's to keep its FA status. It's fairly obvious it's been neglected over the past few years. The FA nominator, EnemyOfTheState, hasn't edited in nearly four years, and no one appears to have picked up the slack.

  • Mainly, there are statements that need citations; the 2013, 2014, and "Other activities" sections are all unsourced. There are also a few other statements elsewhere that need sources.
  • There's no prose concerning her career in 2015 and 2016.
  • The most recent information that is there is very poorly written, making it obvious that it was added by drive-by editors. Per FA criteria, prose should be engaging. "On [date], she defeated [person]. On [date], she defeated [person], etc." is definitely not engaging.
  • Sections containing a scant amount of info should be merged into other sections.
  • The "Highlights" and "Awards" sections each contain bulleted lists of only three items; these would be better presented as prose.
  • The "Other activities" section contains a diacritic being used as an apostrophe (trivial, but it highlights how neglected this article has been). Lizard (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I cleaned up a couple of the things pointed out above and will try to add updates on her recent fights as time allows. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include referencing, prose, and need for updating. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article has been updated with her post-FAC fights and those updates have been sourced. I'll try to do a prose run-through if time allows. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Just wanted to let everyone know that I've done some copy-editing work on the article, in addition to fixing the issues raised at the start of the FAR. Hopefully this is moving towards keep territory. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Cortana (Halo)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls considerably short of FA standards, and personally I wouldn't pass it through GA in its current condition. I raised issue regarding it at WikiProject Video games and the two people who replied there both expressed concerns about the article. The original FA nominator, David Fuchs, has also been made aware of the listing via a discussion on the article's talk page. A commentator at Project video games raised concerns was about the plot length. The article was passed in 2008 when I can only presume standards were lower; I'd argue by today's standards it fails on FA criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Specific issues listed below.

  • I think the article has too many fictional in-universe details. For example, why do we need to know that Master Chief wears 'MJOLNIR battle armor', and what does MJOLNIR even mean?
  • There's a lot of details about Cortana's appearance in the first novel; why aren't subsequent appearances given the same level of detail?
  • Cortana appears to play a minor role in Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, but this isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot of literature set in the Halo universe, and I'm not convinced this article summarises all her appearances in them adequately.
  • In the 'Character design' there's very little on the characters initial design.
  • Several things are introduced in the article without any background information; her voice actress appears out of nowhere (how did she land the job?). What is '343 Industries'? Who are the Forerunners?
  • I'm most concerned about the reception section though. It begins with the characters reception from the third game, rather than initial reception, and there's no coverage of the character from academic sources/journals even though plenty of these sources exist. There's an embarrassing quote farm with poor prose that focuses heavily on the character's sex appeal (Examples: "Part of Cortana's appeal has lain in her good looks ... [she is] the sixth most "disturbingly sexual game character").
  • There's a fair amount of inconsistency in reference formatting and even several bare URLs and a couple unreferenced sentences. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to square your concerns about plot length when you're asking for more descriptions of minor appearances. As for your comments about coverage and references, perhaps you could link these plentiful sources? Otherwise the comment is less than helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned somebody else had concerns about plot length just to give an indication on what others have said; my concerns about under-detail are entirely confined to the 'In other media' section.
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's technically nude appearance: [17]
  • This academic source comments on both Master Chief and Cortana's lack of sexuality: [18]
  • This one comments on Cortana's dialogue and emotional support: [19]
  • This thesis gives a very brief comment on her body type in comparison to other female video game characters [20]
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's personality, dialogue and flirtation with Master Chief: [21]
  • This thesis talks about Cortana's physical appearance and her relationship with Master Chief: [22]
  • This thesis questions why Cortana's appearance is sexualised and comments on the gender stereotyping between Cortana and Master Chief. It cites Cortana as an example of a character "drawn and designed to appeal to heteronormative standards of beauty, even when it does not make sense within the context of the game ... as a computer program Cortana could have taken any form but the game elected to make her adhere to the heteronormative ideal of an attractive, shapely woman. The interviews suggest this may be because of the lack of female representation behind the scenes and the lack of support and encouragement for women to join in the industry." [23]
  • Here's an interesting source about Cortana's nudity: [24] Anita Sarkeesian cites the source and the issue in one of her articles: [25]. Here's another quote from Sarkeesian about Cortana: [26]
I'm sure you can find more. If you don't have access to any of those sources I can email them to you. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll look a bit more into the authors, but none of those theses strike me as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Even if all those academic sources fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the GamesRadar+ source about her nudity and Sarkeesian's comments on the issue should be used. Freikorp (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added both to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Some decent improvements were made to the article in December, and the bare URLs were formatted properly in early January, but there's been no significant improvements made since then. Many of the issues raised above remain. The article is better, but I still wouldn't even pass it through GAN without further improvements, including heavy modifications to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

  • The primary-sourced plot for a fictional character is twice as long as the Reception? Seems like a due weight issue. Also the Reception ¶ on Cortana's appearance no longer passes contemporary FA muster. If the listicles are worth mentioning at all (super low quality sources), they should be stacked into a summative statement. But is it even noteworthy that she was listed among the "top babes" in video games? We wouldn't put the same dubious accolade in a film star's biography—it would be rephrased as, "Video game journalists noted her character design for its sex appeal" or something more encyclopedic and stacked with several refs (only a few of the "best" instances needed). Other generalizations like "Cortana's return in Halo 5 was subject to mixed reception" are challengeable and should have immediate refs. As for the academic sources above, I wouldn't cite theses but mentions made in a scholarly journal would be more applicable. czar 11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm open for trimming the section, but the idea that you cloud what sources actually say to 'sound' more encyclopedic isn't a great tack to take. Her sex appeal is a large part of the character's reception, trying to cloud the issue because of personal feelings on what "should" be covered is bias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Not sure where you're getting the sound/cloud stuff. Being ranked #1 supporting character by is a dubious accolade (nevermind that the source doesn't even make that claim). A listicle assertion such as this should be generalized proportionate to the source's weight. What noteworthy elaboration would we miss by stacking the six "lists of babes" refs as I had mentioned? If none, then was it really such a large part of her reception? The section appears to be much more about commentary on her in-game appearances, and on that point, shouldn't it address Halo 1–2 alongside its current coverage of 3–5? czar 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I've already stacked the lists. You're welcome to pull commentary for Halo 1 and 2 if you can find it, but there frankly isn't much of anything. That's why it's not in the article in the first place. It's extremely rare to find an review that actually mentions Cortana, much less provides some useful commentary beyond 'she's the voice in your armor'. Chalk it up to people not dwelling much on story in old reviews, I suppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get more input on the Reception section and other issues mentioned above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's not a million miles off, but this article will likely need serious work to keep its shiny star. In addition to the concerns about the reception section, I'm also noticing some sourcing issues—"Cinema Blend" is explicitly listed as an unreliable source at WP:VG/S, this forum post is used to source the statement "The character model's face was based on a sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti", and there are multiple dead links. There are also several unsourced statements (and the massive in-universe plot summary). JOEBRO64 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
User:TheJoebro64: The forum post is by a Bungie artist, it meets SPS criteria. Thanks for the update about Cinema Blend, I have removed the statement. Can you be useful and actually highlight what you think is unsourced? As for the plot summary, "massive" is an unhelpful qualifier. Explaining exactly how you think it is necessarily large to detail the character's appearances would be far more useful, not to mention actionable. I will double check the links, but dead links are and never have been a reason to delist an article per WP:FA?. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The unsourced statements I noticed were "Cortana's first appearance in the Halo franchise is in the novel Halo: The Fall of Reach, a prequel to the first Halo game" (this goes beyond what the primary source (the book) says and needs a secondary source to confirm it), "The assistant is also available on iOS and Android", "Despite mixed opinions of Halo 4's campaign as a whole", and "Cortana's return in Halo 5 was subject to mixed reception" (the last two are unsourced because they are generalizations that can be challenged, so they are required to have direct refs). As for the Appearances section, by "massive", I mean it goes into too much in-universe detail and is sourced only to primary sources. I'd trim details that aren't necessary to understanding the story, and also add a bit of analysis from secondary sources to the section. I think Doomfist and Joker (character) are good examples of pages that give basic descriptions of the characters and their backstories while balancing it with real-world facts and opinions. JOEBRO64 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
That Fall of Reach is a prequel and the first appearance doesn't require a secondary source; the Fall of Reach released before Halo 1, and the book itself calls itself a prequel (including in big letters on the first printing "the official prequel to the explosive Xbox™ game!" etc.) I've sourced the assistant mention, I'll see about directly citing the reception lines or rewording the starts of those paragraphs.
As for the appearances section, I'm going to need more specific guidance. It summarizes what the character does in each game in a paragraph. Doomfist and the Joker are not great comparisons because one is a character in a single game with a paper-thin plot and the other is a character of repetitious comic arcs for decades. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Czar and Freikorp: Thoughts on current status? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. This would need a lot of rewriting and source work to pass FAC today. Without delving into a full review, here are some areas, starting with the most broad:
  • Plot: Delves too far into individual appearances instead of just providing an overview of her role. This section should be easily sourced to reviews and other secondary source summaries of its plot (game guides even, as a last resort). This would help focus its contents from going off into the weeds and general story summary.
  • Background needs more out-of-universe tweaking. The first paragraph of the body doesn't denote that she's fictional or a character.
  • The Reception still drags out basic points. Lots of periodicals are mentioned inline by name when the sentiment could be generalized without mentioning them.
  • I have serious reservations that the "top 10 babes" listicles are worthy of encyclopedic mention at all, nevertheless as evidence that Cortana has "been recognized for her sex appeal". I click through and there's just zero content. If we removed the refs with insubstantial mentions from that sentence, I don't think that sentence would even be justified. If this is an important claim, is there really no other source that says it succinctly, directly?
  • Topic sentences like "Despite mixed opinions of Halo 4's campaign as a whole, Cortana and her story was often considered a strong point of the game." need immediate refs, esp. if making new claims not cited in the rest of the paragraph
  • Most of the Reception is built around quoting directly from reviewers. Since the majority of those quotes are more for style than essential detail, they detract from whatever the paragraph is supposed to say, especially when done in every sentence. If each sentence was paraphrased without regard to the pull quotes, the section would be half its length.
  • Which brings us to: how much is the Reception about Cortana anyway? This is commentary on par with any major character role in any game—it's the type of stuff than can be summatively stated in a section of a "List of Halo characters" but no Reception source appears to call out the character as independently notable from the series.
  • Overquoting in the Character design section
  • Namedropping of non-notable individuals in the Reception without explaining why their names are important to know
  • No discussion on how the personality aspects of the character translate into the voice assistant? [27]
  • The |publisher= field is redundant for all the {{cite web}} instances. That field was designed for book publishers. The |work= field alone is sufficient almost always, especially if the work is a linked entity with its own article.
That's a taste without even touching whether the prose is engaging (once "brilliant") and the sources are reliably appropriate for FA-level consideration. But that's all the time I have for this right now. czar 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist, unfortunately, for reasons mentioned in my nomination. I was hoping the nomination would result in all the issues being addressed, though most of them remain; the article has received no improvements for over a month now. Freikorp (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Shockingly, things don't get edited when you never respond to my points. Truly hard to understand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • The only post you directed at me was one asking to point out academic sources, and I gave a detailed response. You haven't asked me anything else. I provided a detailed list of issues with the article over five months ago and you still haven't replied to most of them or made any attempt to address the overwhelming majority of the issues. Five months. Five months and you couldn't even take the two minutes to explain something simple like what 'MJOLNIR' means. Don't blame me for your article losing its status. I'm taking this discussion off my watch list as I don't think anything constructive is going to come out of it. Freikorp (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist for all the reasons already discussed. It would take a lot of work to get this up to current FA standards. Specifically, it feels like the reception section is not really on point, as it feels like the examples given are excerpts of reviews of the game and are not really touching on response to Cortana as a character. The character design section is also out of balance, as there is more about minor changes to the character in later games in the series than there is on creating the character in the first place. Also, as described the Cortana Letters promotional campaign appears to have little to do with the character. Because of the role she served in the Halo story, her name was attached to this campaign, but the character herself does not appear to be integral to it. Right now, this feels less like an article and more like a group of random mentions of the character that do not paint a coherent picture of the subject. Indrian (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
More substantiative discussion of the genesis of the character simply doesn't exist. You're asking for a version of the article that cannot be created from available sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Then perhaps there aren't sufficient sources available to create an FA-quality article about the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
FA criteria has no such requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There are countless obscure video games (to pick one topic alone) you'd struggle to find sources sufficient to write about in any depth at all, let alone to FA quality. I'm not saying Cortana is one of them - but it's reasonable to observe gaps in articles, whether they can be filled or not. Popcornduff (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist given the issues already described above (primarily echoing czar's comments in particular). However, I believe that this article could be substantially revised and put through the FAC process again to reach FA quality. It would just take a substantial amount of work to get there first. I can tell that a lot of work has been put into this article so hopefully it can be further improved in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Delayed but not forgotten. Will give update in 1 week. Thanks for patience. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ping? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:

"The 1815 eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history"
"After a large magma chamber inside the mountain filled over the course of several decades"
Food crops "failing" is awkward
"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as" > "Heavy volcanic ash fell as far away as" - this suggested change might be subjective as I'm not a geologist, but it seems to retain its meaning.
"1816 became known as..." kinda flabby. How about "1816 is called...." or thereabouts.
Lots of mentions of "the 1815 eruption" - you can probably axe the date from most. It's assumed by the reader.

Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist. Verifiability: unsourced statements tagged since September 2017. Prose, structure and comprehensiveness: stubby paragraphs and a single sentence section. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally wonder if we should roll the article back to the 2006 version as a first step; it is more comprehensive and has no stubby paragraphs. Of course some uncited statements, broken citations and disambiguations would need fixing, but that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rollback to featured version - seems that this is mainly a case of someone compromising the featured status of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Rolled back to featured version and fixed the most obvious problems. Next step is to fix the uncited material, after that updating, and then someone with better FA criteria 1x skills needs to check over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed part of the uncited material. I note that the article paraphrases and rather closely at times; anyone willing to rewrite these parts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Got almost all issues with sourcing fixed, save for A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tambora which I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil, Deckiller, DrKay, and Kirbanzo: Can you give an update given the rollback? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Postscriptum: I've looked for updates but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of new research and information between now and 2006 on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The rollback was the right thing to do. I am keep now on this. Great work from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima" Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
Added "The" Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track." This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
Based on the source, after the paved road ends, one has to continue on a hiking track to reach the caldera. I don't know how to word that. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP." That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
Fixed to "Radiocarbon dating has established..." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..." Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at the rest of the article as well? Eric Corbett 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The staccato style of short sentences does not flow very well, hardly "engaging". Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eric is raising general problems with the article, and using specif, non exhaustive, examples to illustrate. He tends to be right about these things. To summaries, and as a list to work through, these are,
  • Lack of clarity in some areas leading to ambiguity
  • Staccato writing style - short sentences and over puncation
  • General MOS issues (which I see are largely fixed since he posted) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Would like to see this cited - "Since 1972, a commercial logging company operated in the area, posing a threat to the rain forest." Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Checked against source used as reference, it seems to hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks; will duplicate the ref after the statement.
    1816 was the second-coldest year in the northern hemisphere since 1400, after 1601 (following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru).[4] - Cant parse this. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    It says that 1816 was the year with the second-coldest northern hemisphere temperatures after 1400. With the coldest year being 1601, the year after the Huaynaputina eruption. I don't know how to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I dont either, so have cut mention of 1601 altogether, and this was rather garbled and confusing. I don't think the current version lacks impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Aand I just noticed that the article does not mention the 1257 Samalas eruption. Argh. Added it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Txs, reworded this a bit. Is it ok in the monitoring sect to make the statement "There has been no significant increase in seismic activity since the 1880 eruption" read that the recient findings indicate that...can be directly attributed to the Directorate of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. Atm, its unclear and part of of a series of run on sentences that may be seen as non sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it is since there have been episodes of increased earthquake and steaming activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this article is mis-titled; its hardly a geographic survey of Mount Tambora per say, I notice deficiencies in coverage of e.g. its bird (weakly covered) and animal (not at all) population not to mind human habitation, or its general history, political governance, and so forth. And there is very little on theories of its early tectonic formation. Would "Volcanic activity of Mount Tambora" be better. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise have c/e'd, mostly trying to remove ambiguity and improving flow. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
See, to me it looks like there is enough coverage of that material (a paragraph mainly dedicated to birds, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. A lot of work has been done in the last month by a number of us. I think the article is close to a Keep, but like Ceoil I wonder about its comprehensiveness (though not to the extent that he does--e.g. "political governance"...). To that end I have left a question at Wikiproject Geology. The sentence with "caused by exsolution a high pressure magma fluid" is missing a preposition, presumably, but Id' prefer someone with more geo knowledge fix that. Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Im fine now on prose, I think we have collectively worked through each of the issues raised by Eric in a clam and sedated manner, though I recognise no good deed goes unturned, and our heads could be kicked in at any moment by gremlins from north or south. However I dont so much share your concerns about breath of sources, hard ass as I am; Jo-Jo is grandfathering this re sources, has been impressive when taken to task, and I am inclined to take with good faith. I know this is double voting and said this before, but am keep also, per Ouriggr. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • delist For such a major topic the content is very small. I would expect at least double the amount of content. A lot of work to look that information up and write about it is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    The reason why the "content is very small" is because most of it is supposed to be on 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. The volcano itself is not well known outside of the 1815 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, when I posted to WP-Geology I hoped for something a bit more actionable. (And I also didn't mean to imply that geology-minded editors were not already involved here—e.g. thank you for that last addition Jo-Jo Eumerus—I just wasn't sure who they were. :-) Outriggr (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This has stalled after Graeme's comment, but Jo-Jo Eumerus gives sound reasoning, and would like to reiterate my Keep vote. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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