Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Grevillea juniperina

Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a nice plant I grow in my garden. Melburnian have buffed it up over the years. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Marjorie Cameron

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This GA-rated article is about an American artist, actor, and occultist who was active in and around California in the period of the Beat Generation and the subsequent 60s counterculture. Cameron was a follower of the British occultist Aleister Crowley, the wife of the rocket scientist Jack Parsons, and a good friend of underground film-maker Kenneth Anger. She was involved in an array of sex magic rituals, experimented widely with hallucinogenic drugs, and made a wide range of apocalyptic predictions involving UFOs, comets, and Mexico conquering the US. The article is not particularly long but is (IMO) about a very interesting character, so if it tickles your fancy, please do give it a read and offer some comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Astronomica (Manilius)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This article focuses on the titular work, a Latin hexameter didactic poem probably written by the Roman poet Marcus Manilius during the reign of Caesar Augustus or Tiberius. The five-book work describes celestial phenomena, explaining the zodiac and astrology. The poem—which seems to have been inspired by Lucretius's Epicurean poem, De rerum natura—espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of a universe overseen by a god and governed by reason. The work is of note for a number of reasons. First, it is seen as an answer to Lucretius's aforementioned poem. Second, it is an important window into Roman views on astrology and Stoicism. Third, it very barely made it to the present day, as only three manuscripts preserved the poem in the Middle Ages. Finally, it's style is rather heady and peculiar—it has been described (rather hilariously, might I add) as "like a trigonometry texbook rendered as a Saturday New York Times crossword." Currently, it is a good article (the very thorough review can be accessed here). It has also undergone two extensive peer-reviews: one in June of 2016, and the other in January of 2017. Finally, it has been copy-edit not just once but also twice by two extremely competent editors. Due to the rigor of its sources, the quality of the text, and its layout, I believe that it is ready for the next stage.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment in the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Interestingly, unlike its predecessor, which was a direct sequel to the first film, FD3 was always intented to be a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realzes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about their impending doom. (They never learn do they?)

I got the article to GA-status back in March and had it copyedited in April. Since then I've made a few changed / additions and fixed all of the references, ensuring that there are no duplicates and all of them contain their archive links; among other things. After all of that work I believe the article has finally reached the point where it meets the FA criteria. I look forward to people's feedback on further improving the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @PanagiotisZois: Just wanted to let you know that you are only allowed to have one FAC open at a time. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Getaway (1972 film)

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is The Getaway, a crime movie which is about two lovers (and ruthless outlaws) on the run; a classic film! I am nominating this for the FA status because, having just passed the GA status fairly recently and copy edited from one of the experts at GOCE, I believe the article is now comprehensive, complete, free from grammar issues, and what I believe should be an interesting read for people who are curious to know about the movie. This is my first FA nomination so hopefully everything goes well. Any comments from regulars here will truly be appreciated, so have at it! Bluesphere 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not certain if the screenshot in the "Critical reception" subsection is really that necessary. Only one reviewer made note of this scene so using an image that emphasize it may qualify as giving that review undue weight in comparison to the others in the same subsection. Also, the reviewer that discussed the scene seems to have referenced it more as a part of a joke than actual commentary/criticism. Fixed
  • In the same subsection, you start off with "During its premiere, The Getaway got a negative reception from critics", but the second paragraph contains positive reviews of the film. Would it be more fair to say that it received a "mixed" reception, or are you trying to say that the film received more positive attention during retrospective reviews? This needs to be clarified. Fixed
  • I am not certain about the placement of the images in the "Cast" section as it awkwardly cuts between multiple sections. Maybe it would be better to relocate this to the "Development" subsection or the "Casting" subsection instead. Fixed
  • When you include the name of another film (i.e. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Last Picture Show, Junior Bonner, What's Up, Doc?, etc.), make sure to include the year in which it was released. A majority of these titles appear in the "Development" subsection and the "Casting" subsection. Fixed
  • Please specify what you mean by "$30,000 ($171,800 today)". I am assuming you are talking about the adjustments according to inflation, but this should be specified. Fixed

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for responding to this nomination early. I believe I've addressed these concerns you raised. How do you reckon it looks now? Bluesphere 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Great work with the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria. The city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:

  • "By the 15th century BC, Qatna lost its hegemony and came under the authority of Mitanni, then changing hands between the former and Egypt until being conquered by the Hittites in the 14th century BC" – this reads rather clumsily and needs rewriting for grammar and clarity, probably as two sentences.
  • "Following its destruction, the city was abandoned." You've said that the Hittites "conquered" it, but not that they "destroyed" it. Did they? I see references to subsequent destructions and re-occupations, which suggests numerous rebuilds, though these are not mentioned. A little clarification would help.
  • "The artifacts of Qatna show high-quality workmanship, while its religion was complex and based on many cults in which ancestor worship played an important role." What follows "while" is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with the earlier statement, so the serntence needs reconsideration.

I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I edited the lede, hope it looks good now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Fort Vancouver Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the rarer half dollars in the series, which was authorized almost by chance. It did give another opportunity for the only woman to design more than one classic commemorative coin, Laura Gardin Fraser, the first woman to design a coin (some years earlier) to display her skill. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Gens

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) and User:Renata3

This article is about... semi-controversial figure from the Holocaust. Gens was the head of the Jewish ghetto in Vilnius who was put in place by the Germans. He is controversial because he believed that by cooperating with the Germans, some Jews could be saved. In the end, he was shot and the ghetto was liquidated. The article is as complete as I could make it, and I've tried to present all views about his activities. Renata's a co-nom because they were incredibly helpful with finding some information and helping to improve the content and other maters. Its had a copy-edit by John, and I hope it's ready for FA status. It's been a while since I've nominated anything, but I should have more nominations coming soon. This article is certainly a change from my usual subjects, but it's also an important subject that needs careful work to ensure balanced coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I looked for the horses and bishops but didn't see them. A few comments.

  • I might suggest moving his controversial role in the ghetto to the lede paragraph. It's what he's known for.
  • You are not consistent in your italicization of Judenrat. Or Aktion.
  • Judenrat is consistently not italicized (it generally isn't in the sources). I've made Aktion always italicized. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly a little more could be said to the effect he was born in the Russian Empire and after WWI, Lithuania was independent.
  • I've added explanatory footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After the formation of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Gens was fired from his job." I might toss a "in 1940" after "Republic".
  • Done (and of course, had to add a source for that since the previous source for that phrase didn't have a date...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Gens was not on the official payroll, which spared him from deportation from the city." Was the rest of the health department deported then? This is a bit opaque.
  • Probably because the sources are opaque. It's not clear in the sources what happened - they just mention that he wasn't deported because he wasn't on the payroll. I will try to double-check Arad's Ghetto in Flames, but it may or may not have further details. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Have clarified at bit - it was Gens who was in trouble, not the health department. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After their arrival, Gens remained in charge of the Jewish hospital." the last we heard of him, he had an unregistered job with the health department. Was this it?
  • It isn't clear if there is a job missing in the record or if the job with the health department was in the hospital. Again, I suspect our sources are reconstructing events after the fact from second-hand sources, so there is probably some confusion. The liklyhood of any records from either the hospital or health department surviving are vanishingly slim, given the confusion of the times and the destruction that came later. That is unfortunate, of course, but does tend to make things a bit... confused. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Further research shows that Beinfield is out of synch with the other sources, which state that Gens was appointed to head of the hospital after the Germans arrived, so have changed accordingly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you need a hyphen in "Revisitionist-Zionist"
  • Arad (the source here) used one, but have removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The smaller ghetto was liquidated " I might more explicitly say what happened to the residents.
  • Added explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " the ghetto's rabbis, who argued " I might use "ruled". They would have been regarded as the final authority on Jewish law, ordinarily.
  • Dawidowicz says that "the rabbis sent a delegation to tell him [Gens] that he was contravening Jewish law. To support their position, they cited Maimonides. Gens, who knew little, if anything, of Jewish law, responded that it was justifiable to surrender a part if the others would thereby be saved." I can't quite see this as supporting "ruled". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect if we argue about this, we'll wind up chasing our own tails. I have no doubt they intended a ruling as to halachah (after all, they wanted him to stop), but will let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gens was afraid that the actions of the Germans would result in a widespread massacre." Maybe "Gens was afraid the Germans would kill all of the Jews in the ghetto, and sought to save some at the price of others" if the source will justify.
  • Source says "German and Lithuanian united invaded then unexpectedly the ghetto and Gens feared that the snatching of people in the streets would end in a general massacre." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • He persuaded the Gestapo man in charge of the roundup to let the Jewish police gather together the deportees during the late-1941 deportations" Possibly "He persuaded the Gestapo officer in charge of the late-1941 roundup to let the Jewish police secure the deportees" or similar. I'm trying to avoid the near-repetition.
  • Changed to ".... roundup to let the Jewish police gather together the deportees during the late-1941 Aktions." which does get rid of one deportation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In an Aktion on 3–5 November, where the entire ghetto was checked against their paperwork," Possibly "During the Aktion on 3–5 November, in which the paperwork of everyone in the ghetto was checked".
  • Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "This incident took place under the supervision of German officials," I might say "gaze" rather than "supervision".
  • Arad says "scrutiny" so I'm trying to stick to the sense of his phrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Germans backed Gens' efforts to secure more power, and implied that he was not responsible to the Judenrat, nor that the Judenrat had any power over Gens or the Jewish policemen." I might change "nor" to "and" and"any" to "no"
  • The Weisskopf anecdote seems a rather minor incident, an intramural squabble that in the grand scheme of things did not matter, since it does not appear anyone was deported or killed. The fact that Gens was in charge of selecting who is to live and who to die, raises the question of did he abuse the power
  • I could remove it, but it occurs in other sources, so they must think its important. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "He was allowed to enter and leave the ghetto at any time and his daughter was not required to live in the ghetto, even though other half-Jews were confined within the ghetto." I might change "within the ghetto" to "there", but also, I would either use or link to from "half-Jews", mischling.
  • I changed the half-Jew link to mischling, but left the other. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "From there they moved to West Germany as Jewish aliyah." Aliyah, when used to refer to a person outside the context of Jewish synagogue ritual, is usually in reference to immigration to Israel by a Jew. They would not have been regarded as Jewish, I suspect.
  • @Renata3: - you added this bit, as I recall, can you address it? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • They stretched the definitions of "Jewish" and "Polish" to get the necessary papers to be allowed across the Iron Curtain. Did they meet the technical definition of "aliyah", I don't know, but that's how they got across the border. Renata (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Can I ask, if you have it handy, for how the source refers to this? I'm just trying to figure a better phrasing. Aliyah is the single form of the noun anyway. The female plural is "aliyot" (I would not change it immediately).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • All of the people in the Legacy section who comment on Gens seem favorably disposed to him. How then is it stated that his role was controversial?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll address this quickly and will work on the rest of these comments tomorrow. Gens himself is not singled out by historians as a particularly "bad" person, but the Judenrats as a whole are controversial. Raoul Hilberg, in particular, saw all the members of any Judenrat as collaborators and that they prevented active resistance to the Germans. Since Hilberg, there has been much more of a swing in historical thought to the fact that resistance came in other varieties than just armed uprisings (the only kind Hilberg recognized) and recognition of the fact that the Judenrat (as well as the Jews as a whole) didn't really have any choices, much less good choices. There has been a definite swing away from the idea that the Jews just passively acquised in their murder (or in Hoess' opinion, were just like sheep to a slaughterhouse). And the play that is about Vilnius, casts him in a rather negative light. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clearer (and more concise), the role of member of the Judenrat or head of the Jewish police is considered controversial, thus why I wrote that in my nomination statement. There isn't nearly as much written specifically on Gens as an individual that sees him as controversial beyond the norm for the positions he held. He certainly is not considered as difficult as Chaim Rumkowski, but he's not nearly as "sainted" as Adam Czerniakow. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I might put in a little bit about how they in general have been regarded, then. As you point out, it is controversial. I'm not sure a play does it, after all, it's not a historical paper. If these favorable opinions of Gens are fruit of a reaction against a hard-line position, than I don't think it's a bad idea to mention what that position is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OKay, I think I've addressed all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Just the points on legacy and aliyah,the rest looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Very interesting article; thanks for bringing it this far. Just a few points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm surprised that the term "Ashkenazi" makes no appearance in this article. Do we have any sources that could be used to bring in Gens' ethnicity in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "His father was a merchant and Gens was the oldest of four sons. Gens attended a Russian-language primary school and then a secondary school in Šiauliai.[2]" I appreciate that both sentences are likely bolstered by the same source, but both sentences are saying quite different things and it can give the appearance that the first sentence is simply unreferenced. For that reason I would definitely duplicate that citation at the end of both sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "mood." and that" - best be rid of that full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "His participation in the" - the His could be read as a reference to Karni, rather than Gens, so I would change "His" to "Gens'" (and accordingly replace the later "Gens" to "his"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "He belonged to Brith ha-Hayal, an organization for military reservists" - perhaps "He belonged to Brith ha-Hayal, a Jewish organization for military reservists"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gens was fired from his job." - do we know why? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Germans entered Vilnius" - perhaps make it clear that this was the German Army. And perhaps add a bit more about this being part of World War 2. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Germans murdered" - semantic quibble on what is a very sensitive subject (so apologies upfront), but would "killed" be more appropriate here? "Murdered" implies a sense of illegality, and I'm not sure if this act was technically illegal under German law in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "for a Nazi-period ghetto" - this is the first time that the Nazis have been mentioned in any form, so perhaps it would be best to introduce them briefly beforehand, for instance when mentioning the German invasion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • More forthcoming (and ping me in a week if I've forgotten). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): 1989 & Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader. After the second nomination, Mike Christie has been a big help to his contribution to the article, making the article shorter and easier to read. From our part, we would like to have this article given a second chance on FAC this year, and hopefully it could pass. 1989 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I have a question about the "Original video animations" and the "Films" subsections. Would it be better to have this information represented in prose rather than a bulleted list? Also some aspects of the list feel a little incomplete to me (i.e. Focuses on the children of the main characters) and could use further context and information for the reader.
    On the article talk page, Mike felt that a list would look better and more organized. As for the incompleteness and context, I fixed it. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    It used to be in prose; see this version, for example. It was essentially a list then, too, but was harder to read. Some of the details are at List of Naruto media, and since there's little more to say about the films and OVAs than their name, release date, and a sentence of summary, I don't think leaving it as prose is really beneficial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than "Commercial success" as a name of a section, wouldn't it be better to have "Commercial performance" just to avoid any misinterpretations of POV issues? While it is clear that this is successful, it may be better to let the sources speak for itself rather than putting it up in the section title.
    I changed it. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. I only have two rather minor comments to make about this. I will promote this article once my comments are addressed. Good luck with this article this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Replies above. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I support this for promotion. Good luck with this and great work with the article as a whole. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Hopefully, this time the nomination will be successful for you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review

After translating the Japanese reference I added, I think the article passes its source review. All urls are archived whereas the books indicate page numbers. References in the both the series' success as well as critical response appear to be WP:Reliable sources approved by the project of manga and anime. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Image review - the fair use rationale for the single, low-res image is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a dinky little torpedo boat that started its life in the Austro-Hungarian Navy and served for nearly 50 years under four different flags. She had a busy World War I in the Adriatic before being transferred to the fledgling Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) after the war. She had a fairly uneventful interwar period, but once Yugoslavia was drawn into World War II with the Axis invasion of that country in April 1941 she was put back into service under the Italian flag. Handed back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy-in-exile when the Italians surrendered in 1943, she ended up serving in the post-war communist Yugoslav Navy until 1962. This is the third of this class to go through FAC, so hopefully I've ironed out most of the kinks. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Just one image, which seems to be correctly used and correctly licensed (assuming that the license info is correct, something I cannot easily check). For the ALT text however, I'd call that a medium-sized ship. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, alt text tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hooded pitohui

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Another bird, this time from New Guinea, but this one is intriguing as it is the most poisonous bird in the world. Didn't know birds were poisonous? Neither did scientists really till they started looking at this one. It's had a thorough GAN and has plenty of detail about why sticking it in your mouth would be a bad idea. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Image review - I already looked at the image licensing/sourcing during the GA review, so I can say it all looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Riley

Same thing as always. Note to coordinators, if I ever stop reviewing, consider this as a weak support or neutral if all of the comments are answered.

  • In the sentence "Within the oriole family the species is most closely related to the variable pitohui complex, and then the figbirds," two things are unclear. First, it is unclear whether the species complex is variable or whether it is referring to the variable pitohui (pause) complex. Next, it should be made a bit more clear which it is more closely related to.
  • Fixed. I actually cursed the lack of caps, but actually here even that wouldn't work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Make it more clear what leading means in the sentence "A social bird, it lives in family groups and frequently joins and even leads mixed-species foraging flocks."
  • Presumably leading means it leads? The meaning of leading isn't elaborated in the source text, but surely most people would understand lead.... it isn't technical! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Some oxford commas need to be removed, such as in the sentence "The adult has a black upperwing, head, chin, throat and upper breast, and a black tail."

I will do some more later. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm confused about the sentence "The species was long thought to be a whistler (Pachycephalidae), and related to other types of pitohui, however it is now known to be in the Old World oriole family (Oriolidae)." Could you specify what "other types of pitohui" are, as it is literally in the genus Pitohui. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The call section should probably go into the description section, as it deals strictly with the morphology of the calls. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Indy

  • Should probably mention that it is the most poisonous bird in the world in the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

The article looks well prepared. A few comments:

  • "The species known as pitohuis were long thought to be similar due to being congeneric," - surely this should be the other way around - ie they were considered congeneric because they were similar. (I see this was brought up in the GA review)
  • "with brown to black spots and blotches and faint grey patches over the larger end." This implies that the faint grey patches (and perhaps the black spots and blotches) are only at the larger end. Your cited source HBW alive has "grey patches all over or mainly at larger end". I think it would be worthwhile to cite the primary source for the egg data. Of the five eggs examined only one had most of the markings around the larger end. See:
    • Parker, S.A. (1962). "Notes on some undescribed eggs from New Guinea". Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club. 82: 132–133. 
  • Added, thanks.
  • I trawled through old sources looking for information on breeding. The only small fact I came up with is that the "The natal down is white in colour" see:
    • Mayr, E.; Rand, A.L. (1937). The birds of the 1933–1934 Papuan Expedition. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 73. pp. 1–248 [181-182]. 

- Aa77zz (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Disneyland Railroad

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the steam railroad attraction located in the original Disneyland theme park in Anaheim, California. The concept for the railroad was created by Walt Disney himself, who, besides being known for drawing cartoons, was also an avid railfan. The railroad opened on July 17, 1955, and since then it has become one of the busiest attractions of its kind on the planet with an estimated 6.6 million passengers served every year. I re-wrote the entire article earlier this year and after doing so, I successfully campaigned to get it upgraded to good article status. I feel that it satisfies the criteria to be upgraded further to featured article status, which, of course, will ultimately be decided by the reviewers. I look forward to reading your opinions and working together to make the Disneyland Railroad article a new piece of featured content on Wikipedia. Jackdude101 (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess this has been sort of my 'Moby Dick' on Wikipedia as I've been trying to get this to featured status for over a decade now. I believe that this article is as comprehensive as it's going to be, featuring in addition to the fictional character history Stephen King's own history in writing him as well as analysis from critics on the character. My hope is, if the article is good enough, to either get it as featured article for the day in time for the release of the Dark Tower film in August or on King's birthday in September.CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

I've only taken a very quick skim through, but there are a few things that jump out immediately:

  • The referencing seems a little all over the place. Some paragraphs have citations, yet others don't. There are only two in the lede; I would go with either no citations or full citations in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In quite a few cases, citations are separated from the sentence with a space. That needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a number of instances of ” which should be ". Similarly, there are instances of ’ rather than '. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Characteristic of Randall Flagg is his embodiment of evil." - pretty subjective statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the subjective statement and I think I changed all of the quotation marks. I'll give a look at the references this weekend.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Mia Hamm

Nominator(s): Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about American soccer icon Mia Hamm. It recently passed GAR and was suggested as a FAC. It is a level-4 vital article in People. Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

  • This edit is fine, as long as you put the "and" back before "Texas". Some copyeditors call this "cannabalism"; one necessary "and" has eaten the other necessary "and". Does that make sense? - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I split it up into two sentences. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In addition to the 34,148 fans in attendance being greater than any MLS game that weekend, the Turner Network Television (TNT) broadcast reached 393,087 households: more than two MLS games broadcast on ESPN and ESPN2.": ?
  • What is your question? Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "that kept her out for the first half off the pitch": ?
  • "World Football Hall of Fame" (linked to Create a stub here on, if there isn't one already, and link to that.
  • Is there a guideline you can provide to support this? Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "<ref name="Today' ": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer, with the caveat that I stopped near the end, at Personal life; my wrist is bothering me and I'd like to stop here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Dank Thanks for your review and copyediting. I've added a few comments/questions above. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for you work. See my standard disclaimer, which is more relevant now that I've hurt my wrist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Shine (Gwen Stefani song)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I am taking a break from my normal FACs on articles dealing with television and fictional characters to nominate one that focuses on a song. This article is about a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by American singer Pharrell Williams. Originally intended for the band No Doubt, it was written and produced by Williams, with additional songwriting from Stefani, as the theme song for the 2014 animated film Paddington. "Shine" is a pop song that incorporates elements of reggae pop and ska, and features lyrics that revolve around the lead character Paddington Bear's journey to London and his identity crisis.

The track was released on January 13, 2015, through a lyric video on The Weinstein Company's YouTube channel, in addition to a promotional CD. The song was also promoted in the American trailer for the film. While a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the song remains unavailable to the public. The lyric video is included on the DVD and Blu-ray releases of the film. Critical response to "Shine" was mixed. Some critics praised Stefani and Williams' chemistry as a team, while others compared it negatively to their previous collaborations and singles. It was frequently compared to Willams' 2013 single "Happy", and Stefani and Williams' 2014 song "Spark the Fire".

I believe that the article satisfies all of the parts of the FA criteria. I have received notes in the previous two FAC attempts for this article that there were concerns about its comprehensiveness, but I firmly believe that I have mined all of the sources available on this topic (even reaching into information that was only presented in radio interviews). I really do not believe that there is more information about this song out there that is not already present in the article. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

Will look at this soon. NumerounovedantTalk 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Having read the article mutiple times in the past two days, I am more than happy to offer my Support as per the standard of prose. I might offer some suggestions/minor c.e. in the future, but I have no comments at this point. I would leave the the technical aspects out of the review owing to my lack of familiarity with the area of concern here. Fine work with the article though. NumerounovedantTalk 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support and comments. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments from 1989
  • "a full version of the record remains unreleased digitally" I'd changed the word remains.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "They also served as judges on the American reality television singing competition The Voice in 2014." This may not be needed.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Stefani later commented" Is later needed?
  • I believe that this part is necessary to situate that the following part of the sentence is something that she talked about directly in an interview to avoid accusations that I was doing original research or having it appear like I am narrating something rather than pointing to a source and citing it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Paddington Bear "; Stefani"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "his children's connection with Paddington Bear" How were Pharrell's children connected to the film?
  • Revised. They were fans of the books. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "mirror / That's your way home."[19]" Is a period needed?
  • The period is necessary as it is the end of the sentence, but I moved the period outside of the quotation marks. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "complete animations of the Paddington Bear character." animations?
  • Paddington Bear in the film was created using a combination of computer-generated imagery and animatronics. Stefani was commented on how she finally saw all of the animation work for the bear put together while watching the film with her sons. Let me know how you think that this should be clarified. I believe it is pretty clear in the article already, but I look forward to any feedback you have to give on this point in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the record remains unreleased for consumer consumption." remains...
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Good work on the article, I didn't find too much error. 1989 20:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @1989: Thank you for your comments. I believe that i have addressed everything, and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    Support and File:ShineGwenPromoCoverLimitedEdition.jpg has an appropriate rationale and license, which passes the image review. -- 1989 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Loev (film)

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian film that was released on Netflix. I am looking for construvtive comments to improve the article. It recently went through a GAR conducted by Aoba47. I would also like to thank Kailash29792 and Ssven2 for their help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Can you tell me (here, not by editing the article) a little bit about the tuberculosis? Although it's probably the leading cause of death in the world among respiratory diseases, it still strikes me as unusual in this case ... depending on what happened, it might need some explaining. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Dank. Well, there aren't many details on it, this is the most detailed discussion oh Ganesh's death. I hope this helps. NumerounovedantTalk 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks ... I've read all the links I can find and they don't talk about it, so I guess we can't in the article. Other than that, I don't have any comments to offer yet. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, looking forward to further comments. NumerounovedantTalk 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Not to be too nitpicky, but the ALT text for the infobox image (Pandit and Ganesh embracing in a bed on the film's poster.) reads a little awkwardly, specifically the "on the film's poster" part as it can read like the bed is literally on the poster. I would just remove that part and maybe add in the front of the text something along the lines of "An image of..." to get the same point across.
  • I would clarify in this part from the lead "who share a complicated relationship that takes center stage during a weekend getaway to" what you mean by "a complicated relationship" as that sounds a little too vague for my liking.
  • I still support this, but I am not certain that "complex" is needed in the description as it sounds a little off to me. I will leave this for other reviewers to discuss, but I just wanted to leave a note about this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: One last thing, I have rephrased the sentence, do you like this version better? NumerounovedantTalk 18:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that works better. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have any information on how exactly Saria drew from his personal experiences for this film? It is fine if there is not anything out there, but it just seems like a really broad claim without any specific example with it.
Not really.
  • That is what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure with you. It is fine as it stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Again this is very nitpicky but in the following phrase from the lead (Upon initial release), I would say (Upon its initial release) would be more appropriate.
  • I would break up the following sentence into two (The major praise was directed towards the script and the performances of Pandit and Ganesh, and the unconventional and fresh treatment of a taboo subject matter in India.), with a separate sentence for the treatment of the taboo subject matter. Also, this sentence is a little confusing as it never made clear what "taboo subject matter" you are discussing as it is not spelled out in the lead clearly (it can be clearly seen in the infobox image, but the lead skirts around the topic; this goes back to my point about the "complicated relationship" statement).
  • The part about the rape in the "Plot" section still reads very awkwardly to me, and I would suggest looking at that further and revise it more. This part in particular (He violently pressed him beside a wall and starts kissing him, to which Sahil responds initially, but later asks him to stop by saying that "this isn't what he (Jai) wants".) needs work.
  • In this sentence (who brings along his friend (Rishabh Chaddha) to the hotel), does the friend have a name?
I am not sure, I'll have to check, but he was never a significant character.
  • Makes sense, I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a clarification question for the following sentence (As he is walking away into the airport, Jai sends a text message to Sahil saying that he loves him.). How does Sahil respond to the text? Following this sentence, it appears that this is the final mention/part featuring Sahil in the film so I was a little confused by the jump.
Actually, I think he's never really shown reading his text. It's more for closure sake (more for the audience I believe).
  • Makes sense, I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be beneficial to add a date/year to the following sentence rather than "eventually" for clarity (The worldwide rights of the film were eventually acquired by Netflix).
  • There is a citation error for Reference 26.
  • Just wanted to point out that "" was a red link in the References section. It is more than okay to have a red link, but I just wanted to let you know that it was there.

Wonderful job with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything/left comments. Thanks, so really appreciate you going through this again. Also, thank you for all the previous help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this; good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Image review
  • File:Loev poster.jpg is properly sourced and licensed. All of the information in the non-free media information and use rationale box is completed. ALT text could use some more work, but I have addressed this in my above comments.
  • File:Aditi Rao Hydari and Shiv Pandit at Teacher’s day celebrations (cropped).jpg, File:Mahabaleshwar-scene.jpg, and File:Shiv Pandit at the special screening of Loev (cropped).jpg are all properly source and pulled from Wikimedia Commons. ALT text is well done for all of the images, and they are appropriately used in the section.

Wonderful work with this article. This passes all of the requirements for the image review. The minor issue with the infobox image's ALT text should be covered in my above review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this too. NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Anytime! Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dan Bain

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This article was nominated back in 2013 by me, and failed then for a variety of reasons. Well after some delay I've brought it back, ostensibly as part of my goal to get the 1945 Hockey Hall of Fame class to FA (though since that project began its been shown there aren't actually 12 players, but that's not relevant). I addressed everything from the previous FAC, and added information from a recently published journal article on the life of Bain, which gives it a little more detail (though its still short at 1400 words). Kaiser matias (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I like the goal to "get the 1945 Hockey Hall of Fame class to FA". I understand that to achieve a goal like that, you'll have to bring us some articles that are on the short side. It seems to me that people respond enthusiastically to your articles, and for as long as they do that, I don't want to hold you back. But in several respects, this just doesn't read like a Featured Article to me. One option I have as a reviewer is to say: okay, enough, this isn't working, please find a co-nom or an interested person to help you with these articles before they hit FAC. I don't think that would be an unreasonable request, in this case. I think on balance I want to wait and see what happens with this one before I take a position. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there anything constructive you'd like to add here, other than seemingly imply I'm incapable of writing/producing a FA-class article? If I'm reading that wrong I apologise, but it seems needlessly hostile and doesn't provide much, so I'd just like some clarification. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
There's no insult intended here. I'm trying to avoid an oppose if it can be avoided. But I've hurt my wrist, so I'll leave it there. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, just external issues coming and clouding my wording and judgement, which is inappropriate on my behalf. Terrible to hear about the wrist, as you're efforts are appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment. File:DanBain1900.jpg: source link is dead; when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Updated the link to the original image on the Library and Archives Canada site, which notes the copyright as expired. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

History of the British penny (1901–1970)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Arwel Parry (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC),

This article is about... a coin that made pockets heavier than they are today, but nevertheless iconic for its portrayal of Britannia. This is about its final seventy years or so, including the great rarity of 1933. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Nicely done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you indeed. I've played with one or two of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The first two changes I see look good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


A nice piece of work! Some initial comments:

  • "saw the final years of its striking as a large, non-decimal coin" - I found this clunky as a the very first sentence of the lead. It didn't flow well for me.
I've played with it.
  • "the obverse of the bronze coin" - "obverse" is clearly the right word for a numismatic article, but it isn't a common term outside the field. I'd have advised "the obverse, or front, of the bronze coin" on first use, particularly since it is in the lead.
I've linked and called it heads.
  • "they were coined principally to be placed beneath foundation stones" - "principally" doesn't quite fit with the main text, which says that only 3 were coined for that purpose, and between 4 and 7 for use in museums.
There are only two in museums. The remaining pieces, the provenance is a bit uncertain. Royal Mint employees of long standing were sometimes presented with proof coins and there is speculation that may have been the source. But we don't know. In any event, three struck for foundation stones, two for the museums, and two unknown, well, given that these might not exist at all but for the need for foundation coins, I think the language is justified.
The main text, though, currently says "the Mint struck three 1933 pennies for this purpose, plus a small number of additional pieces for its own museum and for the British Museum", and then clarifies that the "small number" is between four and seven, and is probably four - which still means that the three 1933 pennies for foundations are in the minority of those struck, with those struck for the museums in the majority. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been more explicit on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • While on the 1933 story... "by thieves who managed to remove the set of coins from beneath the church" - this implies we've already told the reader about a set of coins - we've only mentioned a single coin, though, the 1933 penny.
The reader's been told the King placed sets of coins under the buildings. The entire set was stolen from under that church, not merely the penny.
  • "as it was claimed" - unclear by who was doing the claiming from context - newspapers? collectors? the public?
It seems the public, at least by implication. Tweaked.
  • Worth checking the capitalisation of "king" and "queen" against the MOS advice at MOS:JOBTITLES - there are quite a few instances where the MOS requires capitalisation.
By going to title case in the translated Latin, I think we're good there.
Still not done: as per the MOS, where "king" refers to a specific king, it should be capitalised - e.g. "on the King's death", as the term is a substitute for Edward VII's own name. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, should be good now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Referencing: fn 19, 27 etc. put Coin News and Numismatic articles in long format in the footnotes; Skellern's articles in Coin News are cited in short form, with the article in the bibliography. The referencing style needs to be internally consistent.
  • Mintages section needs citation.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is "The Old Currency Exchange" a reliable source? (open question, but there doesn't seem to be a name of a real-world author, and it appears self-published)
Coin dealers are reputable professionals in the field and I think (where not self-promotional) can be cited within their field of expertise, in my view. We freely cite other commercial enterprises, after all.
  • Bibliography: "Lobel, Richard, ed" needs a location and publisher; you should probably be consistent on whether you prefer Ltd or Limited. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. I think we got everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current ref 21 is "Coin News June 2014, p. 29" which appears to be referring to ""Edward VII Uniface Penny". Coin News: 26. June 2014." - can we make this consistent so it's easy to find if the article is ever printed out?
  • Same issue for current ref 37 "The Numismatist April 1968, p. 472" which appears to be ""Late World Coin News: Great Britain". The Numismatist: 472. April 1968."
  • Same issue for current ref 19 "The Numismatist July 2016, p. 29" which appears to be ""Pretty Penny". The Numismatist: 29. July 2016."
I'm not sure what you mean by "consistent". Each article is less than a page and does not have a listed author. That is why they are listed by the publication name. I'll check the variation in the page number.
They are listed in the bibliography with title first, but the shortened footnotes list them by publication - this is the problem, it makes it more difficult to see which long citation corresponds to the short footnote, especially if the article is printed out. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is current ref "Bermuda" meant to be the "Bermuda Monetary Authority"?
  • Are the refs to "Coincraft" supposed to be corresponding to "Lobel, Richard, ed. (1999) [1995]. Coincraft's Standard Catalogue English & UK Coins 1066 to Date (5th ed.). London: Standard Catalogue Publishers Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9526228-8-8."? Because that's confusing, since we have an author.
We have an editor. Coin collectors, anyway, are more likely to know it by the name Coincraft, which is a prominent London coin dealer that issued the catalog.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
But the same issue applies here - non-coin collectors or people who print out the article are going to be confused and it makes it more difficult to connect the short footnote to the proper long citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "Rodgers, Kerry (December 2016). "Fiji's World War II Emergency Reserve Bank of New Zealand Overprints". Coin News: 75–79." used in the article? I can't find it under "Coin News" or "Rodgers".
Ref 25.--00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
In my view, coin dealer's sites, where not unduly self promotional, can be used for such. We use, after all, many other professionals..
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
It seems to be a high-powered British accountancy firm, with the publication for the use of clients and others.
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You have two refs with the exact same ISBN. "978-0-900652-74-5" is given for both Seaby and Linecar. According to WorldCat - Linecar is actually "9780713519310".
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. [ Earwig's tool–1970%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0] shows no copyright violations, but there are a couple of phrases highlighted that might need a bit of rephrasing to avoid too close paraphrasing.
I suspect they copied from us, as this article was stable for a long time. But I'll massage it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I've got everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)

Nominator(s): DAP 💅 & Mike Christie 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. Since the failed nominations in the past year and after a lengthy hiatus, I've worked with Mike Christie on addressing the issues in previous FACs. He will thus be a conominator as he has made substantial improvements in the reception section, which was the main concern going forward. I believe this piece satisfies the FA criteria and hope for it to be a template for other media articles. DAP 💅 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging reviewers from the last three or four FACs: Aoba47, Brandt Luke Zorn, Tintor2, Jfhutson; would you mind taking another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please link the show name (True Detective) on its first appearance in the body of the article.
Done . DAP 💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For the sentence (The Sydney Morning Herald included the opening sequence in a list of ten of the best title sequences on television), wouldn't it be more correct to put the writer's name rather than attributing the publication as a whole as putting the opening sequence on this list? The same comment applies to the reviews in the "Reviews" subsection as they primarily attribute the reviews to the publication without naming the writer/reviewer directly.
I don't believe so. This was a subject of concern working with Mike and we believe declarative statements are more organized and heighten the reader experience rather than a summary of reviewer comments. DAP 💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

These are the only two questions/comments I had about the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great work with this article; it is a very interesting read. Good luck with getting it promoted this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. I am still a little confused about the treatment of the reviews as I have received notes in the past that the quotes/content should be attributed to the writer/reviewer rather than the publication as a whole, but if you both feel that is best, then I will not push the issue. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to give feedback for your nom. I'll glimpse through the article and comment sometime next week. Cheers! DAP 💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks a lot better than the first time I saw. I can't find a single by having a big look so I say it passes. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback! DAP 💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Lazarus (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book series Lazarus created by Greg Rucka and Michael Lark. The series is still ongoing and will probably continue for another 7-9 years. The article is up-to-date with recent plot developments and series announcements. I believe it is as thorough and complete as it can be.

The article has been stable with few editors. The only edit dispute (if you can call it that) occurred in March 2017 with the introduction of a table by User:Hellboybookeeper. It was discussed here and here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Steller's sea cow

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I nominated this article a couple months back. It failed, but Jens Lallensack has been working on it (but I don't think he's co-nominating it) and now I'm sure that it's ready for FAC. It was really close last time, there just wasn't really enough time, so I'm hoping that I can resolve all the problems left. Also, this article's about a species of dugong that went extinct in recent times. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - the article has obviously been improved since last time I gave my review and support (feels more comprehensive now), so here it is again. FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

Okay then:

  • In the lead, maybe mention that the range was or may have been wider in pre-history
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, information about its size is split over two paragraphs. Consolidate perhaps?
I just removed it in the second paragraph because it was basically repeating info   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the slow-moving and easily capturable Steller's sea cow maybe easily caught is plainer English?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The sea cow's spine is believed to have had 7 neck, 17 thoracic, 3 lumbar, and 34 caudal (tail) vertebrae. I'm curious why this is only believed.
the source said "axial skeleton probably consisted of"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • consuming the tougher stem and holdfast after they washed up on the shore in heaps. I'm curious about this, did they nearly beach themselves to reach it?
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Steller researched the wildlife of Bering Island while he was shipwrecked there; it would be good to know how long he was marooned there.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are two taxonomic trees labeled Relations within Sirenia that show different things. Maybe the second one which excludes the manatees should be relabeled.
to what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The cladogram only shows relationships within Dugongidae, so probably that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • an extinct tropical sea cow that lived near California What does near California mean here? Off California? Oregon? Mexico?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I unlinked duplicated ice ages link, perhaps since there are multiple ice ages and you are referring the most recent one based on the piped link you could a) use the more technical name too or b) put a date range in there? Also ice age probably shouldn't be capped (technically neither should Dugong but it'll be a cold day in hell when I require that to pass)
fixed the dugong thing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
These are minor issues so support should be simple enough once they're addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, support now. I replied above to the issue of the cladograms, its a simple fix. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, I made these changes (rather than listing them here) as they're all pretty straightforward. tentative support as nothing is jumping out at me to fix....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why repeat the lead image?
it's relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Pallas_Sea_Cow.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What was the source of the data used to create File:Commander_Islands_Map_-_Russian.png?
I asked at the Commons and they said that contours of land masses (like the one pictured) are not protected by copyright so it doesn't need a source line   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking about the source for copyright reasons, but for verifiability - think about this request as a {{citation needed}} tag on the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
added citation needed tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Steller_measuring_a_sea_cow.jpg: if this is dated 1925, it can't have been published before 1923 - tag needs reviewing
Added US non-renewal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Extanstellersseacowea.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Ледяной_плен_с._097.png: where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Russian Academy of Sciences, 1879   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Waxell_-_Stellersche_Seekuh.jpg needs a US PD tag and the source link is dead
added PD tag but I can't find another link, should I just remove it and leave the ref for it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you checked Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, I'll try asking the Village Pump at the Commons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
They found it, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Hydrodamalis_gigas.jpeg needs a US PD tag
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:T2JB367_-_illustration.jpg needs a US PD tag and an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
where do I put the author's date of death?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
With the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If this was published in 1895, why use a 1923–1963 tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by William Harris

In the section titled "Ecology and behavior", there are some dead hyperlinks (red) that would benefit from being unlinked. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks D. (I report that nothing exciting has been turned up through DNA analysis of the remains of this extinct mammal, including one conducted this year.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current ref 1 has a major red flag "Überarb, Germany: Books on Demand". What makes this reliable?
The book seems pretty well-sourced to me, I don't see what the publisher's got to do with it. It cites only journals as far as I can see so I'd call it reliable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, "books on demand" is usually a self-publishing service. We consider self-published sources to be problematical, and often unreliable. See Wikipedia:RSSELF. See books on demand site, World Cat entry showing no libraries holding the book, and Other world cat entry showing one library in the whole world holding it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm basically citing an encyclopedia rather than combing through all the German article sources he lists or American university publications. Basically, instead of trying to create 50 different sources of which most are inaccessible, I just bulk-cited one that's accessible and easy-to-read. I could try finding individual sources in the bibliography if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless the guy writing it is an expert in the field (and given the lack of libraries holding the book even if he was, it's pretty clear that this work isn't one that scholars are using) I'm going to have to say it's unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I'll replace it (but later, this might take a little bit)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 28 ( is this really needed? There are three other sources on the information it's attached to.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Portrayals in media section - why were these specific protrayals chosen out of other mentions? Per MOS:POPCULT, we need to be careful with these sorts of sections. I've always found a good rule of thumb is to only list those pop culture mentions where a third-party source discusses the impact that the portrayals have on our understanding of the article subject.
because that's all there is as far as I can tell (or at least the only ones that don't just take a small glance at them)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
But what do they tell us about the subject of the article? What commentary in third-party sources discuss how these poems/etc help our understanding of the article subject? Near as I can see, they are just trivial mentions without any coverage in sources to show how the sea cow information is informative. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think a short film about them that got nominated for awards is definitely notable, as well as being discussed by W. G. Sebald   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. [ Earwig's tool] shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

On the Mindless Menace of Violence

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "On the Mindless Menace of Violence", a speech delivered by United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. The speech has been greatly overshadowed by the famous remarks Kennedy delivered the night before in Indianapolis. Regardless, it was still considered by two of Kennedy's speechwriters, Jeff Greenfield and Frank Mankiewicz, and two prominent journalists, David Halberstam and Jack Newfield, to be one of the senator's best (it's my personal favorite, quite frankly). I've pulled together various sources to complete this article, including several journal and magazine pieces, as well as one book strictly devoted to analysis of the speech. At this point there are few improvements I see I could make without the suggestion of other editors. Other than that, I think it is ready for FA status. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rkennedy05.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The original uploader didn't give me many details but forwarded me to the original photographer, who I have now contacted to confirm the copyright status of the photo. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have received a reply from the creator of the photo, Evan Freed. I had emailed him "According to the license, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." Can you confirm that this is true[...]?" He responded, "I can confirm all on that." I also asked if he knew when/where/how it was originally published, which he didn't respond to, but said, "Give me a call." How should I proceed? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If you feel comfortable doing so you could call him, but his statement should be sufficient for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support since my comments have already been addressed in the previous FAC. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Hopefully, it gets more feedback/commentary this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This FAC is strictly speaking out of process as two weeks have not passed since the last nomination was archived. The FAC instructions make it clear that there should be a two-week wait unless permission is given by the coordinators. I'm prepared to let this one go, given the limited feedback on the last nomination, but I really don't want to make a habit of this and wouldn't do so again unless permission was sought. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

So I was looking through my talk page, and I just noticed that you asked me to review this article. My apologies for not responding, it must have just slipped by my radar. Anyway, I know how awful it can be when you;re waiting for FAC reviews, so I'll pitch in to help. Here's just a few short ones to get you started.

  • Simpson, increasingly frustrated with Busted's music, could not explore his own creative desires because the music he wrote could not be played with Busted. This sentence is in need of a good copyedit. I had to reread this sentence three times before I understood what it was saying. I noticed this sentence wasn't in the article when the Guild of Copyeditors came through.
  • The EP was inspired by novelist David Fincher's film, Fight Club (1999). David Fincher directed Fight Club. Chuck Palahniuk wrote the novel the film was based off of. Besides, I think you can just say "the EP was inspired by the 1999 film Fight Club". BTW, any particular reason why they decided to take inspiration from that film? Fight Club is rather unique, in that it deals with heavy themes of consumerism and masculinity (see Interpretations of Fight Club), so it'd be interesting to see what Fightstar took out of that film. Also, trying not to make this one comment go on for too long, but you don't need link Fight Club (film), just Fight Club is fine.
Oops. That indeed is false. I meant to fix this up in the second FAC, but I may have done goofed when trying to do that. But why should I change the link? Shouldn't I do both? Surely the phenomenon of difference between book and movie is present; and I think the cited article said they took influence from the movie. Check it out now, tell me what you think. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 17:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The release was praised by critics, despite initial scepticism due to Simpson's former pop career with Busted. There's only one review sourced here. Try not to generalize critical praise with just one review. Looking at the EP article, there are a few other reviews you could include to support your statement. As a side note, always try to take an unbiased approach to generalizing reviews, as I noticed that the PunkNews review was negative. It appears to be the only negative review, but keep that in mind.

Alright, there's a few comments to get you started. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lewismaster

I'm sorry for the delay, but my commitments outside WP are becoming very pressing. I am not an expert about band biographies and I have never listened to this band in particular, so the article is quite informative. However, there are some problems regarding mainly sources and references. Nothing insurmountable, but a few sentences look menacingly like original research to me.


The article is missing a Background section, which, in this case, should focus on Simpson and Busted. Busted are often cited in the article, but no info is provided about them, except that they are a pop-punk band. At least you should write that they were very successful, won awards, had an audience composed of teen-agers. And Simpson hated that, because he had a different musical background, which should be described. In one interview he described his time in Busted as "a mistake" and in another as "torture". In the same interviews he is very specific about his musical tastes and about the influences that he wanted to express in Fightstar. The part about his frustration and why he left Busted should be put here, too. He is the star of the band and a few sentences about his background is necessary, IMO. If you have some background info about the other musicians before they formed the band this is the place to put them.

I've never seen a section named Background in a band FA. It usually comes in the beginning of the history section, something like "Early years", etc. I will put some of this information in there

The lead should summarise the content of the article, so no references should be placed here. You write that "they were viewed sceptically by critics", but this fact does not emerge from the article, where everybody is apparently enthusiastic of the new band.


Source no. 4 is a short review of a show in Liverpool, but it is used as reference for a lot of things that have nothing to do with it, such as the origin of the band, the occupation of its members, the first song they wrote... Find a real source, please.

"Simpson's time with Fightstar reportedly caused tension in Busted" - source no.5 doesn't report any tension, but maybe sadness for the end of Busted. Find a source for this sentence.

They Liked You Better When You Were Dead (2004–2005)

"After Simpson's decision to focus on Fightstar, the band entered Criterion Studios in London with producer Mark Williams to begin work on their first EP, They Liked You Better When You Were Dead." - No reference.

"With nine tracks on its extended mini-album version, it was written in six months while Westaway and Simpson lived together." - I think that this sentence should be rewritten like maybe: "It was released as a mini-album, containing nine tracks written during the six months of Simpson and Westaway's cohabitation".

""Mono", named after the Japanese band, was recorded during a thunderstorm; shortly before the track's finale, Simpson may be heard screaming in the rain after he ran outside (unaware that the studio mics were picking up his voice)." - This is the biography of Fightstar and should focus on the main aspects of their work. Is the song "Mono" so important to go in such detail? I would cut this part.

"They Liked You Better When You Were Dead, released on 28 February 2005 after a brief UK promotional tour" - no reference for the tour.

"It was mostly a critical success,[1][11][12] even though reviewed it negatively." - Cut "mostly". There is one puzzling fact in your article: apparently Kerrang! promoted Fightstar in every possible way, but the magazine is barely cited and rarely used as reference. Here you can find some issues: [1]

Lol, I never found the link you just provided, that'd have been useful. I knew Kerrang loved them, but I thought most of them were magazine issues. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"the EP was inspired by novelist Chuck Palahniuk's film, Fight Club." - Source no. 4 doesn't say that.

"The band's debut single, "Palahniuk's Laughter", received heavy rotation on music-video channels and spent many weeks on charts based on video and radio requests." - I don't think that source no.15 is valid. It is a "User-contributed text", probably copied from, a website made up with user content.

"The EP's UK version contained five tracks (including a sixth hidden track), and was ineligible for the UK Singles Chart." - Why? There is no explanation or reference for this.

I wasn't able to find this. I found chart rules for singles and albums, but not for EPs... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"It was released the following year in North America as an extended mini-album by Deep Elm Records." - No reference.

"The release was praised by critics, despite initial scepticism due to Simpson's former pop career with Busted." - Critics' praise? Source no. 17 is the review of a Sputnikmusic staffer. You should provide more than one favourable reviews to write something like that. And again, who is sceptical here? There is no source expressing anything but good vibes.

Grand unification

"They requested Colin Richardson; initially sceptical about their chances, Richardson agreed to collaborate after he listened to their demos." - No reference for this sentence. Scepticism is an unreferenced lietmotiv.

" Grand Unification is a loose concept album, influenced by and based on the Neon Genesis Evangelion anime series. With lyrics loosely based on the personal experiences of Charlie Simpson and Alex Westaway, its underlying concept revolves around two people who experience the last few days of their lives before the end of the world." - This period is very confusing and I think that it should be rewritten and/or expanded. What is a loose concept album? Which parts of the anime are touched in the songs? The personal experiences of the musicians are about the anime or something else? The two people mentioned are from the anime or are they the musicians? Or someone else entirely? The period gives me more questions than answers.

A loose concept album doesn't follow an exact story line, it just has stuff with the same theme. A true concept album would have an established story. As for the anime, the media seems to have no interest going into depth with it. I saw some unreliable forums but that's all I found when initially editing the article. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually a concept album doesn't need a story line, just an idea that connects all the songs. Rock operas are concept albums with characters and stories. Thick as a Brick, known as the ultimate concept album, doesn't have any of those. I would cut the "loose". Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Grand Unification was released in the UK on 13 March 2006 by Island Records, preceded by the single releases of "Paint Your Target", "Grand Unification Pt. I" and "Waste a Moment"." - No reference

"The band played at the Download Festival at Donington Park, and followed Biffy Clyro and Funeral for a Friend at the Full Ponty festival in Wales." - There is no reference for Download festival.

"Fightstar toured several countries, including Australia, Japan and the UK, with Funeral for a Friend for three months in 2006." - Source no. 23 is for the UK tour, but there is no reference for the international tours.

One Day Son, This Will All Be Yours

"Fightstar signed with the independent label Institute Records (a division of Gut Records) for their second album." - Source no. 26 redirects to a generic index page. Is this a dead link?

Not one that was picked up when I last checked the dead links. I ran IAbot on here, so I'll have to double check some of them. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"The song, inspired by a harrowing documentary about Chinese execution vans[29] and the end of Simpson's romantic relationship, produced a low-fi music video which cost £500 to make." - This sentence should be rewritten. Something like: "The song was inspired by a harrowing documentary about Chinese execution vans and the end of Simpson's romantic relationship, contents present in the £500-low-fi music video the band produced".

"The band went on a 10-date UK tour in May 2008, supported by the London four-piece Brigade and the yet-unsigned Essex band We Are The Ocean." - No reference

I can find some evidence that We Are the Ocean was with them, but nothing technically considered reliable; seems the media ignored them at the time and only mentioned the first two bands. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Alternate Endings and Be Human

"the band decided to release their next album, Be Human, in a joint venture with their management company (Raw Power) on the Search and Destroy label. The album was distributed by PIAS Records." - Source no.39 is a dead link.

"Fightstar released their first single from Be Human, "The English Way", on 3 November 2008 and it topped the UK rock chart. Its video was played on Kerrang! and Scuzz T.V., and topped the MTV2 top 10." - No reference

I remember reading this and thought I had fixed it. I wonder if I forgot to save it and closed it by accident. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"The album was co-produced by the band and Carl Bown at Treehouse Studios, Bown's Chesterfield studio." - No reference

"The band supported Feeder for the first part of their UK tour, which began on 21 October 2008." - No reference

"Drummer Jason Bowld of the British metal band Pitchshifter filled in for Omar Abidi on their UK tour while Abidi recovered from a broken wrist; Abidi returned to touring with the band in early 2009." - Source no. 41 is a music video of a live performance. There is no indication of anything written in this sentence.

It's all I could find; I had evidence they were still touring and that Abidi broke his wrist but nothing else. I will add said info about the injury. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Due to the drummer's injury, Simpson played drums on six tracks of the new album while Abidi wrote the drum parts and oversaw Simpson's playing." - In the source provided there is no trace of what you wrote.

"the band was featured on the BBC2 music show, Sound. "Mercury Summer" was added to the daytime playlist at XFM Radio and picked as Ian Camfield's Record of the Week. Emma Scott and Kerrang Radio also made "Mercury Summer" her Record of the Week." - No references

Hiatus and side projects

"In 2010, Fightstar announced that they were going on hiatus to focus on separate projects." - No reference

"and completed production of a project with Philip Koch of Lucas Film." - No reference

Reference 54 was what I intended to source that claim with. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Probably you meant reference 58. So the project with Bastiaan Koch and the movie The 3rd Letter are one and the same. There's no need for a repetition so it should be rewritten properly. Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Simpson's solo work differed from his previous efforts, featuring a sound described as closer to folk music than to rock or pop." - Actually the review provided doesn't say this and classify the album as indie rock. You should find another reference for this sentence.

I indeed wrote that poorly. It does have some notable recognition of its folk direction though. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 23:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The following sections look better referenced, but I will review them tomorrow anyway. Lewismaster (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Musical style and influences

Reference no. 82 is an online shop site and completely unacceptable as source. Customer reviews are not valid.

I'm struggling to see what you mean, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anywhere to buy anything on It doesn't appear invalid to me. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The reference [2]] switched to 83. Lewismaster (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Lyrically, the band have tried to avoid writing in an "emo" fashion." - Can you elaborate this concept a little more? Were Fightstar associated with emos?

No, but I bet Busted were in the same fashion as 5SOS is with today's so-called emo teenagers, but thus far I've found nothing. The source itself suggests that was what they did on They Liked You Better... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. I found with a simple Goggle search these links to Fightstar and emo, where they are called "emo superstars" [3][4][5][6][7]. I think that in the UK they were associated with, and maybe thrived in, the emo fashion. Lewismaster (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Behind the Devil's Back (2015) was noted for a heavier use of electronics than past, said by some to be reminiscent of Gunship" – in the past. Some who? Critics maybe.

Behind the Devil's Back reviews say the same thing. It would be better to summarize that content instead of citing each reviewer.

Rationale for "Sleep Well Tonight"

A proper rationale for the sound sample should be written, because fair use imply that those samples can be used only for commentary of the songs itself. This is not an article about that song, so an explanation in the rationale about the reason why it is used in the Fightstar article is mandatory. Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe that fair use also applies to describing something in an article which can only be demonstrated by sound rather than text. I did this with Fall Out Boy's sample in its GA review. If they aren't the same, I will update "Sleep Well Tonight" accordingly. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, but fair use of music samples is under scrutiny lately (see WP:Fair use#Fair use and music sampling, WP:Non-free content#Audio clips, WP:Manual of Style/Music samples) and every editor that worked on my articles was very strict on the correct use of rationales. Music samples outside the article about the song itself should be used only when text cannot describe something, and that something should be included in the rationale. Lewismaster (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I made corrections for a few references, I hope you don't mind. Lewismaster (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most devastating hurricanes in U.S. history. Since the failed nominations in 2012 and 2013, I have worked on addressing the issues brought up during those FACs. Additionally, practically every section has been revised to provide a better and more comprehensive summary of preparations, meteorological aspects, impacts, and aftermath related to the hurricane. I have also garnered information from a wider variety of sources, including several academic journal articles (a major issue raised in a previous FAC). The aftermath now includes info on topics barely or not at all mentioned previously. These are just a few examples of many improvements I've made to the article. I hope to have this article as TFA on August 24, the 25th anniversary of Hurricane Andrew's landfall in Florida.12george1 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


  • The watches and warnings could be summarized for the Gulf Coast. Also, given that the preps mention Alabama first and progress westward, shouldn't the other preps do the same? After mentioning watches/warnings, you could have Mississippi, then the Louisiana paragraph, then Texas.
  • "In New Orleans, Mayor Sidney Barthelemy ordered evacuation" - missing [the]?
  • You mention/link both "Eleuthera" and "North Eleuthera" in the Bahamas section. Given the hurricane-force winds reported at the latter, I'm guessing it was also the location of landfall?
  • Yes. The TCR does specify that it was North Eleuthera--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Harbour Island, also located near Eleuthera"
  • "Much of the northwestern Bahamas received damage,[46] with estimates reaching $250 million." - the $ figure is explained weirdly, and should be something like: "with estimated monetary losses of $250 million"
  • Poor intro to the Florida impact section. Move the 4th paragraph to be the first, as it feels like more of an intro.
  • Done. I wasn't sure if I should put it at the beginning or end, but at least it wasn't awkwardly in the middle like before--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tides were generally between only 4 to 6 ft (1.2 to 1.8 m) above normal in the Biscayne Bay area" - this feels odd. There is no justification for the "only"
  • "Storm surge on the west coast was widespread, but mostly light, with a peak height of 6 ft (1.8 m), measured at both Everglades City and Goodland. The storm surge was reported as far north as Homosassa. " - feels like this could be condensed a bit.
  • Done. I left you a message on FB about why I'm removing the Homosassa part--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "At some locations, the instruments measuring wind speeds failed before the highest winds occurred." - since this follows the peak wind gust, perhaps this should be "At other locations" instead?
  • Actually, that instrument failed too (destroyed). So I'll have to come up with something else--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • When you mention "National Hurricane Center", it is the first time that it is implied that the agency is in Florida. Perhaps "At the National Hurricane Center building in Miami"?
  • "On the west coast of Florida, sustained winds did not exceed 39 mph (63 km/h) at Marco Island" - well did it not exceed 29 mph either?
  • "Additionally, 90% of mobile homes in the county were destroyed, while the destruction of 99% of mobile homes occurred in Homestead." - you should rewrite for active voice so you can trim it a bit.
  • At the Homestead Air Force Base, re-opened two years later as Homestead Air Reserve Base, most of the 2,000 buildings on the base became "severely damaged or unusable" - why the quotes? And you should make it clearer that the hurricane basically destroyed the base. The article for the base says as much.
  • Removed the quotes. I guess I could add more but I detailed rebuilding the base in the aftermath--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Nearby, the small town of Florida City suffered also heavily. Over 120 homes were demolished, while 700 others were damaged. City hall was damaged beyond repairs, with the roof being torn off and some walls collapsing." - three sentences for a small town? Make it one and summarize, since there is already a sub-article. And isn't "hall" usually capitalized?
  • "Due to poor construction, damage to homes in communities such as Country Walk and Saga Bay resembled that of an F3 tornado" - this implies the locations were part of Florida City. And find a different way of saying "poor construction" and better explain the F3 bit.
  • Rewrote. There's not much more specific details on the bit about the F3-level damage, though than that those communities likely didn't experience winds of that intensity (158-206 mph). Then again, the report could also be basing it on Andrew having been classified as a Category 4 at the time it was written--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Crop damage in the county totaled about $509 million." - you don't mention "county" once here.
  • What do you mean? I mentioned the county in the second sentence of the paragraph. I'll just switch with the sentence after that.--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "About 500 trees were downed in Deerfield Beach, while several roofs were damaged during the storm." - not sure this is needed, given the sentence two prior. Also, is this needed in this article? "Waves inflicted structural impacts on an incomplete fishing pier. "
  • You should specify whether counties were north of south of the storm, for better flow. Like, "In Collier County to the north of the path"
  • I fixed that. But technically, everywhere but Miami-Dade and Monroe (the hurricane crossed the mainland part) were north of the storm's path--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That's it through the end of Florida section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review (so far?).--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks better already!
  • Throughout the parish, 477 homes and 890 mobile homes were demolished; 1,394 homes and 634 mobile homes were severely damaged; and 3,970 homes, 652 mobile homes, and 148 apartments were impacted to a minor degree. - seems just like a lot of statistics. I feel like the distinction between home and mobile home isn't terribly necessary, especially since you have the same breakdown a few sentences later, and you have a state breakdown in the next paragraph. It's just a lot of text without giving a lot of information.
  • I'm guessing you just want me to say like "...1,367 dwellings were destroyed, 2,028 others were severely damaged,..."--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • One company reported 13 platforms destroyed, 104 structures damaged, and 5 drilling wells blown off course. - which company?
  • At the Columbus Metropolitan Airport in Muscogee County, a building and several billboards and signs sustained moderate damage. - feels like the writing could be stronger.
  • A tornado in Howard County damaged several homes, some extensively; tossed and demolished a recreational vehicle and its trailer; downed numerous trees; and flattened some cornfields. - bit of a run-on
  • Despite swift structural rebuilding in some areas and Bahamas Director General of Tourism Baltron Bethel stating "the physical devastation affected about 2 percent of our rooms, cottages and apartments.", officials expected a 10%–20% decline in tourism. - poor sentence format. I'd split this into two sentence. First have the quote from Bethel, and the 2nd sentence could start with "Despite..."
  • I made a minor adjustment before adding Bethel's quote. I hope you're ok with it--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After the United States House of Representatives appropriated aid to victims of Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii and Typhoon Omar in Guam, the cost was later increased to $11.1 billion. " - was $11.1 billion just for Andrew?
  • No. Unfortunately I cannot find the specifics allotted for each storm, but Florida alone received $9 billion--12george1 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Governor Chiles considered asking the Florida State Legislature to raise taxes, stating that "No matter how much Congress appropriates to repair damage from Hurricane Andrew, the state will face a substantial cleanup bill"." - did he?
  • It appears he did not. There was reserve fund set up instead--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "set up six tent cities, five in Florida City and Homestead, with an additional one later opened at the Miccosukee Indian Reservation." - so why not just say "set up seven tent cities"? Or was it 5 between Florida City and Homestead and the 6th was Miccosukee?
  • There were six. Five combined in Florida City and Homestead and the other at Miccosukee. I'll see if I can find a better way to write that--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the United States Department of Defense eventually expended an initial amount of over $100 million for repairs. - weird wording
  • "Due to damage to the Homestead Sports Complex and fearing the relocation of their middle-class and affluent fans, the Cleveland Indians moved their spring training location to Chain of Lakes Park in Winter Haven." - this is different than most of the preceding paragraph. Maybe find elsewhere to put it?
  • I think I'll put it with the rebuilding stuff, because the Indians left even though the sports complex was being repaired--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Check references 30 and 32.

All in all, a really good article, and I'm close to supporting. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Much better all around. I support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "Andrew began as a tropical depression over the eastern Atlantic Ocean on August 16. " why is such a major body of water linked? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ". A barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) in the mainland Florida landfall made Andrew the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." this reads as if the pressure itself made landfall. Could "With a barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) at the time of landfall in Florida, Andrew is the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." work? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Several hours later, the hurricane emerged over the Gulf of Mexico at Category 4 strength, with the Gulf Coast of the United States in its path. After additional weakening, Andrew moved ashore near Morgan City, Louisiana, as a low-end Category 3 storm." mind noting the storm turned north somewhere. In general, I feel direction changes should be noted in the lead. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "it is currently the fifth costliest hurricane in Atlantic hurricane history, behind only hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Ike, and Wilma, and the fourth costliest hurricane in the United States, behind Katrina, Sandy, and Ike." link to List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "and on August 15, meteorologists began classifying the system with the Dvorak technique. " link meteorologists. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "which was upgraded to 155 mph (250 km/h) in a post-analysis after the season ended.[1]" "post-analysis"? so it was randomly upgraded after an analysis? Generally the term used here is "post-storm analysis". YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Major airports such as the Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood,[25] Key West,[26] Miami,[15] and Palm Beach international airports closed.[25]" a little nitpicky but is there a way you could avoid saying "airports" twice in a sentence; it's kinda annoying given that there a. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I should do that. Actually I set up that sentence to avoid saying "airport" like five times (and "international airport" three times, might I add)--12george1 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Red Cross assisted with opening a shelter " which Red Cross? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Forgot to switch it after Hink suggested reordering the states--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is Port Arthur linked on first useage and not second? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you meant the other way around?--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Approximately 20 million cubic yards" convert to cubic km here? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The template page suggested cubic meters, so I went with that instead--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The storm damaged 241 oil and gas facilities and toppled 33 platform off the coast of Louisiana,[75] causing significant disrutions in production." "platform" to "platforms". YE Pacific Hurricane
  • " Much of Mississippi reported 3 to 5 in (76 to 127 mm) of rain, while areas near the southwest corner of the state observed over 7 in (180 mm) of precipitation,[80] " a state doesn't "report" rain? Maybe try "received?" YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I found a little bit from Canada, but not much else--12george1 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Add stuff from ReliefWeb. I didn't use Relief Web in my older articles back in the day so I didn't bring this up in past FAC's. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Add a see also section. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 video game developed by Sonic Team and published by Sega, best known for its horrible reception (many people will shiver these days when they hear the name Sonic '06). It is arguably the most complete resource on Sonic the Hedgehog available on the internet, going into great detail on the game's troubled development cycle, high anticipation, the intensely negative critical reviews, and the heavy impact it had on Sega and the Sonic series. Along with digging up some of the oldest articles about the game, I also found some print resources that were extremely useful, such as an old Nintendo Power article and the game's manual (to see what the page looked like before I worked on it, get a load of this).

I have been editing this article heavily for the past several months, fine-tuning it. It is reliably sourced, well-written and covers the game immensely. Indeed, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The first sentence in the "Development" section requires a citation. I would also integrate the sentence into the following paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph.
  • Please add ALT text for all of the images used in the article, including the one in the infobox.
  • Portions of the "Media data and Non-free use rationale" need to be completed in the screenshot image. I would also recommend expanding the "Purpose of use in article" portion to better explain how this image illustrates more than the text gives to the reader. The same two comments apply to the image of Eggman in the "Development" section.
  • I am honestly not sure of the value of the Eggman image as it does not appear to add much to the overall article. Maybe, if it was used in conjunction with a quote or section on the more realistic take on the characters in the game, but right now, it seems to be there more for decorative purposes than informational ones.
  • Link Sonic the Hedgehog on its first use in the body of the article.
  • Why do you use Shadow the Hedgehog in full on his first mention, but not the same for Sonic or Silver?
  • I am not sure of this sentence (The game follows Sonic, Shadow, and Silver in a story intertwined in their respective gameplay modes.). I am usually against a one-sentence paragraph, and this may be more appropriate actually for the "Gameplay" section to show they the story is broken up into each of these three gameplay modes.
  • You link Shadow the Hedgehog twice in the body of the article. Same goes for Tails, Amy Rose (whose full name should be used in the first instance of use), Blaze the Cat (whose full name should also be used in the first instance of use), Rogue, and others. Check the "Plot" and "Gameplay" sections to avoid having characters linked more than once in the body of the article to avoid overlinking.
  • The second sentence of the "Music" section is too long and covers too much content. I would break this up into separate sentences.
  • I do not see the reason/value for separating the "Reception" section into two subsections when one subsection is a rather short paragraph.
  • I will avoid making comments on the "Post-release" portion due to the tag, though this should have been resolved prior to putting it up for FAC.
  • Please avoid putting words in all caps in the reference titles (i.e. References 42 and 47). Please go through all of the references to correct this.

Good work with the article. These are the things that I noticed from my brief read-through of the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will go through a second time, and add more to my commentary/review. Hopefully, this helps at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Resolved. The reason the all-caps references were there was because the pages I sourced used it in all-caps (to differentiate it from the original, I'm pretty sure). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I have some additional ones below. Once my final comments are addressed, I will support this. It is good to see this incredibly infamous game get a lot of attention on here:
  • The rationale for the two primary non-free images in the body of the article still needs to be filled out. See here and here.
  • I would use more descriptive ALT text for the screenshot. Someone unfamiliar with Sonic would have no idea what that text means. Describe what is in the image itself. Same goes for the Eggman image.
  • ALT text is still need for the image in the infobox.
  • The final sentence in the first paragraph of the "Plot" section needs a citation.
  • In the beginning of the second paragraph of the same section, the "Here" transition is weak and vague. It is rather unclear what it is meant by "here" so please clarify this point.
  • I have heard a reports/rumors that the game was originally developed as a separate IP, and then was shifted into the Sonic franchise (i.e. this game was not originally developed as a Sonic game). Do you have any information on this?
  • Would this source 1 be helpful for the article? While it is a blog, it has been featured on other more reliable sites. You may want to ask more experienced users in the video game project, such as @Czar:, on this.
  • In some sentences in the "Reception" section, you attribute the website/publisher as saying something (i.e. "1UP, however, felt" and "In 2015, GamesRadar declared"). This should either be attributed to the writer (if the name is known) or the more generic writer/review/etc.
  • Hope this is helpful. These are all of the comments that I noticed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've fixed the issues you observed. Thanks for the source you suggested - it was incredibly useful. The game actually was developed as a separate IP first, then merged with Sonic to create a next-gen game. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses. You have done a lot of wonderful work with this article (and you have inspired me to do more with video game articles in the future). This has definitely piqued my interest to play this game one day (maybe I am a masochist lol). I support this for promotion. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. It was a fun and interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Other comments

Speedrun is a self-published (unreliable) book and the Reception section still needs heavy paraphrasing and re-writing to be FA-quality prose. It reads like a series of quotes right now. Also the Gameplay should be sourced to secondary sources instead of the manual (secondary sources determine what parts of the gameplay are worth mentioning). I'll leave the prose comments to someone else, but I see a lot of room for tightening. czar 20:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I have to disagree on the manual being sourced, though. Most of the gameplay section is sourced to secondary sources (I only used the manual to source Shadow's combat and Sonic's "princess stages") ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A reliable, secondary source's reporting always trumps a primary source, such as a manual. It also helps us as editors determine what is important to cover about a game. If the article relied on secondary sourcing for its gameplay and plot, both sections would be a lot shorter and easier to verify. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Switched to better sourcing for the gameplay section. Added some better sources to the plot, but I don't think the plot section is much of an issue for references. I mean, The Last Of Us's plot is almost completely unsourced even though it's a FA. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
This is only one prose point, but yes, plots don't need references on WP (sourced to the media itself, which doesn't mean refs aren't better for WP:V in a FA). More importantly, The Last of Us is plot-driven and Sonic '06 is not—hence why this plot should be greatly reduced. Secondary sources give an indication of how what weight the plot deserves in the overall coverage. The Reception too puts undue weight on the plot. It's the largest paragraph in the section but barely mentioned (as minor points) in each of the refs used. And that paragraph dedicates nearly as much space to a fringe erotica/bestiality plot theory as the article dedicates to the retrospective coverage of the whole game... czar 19:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Fixed. Split the plot paragraph into two separate paragraphs. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It worked better as one paragraph, though. The issue is the weight of that paragraph (length within the section). The entire bestiality discussion reads like trivia shoehorned into the paragraph and the rest can easily be condensed to two sentences. czar 03:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Trimmed the bestality info back a bit to remove unnecessary bloat. It now only includes the GamesTM and Lacey Chabert interview; I added the Kotaku opinion to retrospect since it was published in 2015. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Smiley Smile

Nominator(s): Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the lo-fi stoner album by the Beach Boys, which celebrates its 50th anniversary later this year.

Smiley Smile was recorded at a difficult time in the band's history, with songwriter/leader Brian Wilson in the throes of paranoia and mental illness following the cancellation of the much-hyped album Smile. Famously described by brother Carl as "a bunt instead of a grand slam", Smiley Smile was produced DIY-style at Brian's makeshift home studio with the core set-up of a detuned piano, bass guitar, and theatre organ. The songs range from drugged-out singalongs to creepy dissonance and far-off background noise.

Coinciding with highly ambitious efforts like the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper and Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the majority of critics and fans who were promised another masterwork on the level of "Good Vibrations" didn't know what to make of the album's goofy doo-wop chants and marijuana ambiance. The record came and went, and the Beach Boys were soon rejected by the maturing youth market as washed-up surf-pop relics. As the legend goes, Wilson retreated to his bed and spent the ensuing years snorting cocaine. Smiley Smile has since earned a considerable cult following, particularly among enthusiasts of indie/outsider music. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

I've made several minor edits to the article here, here and here; these are my comments:


  • No mention is made in the lead of Brian's creative role in the Beach Boys' music, and in particular the Smile project; statements like "Following Brian Wilson's declaration that most of the Smile tapes were off-limits" and "Its production was unusually credited to "the Beach Boys" rather than Brian alone" will puzzle the uninitiated.


  • Carl Wilson's quote explains how Smiley Smile came about (a homespun version of Smile) – it comes across to me as an afterthought; I feel there should be a direct statement in this section explaining what led to Smiley Smile.
The paragraphs before kinda already serve that function ("I decided not to try any more, and not try and do such great things, such big musical things. And we had so much fun. The Smiley Smile era was so great, it was unbelievable. Personally, spiritually, everything, it was great. I didn't have any paranoia feelings.").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what the boxed quote ("Around '64 ...") has to do with this section; I can't relate it to anything in the text.

Style and content

  • The opening paragraph and blockquote: are those retrospective comments about the album or comments soon after it was released? I think that needs to be stated.

Differences from Smile

  • campfire song links to a disambiguation page – I think it should link elsewhere or the link removed.


  • "You heard the last of surfing music..." in Note 9: Of interest, Hendrix also said "And you'll never hear surf music again" in his song "Third Stone from the Sun" from earlier that year, although in a different context.

Initial reception

  • There's no link for Cheetah magazine – a little on what the magazine is and where it's from would help.
I'm not sure what's to be said--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I see you've created an article for it – thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Track listing

  • Should the writing credits not say "B. Wilson" to be clear which Wilson it is?
He's the only Wilson with writing credits so it seems superfluous.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Is there nothing on each Beach Boy's contribution to the album?
    • ... and what about Paul McCartney on "Vegetables" (mentioned in the cited source)? Also, where any session musicians used? —Bruce1eetalk 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a comprehensive list of musicians that played on the album. There's a few sources for bit parts like Dennis playing Hammond on "Good Vibrations" and Jardine blowing a water bottle on "Vegetables", but the GA reviewer suggested that I remove the {{incomplete-list}} acknowledgement, so I did, and only included what the 1990 liner notes say. As for McCartney's contribution, it was unquestionably on the Smile version of "Vegetables", but I can't find an RS that makes that distinction.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


  • [95] Translation is a dead link


  • There are several quotes in the article of over 40 words – they need to be blocked quoted.

Bruce1eetalk 13:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I've addressed most of these issues for now and will try to trim some excessive quotations later.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I see you've also done some quite substantial rewrites of some of the sections. One question about the picture caption of the group in Central Park: how do you know they're performing "Heroes and Villains"? I've looked at the picture source and nowhere is there any mention of what song they're performing. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
They only played six songs at Central Park: "Heroes and Villains", "Okie from Muskogee", "Forever", "It's About Time", "I Get Around", and "Good Vibrations". All of these are on YouTube. "Heroes" is the only performance that matches the photo, with Al, Mike, and Carl each singing at the same time, Mike standing still with the tambourine at his side, the positions of the backup players, and so forth. They couldn't be playing "Good Vibrations" because Mike was on theremin for that, and on "I Get Around" he didn't have a tambourine, etc. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Then that caption should have a source – as it stands it comes across as original research. Considering all the changes that have been made to the article since my last review, I'm going to do a second pass through it. —Bruce1eetalk 11:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've gone through the prose again, and I think it's looking good. Just a few more comments:
  • Lead: "Discounting the inclusion of standalone single..." – should that not be "Discounting the inclusion of the standalone single..."?
  • The two pictures are missing alt texts.
  • There are still a couple of quotes over 40 words that should be reduced or blockquoted.
  • I've made some edits here. —Bruce1eetalk 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Support the prose. Thanks for your contribution to this article, and for all your hard work on Beach Boys related articles. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

John C. Breckinridge

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

John Cabell Breckinridge was an American statesman who served as vice president in the administration of James Buchanan. Though he had previously taken a moderate view on slavery, Breckinridge eventually came to believe that the Kansas Territory should legalize it before becoming a state. He was nominated by the Southern wing of the Democratic Party for president in 1860. He lost to Lincoln. He eventually ended up serving as a Confederate major general and as the Confederacy's final secretary of war. Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:John_C_Breckinridge-04775-restored.jpg: when/where was this first published?
According to the LOC, it was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The problem with that is, if it was only created and not published at that time, the current tag does not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, wouldn't the slash indicate that both took place during that time period? Also, this is a Brady/Handy portrait. I think that most of Brady's photographs were published during his lifetime. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, having looked at LOC images before, I can say that the slash means "and/or" not "and". If you can find a publication during his lifetime, that would support the use of the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Brady's biography on Civil War Trust includes the following sentence: "In 1850 he published "The Gallery of Illustrious Americans," which sold for $15, equivalent to about $400 today." It also states that in 1875 he sold his collection of photographs to the U.S. Government. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If this image was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880, it can't have been included in the 1850 publication, and may or may not have been sold in 1875. Any way to narrow this down a bit? And do we know whether the rights were included in the 1875 sale, or just the physical photos (or negatives?)? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, it seemed to me that, in your previous response, you said that if I could prove that if some of Brady's photographs were published at any point in his life, there would be some justification for using that tag. Per the Library of Congress [8], Brady photographs are considered to be in the public domain. Also, the source of the Breckinridge photograph is the Library of Congress. That, along with the fact that all sources that I've seen referring to the 1875 sale indicate that Brady sold all of his major works, makes it practically certain that the Breckinridge photograph was among those sold to the U.S. Congress in 1875. Display name 99 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Confederate_States_of_America_General-collar.svg should include an explicit tag indicating that the design is out of copyright
I added a PD-1923 tag. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John-C.-Breckinridge-bust-by-James-Paxton-Voorhees.jpg: since the Licensing section is split, the tag in the Permissions field should be moved to the appropriate section. This was done but apparently incorrectly for File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg, and for that image to use the life+100 tag we need an author date of death
I've done the first part. However, the Wikipedia article for the Breckinridge statue in Lexington does not provide the name of a specific author. It merely states that the work was done by the "Henry-Bonnard Bronze Company" and that it was built in 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I've rearranged this. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_C._Breckinridge_by_Nicola_Marschall.jpg has a life+100 tag, but the given death date for the author is less than 100 years ago
Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:JDavis.png (in template) needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. But I couldn't find that image in the article anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It's in {{CSCabinet}}, and to use the tag you've added we need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tag. In my search to find a publication date using the URLS given in the file I eventually ended up here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
...which unfortunately doesn't tell us much in regards to whether we can use it! Again, if we can find an early publication we're good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything, and thus replaced it with a cropped version of a Brady portrait, which appears to include the appropriate tags. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the delay. Please check my work above. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'll be reviewing this article. Preliminarily, I'm not sure that you can say he was convicted of treason by the Senate. The Senate's only significant right of trial that I'm aware of is impeachment. Looking ahead in the article, I see he was expelled by a resolution that called him a traitor, but that's not a conviction of treason. I would say "found to have committed treason".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The source, Breckinridge's "Dictionary of America Biography" claims that he was indicted for treason in a Federal court. But it was not by the Senate, so I removed that sentence from the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox: Princeton University was Princeton College throughout his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "College of New Jersey." Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, you might want to put Princeton in parens or something. I fear my being pedantic conceals info from the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The lede is five paragraphs, and the limit is four. Just reading the lede, I see a number of sentences that are probably information that does not need to be in the lede. Consider some cutting. Examples of matters that do not need to be in the lede are who he was the son and grandson of (they are more obscure than he), what the sectional wings of the Democratic Party favored. That's not intended as a complete list. The description of the nominations of Breckinridge and Douglas could probably be boiled down to a long sentence. For the lede, it's generally sufficient to say what he did, and leave the context for the body of the article.
I knew it was a bit too long, but didn't want to shorten it without having first received proper advice. I took some of the advice that you gave, but decided to combine the last two paragraphs. Breckinridge's term as vice president and his presidential candidacy are both more historically significant than anything that he did after joining the Confederacy, so I felt it was best to leave that part in tact and shorten the aftermath. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would use "doughface" as a noun, rather than an adjective.
Here are sources in which it used as an adjective: [9] [10] Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "which supported popular sovereignty for determining slave-holding status" I might say "which supported allowing local residents to decide if a new state should be slave or free". It's the "slave-holding status" that's getting me, as it seems an indirect way of putting it.
I added something similar to this. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "while anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln" I don't think Lincoln was actually anti-slavery in 1860. He was certainly against its spread, but he had not publicly called for slavery's immediate end.
I added the word "more." He was definitely anti-slavery as far as southerners were concerned. But compared to some northerners, not quite so much. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Kentucky's neutrality was breached." I might tell the reader a bit more, and so substitute "Confederate forces moved into Kentucky"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The fourth of six children born to Joseph "Cabell" and Mary Clay (Smith) Breckinridge, he was their only son." I would add another Breckinridge after "Cabell".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In February, the family moved with Governor John Adair to the Governor's Mansion in Frankfort, Kentucky." Since it's long since you mentioned the year in question, I would either add it or say it happened the month after JCB's birth. It's also a bit obscure why they moved into the governor's mansion with the governor. Also, you could lose the word "Kentucky" here, it occurs three times in two sentences, and the other two seem needed to avoid ambiguity.
Done. I added that the move was done "so that his father could better attend to his duties as Secretary of State." Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "While in Lexington, Breckinridge attended Pisgah Academy in Woodford County.[7] His grandmother also taught him the political philosophies of her late husband, John Breckinridge, who served in the U.S. Senate ..." I'd lose the word "also" as not really needed.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge's uncle, William Breckinridge, was also on the faculty there, prompting him to enroll in November 1834." Was this the "decider" as it sounds? I mean, he's living in the house of the college president and doesn't have money to go away to school, wouldn't he have already been planning to attend Centre?
The sentence uses the word "also," indicating that more than one thing prompted him to attend. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in September 1838, he spent the winter of 1838–1839 as a "resident graduate" ..." to avoid the repetition, I would change, "winter of 1838–1839" to "following winter".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "he and former classmate Thomas W. Bullock resolved to relocate to Iowa Territory in October 1841." Ambiguous. Did the resolution take place then or did they plan the move for then? And when did they actually leave?
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "he decided to remain for the summer rather than returning to Iowa's colder climate" This sort of sounds like you are saying Iowa has cold summers.
That's what the source says. I think that the summers are at least colder than those in Kentucky. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In July 1847, he delivered an address" I would name Breckinridge here to avoid the possibility of ambiguity.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "to write The Bivouac of the Dead." why is the "The" capped and italicized if it's not part of the titie?
Done. I removed the word altogether. I don't think we need it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "William Owsley, then Governor of Kentucky" I would substitute "the" for "then"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "John J. Crittenden " I would mention that he was a senator, and also a Whig.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After several men became ill at Vera Cruz," this may not make clear enough that disease was as deadly as the Mexicans, if not more so, in that campaign. The reader may not get the sense of alarm.
Done. I also added that the disease was yellow fever. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "they participated in no military action" I would boil down to "they saw no fighting"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge's nominal military service" I'm not sure that does him enough credit for a difficult and dangerous task. I would rephrase as "Although he saw no combat, Breckinridge's military service"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge campaigned for Democratic presidential nominee James K. Polk during the 1844 campaign." I would change "campaigned" to "made speeches" or some such, to avoid the near repetition.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Some local Democrats encouraged him to seek the Eighth District's congressional seat in 1845," The "in 1845" feels tacked on, I would move the phrase to the front of the sentence if I am interpreting the year correctly as saying when the encouragement (rather than the election) took place.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In August 1849, Kentuckians elected delegates to a state constitutional convention in addition to representatives and senators.[40]" I imagine that this is a reference to state legislators, as they wouldn't have elected a US senator.
Added the word "state" before representatives. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Frank H. Heck wrote that Breckinridge was the leader of the House Democratic caucus during the session, but most of the measures considered were "local or personal ... and in any case, petty"." I don't see where there is a contrast justifying the "but".
Replaced with "during which time." Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " a traditionally Whig stance" I might phrase this "a core Whig position" or similar. They agreed on this as much as Whigs ever agreed on anything.
I think that the word "traditionally" better conveys the irony of Breckinridge supporting it. The main purpose of this article is, of course, to discuss Breckinridge. Using the word "core" could even momentarily confuse the reader into thinking Breckinridge was a Whig. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Three days before the end of the session, Breckinridge took a leave of absence to care for his son, John Milton, who had become ill; he died on March 18, 1850." You may want to supply a couple of dates in the discussion of the session here and previously.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The attacks came from the pages of George Nicholas Sanders's Democratic Review, and on the House floor from Florida's Edward Carrington Cabell, fellow Kentuckian Humphrey Marshall, Illinois' William A. Richardson, and California's Edward C. Marshall, who was Breckinridge's cousin, nearly all of whom supported Stephen Douglas for the nomination.[63] Their attacks, however, ultimately hurt Douglas's chances for the nomination and Breckinridge's defense of Butler enhanced his own reputation." is the list of conspirators necessary? This seems of importance only because it boosted Breckenridge.
I removed all mention of them specifically except for Marshall, because he was Breckinridge's cousin. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • At one of the mentions of Henry Clay, I would mention he was a senator. You don't seem to quite get there.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "During its debate on the House floor," I think "the" for "its". The subject is not in doubt.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would mention somewhere around the time that Breckinridge's second house term expired in March 1855.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "any misdemeanors" maybe "any wrongdoing"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even with this additional support, Douglas was also unable to garner a majority of the delegates' votes," Probably "still" for "also".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "suggested that nominating Breckinridge for vice-president would balance Buchanan's ticket and placate disgruntled supporters of Douglas or Pierce." I would substitute "the" for "Buchanan's" and "and" for "or".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
More soon, continuing with vice presidency. Sorry to be so segmented.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "they managed to alienate most Northern Democrats, including Douglas.[91][48]" refs in wrong order
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly something could be said about the limited role of 19th century vice presidents, with specific reference to Breckinridge.
I couldn't find anything. Breckinridge isn't considered one of the most notable VPs in history, for better or worse, based on what he did in office. I did, however, expand the paragraph on the speech that he gave in the Old Senate Chamber on January 4, 1859. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford – which upheld the legality of slavery" That wasn't really the holding of Dred Scott, more that Congress couldn't restrict it in the territories.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I might toss a "recent" into the description of the Brown raid.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Among Breckinridge's supporters ... " since all of the gentlemen listed were Kentuckians, I see no need to use the name of the state twice. Also, by this time Powell was a senator. (you later mention his becoming a senator in the 1861 description, so you could cut that)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Douglas maintained a wide plurality, but failed to gain a majority;" Didn't he need two-thirds?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "To avoid detainment, " I might use the more common "detention".
To "detain" is a fairly widely-used word. I see no real advantage here. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "capturing several Union prisoners, destroying their supplies, and driving them from the city." this can be read he did all this to the Union prisoners.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "if [the attack] should result in disaster and I be among the killed, I want you to justice to my memory" It seems like there should be a word "do" before justice. If it's not in the quote, a bracketed word might be worth it.
I added "do" without the brackets. I couldn't access the source for this, but it definitely seemed left out. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "arguing that Kentucky's decision to stay in the Union denied Breckinridge the notion of states' rights to justify his siding with the Confederacy." maybe "suggesting that Breckinridge had been a hypocrite for supporting states' rights, then abandoning his home state when it chose to remain in the Union." Some such, anyway. As it is, it's a bit opaque.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Since then, many in the South viewed him as a "worthy successor" of the late Stonewall Jackson." This appears to need a "have" before "viewed".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge would later set another example of this" maybe "Breckenridge would also show these skills"
Changed to "Breckinridge would draw more comparisons..." Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Lee ordered them to clear the Union forces from the Shenandoah Valley, then cross into Maryland and probed the defenses of Washington, D.C." likely "probe" for "probed".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the process, he ensured that the Confederate archives, both government and military, were captured intact by the Union forces.[130] By so doing, he ensured that a full account of the Confederate war effort would be preserved for history." I'm not sure you should use such introductory phrases, commenting on the same thing, in two consecutive sentences.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be worthwhile to mention how Breckinridge traveled as he fled in April 1865. Horseback?
Added that he rode into Abbeville on April 28. That was all I could find. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Sherman later praised Breckinridge's negotiating skills, and the surrender terms agreed to were later criticized by Sherman's colleagues as too generous." They were actually refused by Washington, who ordered the surrender done without all the political trimmings, as I recall.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Learning of Davis's capture, which left him as the highest-ranking former Confederate official still at large" Benjamin outranked him, so to speak, I believe.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What were Breckenridge's means of support while in exile?
Davis (2010) doesn't say much. I did add that he lived in hotels and a rented house. People gave him stuff for free in Cuba, as the article mentions. That could have been the case elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) offered him a professorship, but he declined." Was this offered through Lee's influence?
Probably. But I could only find that he was urged to accept it by former Confederate Colonel William Preston Johnston, and added that into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about how Breckenridge is viewed by history? Being Buchanan's VP and a Confederate probably doesn't get you rave reviews.
I had difficulty finding sources on this. As I said before, nothing that Breckinridge did through his office of vice president stands out very much, in either a good or bad way. He's most famous for running for president in 1860. But people discussing the election seldom focus on Breckinridge the man. Instead they talk about the breakup of the Democratic Party and Lincoln and Douglas. Breckinridge had a very respectable career in the Confederacy, but he didn't become a legend the same way that Lee or Jackson did. The best I could do was insert a brief laudatory assessment of Breckinridge as a military commander, and another brief quote assessing his impact on the war.Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
That's all I have. Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I have finished responding to the review. Thank you for your assistance. As always, it is appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Support you're welcome. I have no objection if you collapse addressed comments, or move them to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review

All references appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following notes:

  • Ref 7, the Congressional Biographical The reader should be led to a link in some manner there. It is linked both in biblio and as an EL, which I think is a no-no.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You are not consistent on the use of title case for online resources, compare 32 and 120.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think we reproduce the all caps in newspaper headlines.
Most of today's newspapers don't use all caps, but ones back then did quite frequently. Newspapers from the 19th century don't seem to be cited too often on WP. Personally I do it in order to be as accurate as possible. I don't see it as a big deal. If you can point to any specific policy I would have no problem changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
MOS:ALLCAPS--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 18 has the wrong dash. Also 153. And 187.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a typo in Ref 40 that should either be corrected or marked by sic.
Added "[sic]. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 125 could use an ISBN.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 131 needs fuller detail.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 162 has a format problem. 174 has one too, but different.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 178 the publisher is likely the Library of Congress
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 207 to 210 appear to use a different formatting scheme.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is Trails-R-Us a reliable source?
It doesn't look too good. I replaced it with a Maysville newspaper from 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the biblio, the place name for the location of Eicher's publisher appears incorrect.
Stanford University Press does apparently publish in California. I added "California" to the citation for clarification. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No such place as "Standord".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed spelling error. Display name 99 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Current's book needs an ISBN.
Whose? Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Beats me. But Eaton's needs an OCLC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I added a location and ISBN for Eaton. Display name 99 (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • McKnight's book title needs italics and a publisher location. Also, this is the only one where you use a 13 digit ISBN, all others use 10.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The identical footnote in the succession boxes is given twice.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thanks for the review. Please see above. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No trouble.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Green rosella

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a nice parrot from Tasmania. It's come together nicely and I reckon is comprehensive and a nice read. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

A few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  • It may be obvious to an Ozzie that the range map shows Tasmania, but not to me without reading the text. Add location to the caption?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 13th edition of Systema Naturae—worth mentioning that Linnaeus wrote the earlier editions?
not sure how the best way to do it it too far removed from subject. Could described it as Linnaeus' Systema Naturae I guess...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • has been recognized [13][8]'—refs in wrong order
switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It also eats berries… They have also partaken… It may also eat insect larvae—wandering from singular to plural and back
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I found Crimson Rosellas in Queensland sometimes to be very approachable, anything on the wariness or approachability of this? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I find rosellas not hugely bold but not hugely shy either. Have seen a few in Tassie. Did not see anything on this in writing. The main psittacines that are shy are black cockatoos. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Beruldsen is a self-published source, what makes this a high quality reliable source?
Gordon Beruldsen was a notable expert on birds. He is often cited in other bird publications Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
He is widely published in respectable journals. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, two uncontroversial facts referenced to an accepted expert on the subject don't seem a source of concern to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You give locations for two of the three "cited texts" but not for Forshaw - consistency.
Whoops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (moral or otherwise) from me. I did the GAN review for this article and my comments can be found on the talk page. Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. First thing I noticed was that some of the captions begin without capital letters? I fixed the taxobox image, but now I see it's in the image under description too, so is it somehow deliberate? FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
given they were not sentences, they don't have to start with a capital, but I got called out on that as while ago. Just a lazy hangover from times past and fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "He based in on the description of la Perruche à large queue, "the long-tailed parrot" by French naturalist François Levaillant in his 1805 work Histoire Naturelle des Perroquets." There seems to be a typo there, but also, if he had a specimen, why did he base the species on a description in a book?
"in --> it" - also good question, they seem to base them on a combination of specimen and non-complying museum description. It's weird. Not sure if the person actually eyeballed the specimen. But this seems to happen quite a bit early on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems there are enough synonyms to warrant a list in the taxobox.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The green rosella was first collected" Maybe state this was a single specimen? Because you refer to "the specimen" later.
clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • On what grounds are the pictured individuals sexed? The dimorphism seems to be very subtle?
the differences in plumage are subtle but consistent if you see them often - females just that tiny bit duller. Also the reddish patches around the face. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "They are sometimes share the company of eastern rosellas" Seems something is wrong.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it is notable enough to mention that the specific name is a misnomer in the intro?
Yeah I did muse on this before. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "and so described it as P. c. henriettae." When?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "it is the largest species of the rosella genus, Platycercus." Only stated in intro.
added to body and reffed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "the green rosella rated as least concern" Seems a word is missing.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Hi. I started reading with the intention of doing a spot check as you requested (I likely may still be able to do one) but this sentence jumped out at me from the lead: "The back is mostly black and green back and long tail blue and green." I've read it several times and not sure how to parse it. Should this be something like "The back is mostly black and green, and its long tail blue and green"? Moisejp (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

yep, and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "ships' surgeon": I'm not that familiar with nautical things, but I just wanted to confirm ships' is correct—he was the surgeon of multiple ships?
Yes, there were two ships on the Third voyage of James Cook Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tasked as the expedition's naturalist, Anderson collected many bird specimens but had died of tuberculosis in 1778 before the return home." May I suggest "but died of tuberculosis"? I'd argue there's no need to use the past perfect here, as the events are chronological as is: 1. he collected bird specimens; 2. he died; 3. the ship returned home.
yes/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Consistency: "January 26 and 30 1777" vs. "23 April 1802" Moisejp (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at the rest of the article very soon, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Feeding, first paragraph: "It also eats the seed of the soft tree fern... It also eats berries, nuts and fruit... It has also partaken of... It may also eat..." The structure seems a bit repetitive here. Could you consider varying the structure and replacing some of the instances of "also"? Moisejp (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Birds generally forage in the canopy or understory of forested areas, or in hedges, shrubs and trees in more open areas. They come to the ground to eat fallen fruit or spilt grain in orchards or farmland. They keep quiet while on the ground, and are quite noisy when in trees." Is this talking about all birds, or just green rosellas? If the latter, I think it would be better to specify this. Even if it's the former, it might be better to clarify as well, partly because the next sentence talks about "under 20 birds... 50 to 70 birds" which does seem to be specifically about green rosellas. Moisejp (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "As it breeds late in the season, chicks are often small in the heat of summer and can suffer as a result." I wasn't sure whether this sentence was supposed to be related to the previous one about sunflower seeds, and if so, how. Or definitely how it is related to keeping the birds as pets. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
summers are often hot. small/young chicks are more vulnerable to extremes of temperature. Hence, as they breed late, the chicks are at greater risk (as they are younger) if there is a hot spell. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So, it's not related to the previous sentence about sunflower seeds, right? Is it related to keep the birds as pets, which I understand is the theme of the paragraph? Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Correct - the section is called Aviculture which is "In Capitivity". I could change the header to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Second read-through:

  • "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts": A bit awkward because it should probably be "a yellow head, neck" but a doesn't work with underparts. How about "The green rosella's head, neck and underparts are yellow, and it has a red band above the beak and violet-blue cheeks."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii as its status as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus—has been recognised." Could you consider rearranging this to be "This has since been reclassified as a synonym of P. c. brownii, as its status has been recognized as distinct from the Tasmanian mainland taxon—now known as P. c. caledonicus"? I find this would be less effort for the reader to follow.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There is inconsistent use of the serial comma throughout the article. Here are just a few examples:
  • (NS) "The green rosella has yellow head, neck and underparts"
  • (S) "Alternative common names include Tasmanian rosella, yellow-breasted parakeet, and mountain parrot."
  • (S) "it also eats the seed of the soft tree fern (Dicksonia antarctica), cranberry heath (Astroloma humifusum), myrtle beech (Lophozonia cunninghamii), Australian blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon),[28] silver wattle (Acacia dealbata),[29] and buttercups (Ranunculus)."
  • (NS) "It also eats berries, nuts and fruit, as well as flowers and new buds of southern sassafras (Atherosperma moschatum), mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), shining tea-tree (Leptospermum nitidum), swamp honey-myrtle (Melaleuca squamea), Tasmanian bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus), Smithton peppermint (Eucalyptus nitida), messmate stringybark (Eucalyptus obliqua), snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora), manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis), small-fruit hakea (Hakea microcarpa) and native plum (Cenarrhenes nitida)." Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I hate oxford commas but they are very good to slot refs behind...I will have aligned by removing all I could find. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm about half way through my second read-through. I may still have more comments. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

Nominator(s): czar 06:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is the most complete resource on the web for the Japanese sequel to Nintendo's 1985 smash hit Super Mario Bros. Critics say the title is best known for its extreme difficulty, but I'd wager it's better known for being confused with Super Mario Bros. 2, a completely different game. The Lost Levels was so difficult as to convince Nintendo of America against releasing the title in North America (that's how the "lost levels" were lost, until its re-introduction to English-speaking regions in 1993). But despite The Lost Levels' cultural confinement, the game performed a fair amount of forecasting for the series: its sadistic poison mushroom power-ups and differentiated abilities for Luigi persisted into other series games, but perhaps more salient is how the game served as a precursor to the contemporary fan community that creates challenging (read: impossible) Mario levels for each other, as well as the speedrunning community that attempted not just to finish these sadistic challenges, but with prowess.

The original Mario pulled the video game industry from the crash several years prior, and there was little games journalism infrastructure in place in 1986, nevertheless in English on a Japan-only title. As a result, most extant coverage of this game is retrospective, though I have delved into print media (especially books) to explore a history that isn't profitable for blogs. The writing is polished, direct, and I believe the prose approaches the "brilliance" we once required of FACs. In any event, it is ready for review, as the article is complete and revised. czar 06:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Czar:Something appears to be broken here, as this nomination is not showing up on the main FAC page. I only chanced across it because it was listed as a FAC at the video game project. Indrian (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Indrian, my fault—forgot to transclude czar 00:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from IDV


Looks good! I only found a few parts I'm unsure about:

  • The construction the bottom of the Mario series and Nintendo's top games is a bit hard to parse - am I correct in reading it as "it is among the worst Mario titles, and also the worst among the best Nintendo games"? What does that mean?
  • joined Miyamoto to develop a sequel to the game: obviously "the game" is meant to refer to Super Mario Bros., but the last mentioned game is The Legend of Zelda - might want to tweak the wording here.
  • Nintendo "cleaned up" parts of the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 is vague, do we know what exactly they did?

--IDVtalk 08:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@IDV, thanks! re: bottom, I thought that "worst" would be too much of a value judgment, even though that is the implication. (It's awkward to say it was at the bottom of a list of Nintendo's best games.) The point was that they were included in the lower rungs of these ranked lists, which I read as an important indication of its legacy: important enough to include on the list but not important enough to be one of the list's best. Open to suggestions, if you have a better way of expressing it. Tweaked #2, and re: #3, this was explained at the end of the paragraph (All-Stars additions), so I've rearranged the order for better reading. czar 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the addition of "of" in "and of Nintendo's top games" is an improvement, but I still find it hard to parse. Would possibly be easier if "Nintendo's top games" came first, so that we get "the bottom of Nintendo's top games and of the Mario series" - "bottom of the Mario series" is a much more straight-forward concept than "bottom of Nintendo's top games", so the readability of it isn't really hurt by being pushed into the end of the sentence.--IDVtalk 20:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@IDV, I think the sentence was trying to do too much. I removed the "Nintendo's top" clause so it only refers to the series, which I think does a better job. czar 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure. The sentence also appears in the reception/legacy section, though, where it has the same problems.--IDVtalk 22:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@IDV, I had already rephrased it there too czar 22:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this! I now support this FAC on prose.--IDVtalk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • This is a really minor note, but the "like" connector in the phrase "like extra challenge levels tacked on its end" sounds a little strange to me. I understand what you mean in the full context, but I would imagine that a better connector word or phrase could be used in this instance. Maybe something like "citing additional challenge levels tacked on its end".
  • The phrase "famous difficulty" sounds a little odd to me, and reads a little too closely to the phrase used in the cited source (i.e. "famously difficult"). I would recommend adding another descriptor to this part to avoid this, or you could just directly quote the "famously difficult" part.
  • In the phrase "those who would appreciate painful challenge", should "appreciate painful challenge" read as "appreciate a painful challenge"?
  • ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • I would connect the final two lines of the first paragraph in the "Gameplay" section, as it can read a little choppy. I would say something like " Luigi, designed for skilled players, has less ground friction and higher jump height, while Mario is faster." The short three word sentence is a little jarring from the rest of the paragraph in my opinion.

Wonderful work with this article! It was a very interesting read. My comments are relatively minor and nitpicky, and once they are addressed, then I would be more than happy to support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Aoba47! I think I've addressed your points, if you'll take a look. Re: painful, it's not a singular challenge, hence the lack of article. Would you have time to do an image review? czar 19:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to my comments. I support this nomination. Great job with this. I will do the image review later today if that is okay with you. If possible, could you provide some comments to my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

  • Extremely minor, but there is a sentence in the reception section which begins with "indeed". I feel this is sort of un-encyclopedic. Other than that, this page looks great! Good work on this. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I think "indeed" helps underscore the point, and its use is grammatically correct. czar 22:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Mariobros2japanbox.jpg is properly sourced and licensed. All of the information in the non-free media information and use rationale box is completed. ALT text is well done.
  • File:Super Mario Bros. 2 (Lost Levels).png ] is properly sourced and licensed. All of the information in the non-free media information and use rationale box is completed. ALT text is well done. The image is appropriately used in the section.
  • File:Takashi Tezuka 2015 (cropped).jpg, File:Shigeru Miyamoto 2015 (cropped).jpg, and File:Kōji Kondō 2015 (cropped).jpg are all properly source and pulled from Wikimedia Commons. ALT text is well done for all of the images, and they are appropriately used in the section.
  • File:Nintendo-Famicom-Disk-System.jpg is all properly source and pulled from Wikimedia Commons. ALT text is well done for all of the images, and it is appropriately used in the section.

Wonderful work with this article. This passes all of the requirements for the image review. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992

  • Isn't "smash hit" in the lead puffery? – jona 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Within four months, it had sold tens of millions of Nintendo Entertainment System ... video game consoles and signaled the end of the 1983 video game crash.[10]

@AJona1992, given the text/sourcing, I think it describes the nature of its "success" quite succinctly. Open to improvements, though czar 22:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would say the concern with the phrase "smash hit" is not necessarily on its accuracy (as the quote that you included clearly indicates that this is correct). However, it does sound somewhat informal for a Wikipedia article, and can lean a little bit on POV issues. It may be better to say something along the lines of commercially successful. I apologize for intruding on this discussion. Just wanted to add my two cents to the question/comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008


Comments – Ah, here's a video game I'm actually in the process of playing on my old Game Boy Advance (on the Game Boy Color version, which works on the Advance). I'm really good at it, too—it only took me about five restarts to get through the fourth castle. :-) Here's the couple of issues I found:

  • Rereleases: Feels like "and" should be inserted before "features such as the wind and the five bonus worlds are omitted."
  • "Challenge modes are added." Do me a favor and double-check this to the source, as I haven't gotten far enough into the game yet to know if a challenge mode exists, and haven't encountered any evidence that it does, at least for The Lost Levels. The challenge mode may be referring to a feature related to the original Super Mario Bros. game, which I am also playing on that cartridge. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Giants2008, thanks! The ref that immediately follows that statement is openly accessible and verifies the claim: "Also new are Challenge Mode and You Vs. Boo. ..." czar 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The "Challenge Mode" is for the original Super Mario Bros., not The Lost Levels. Unless something unlocks once The Lost Levels are beaten, I don't think that has anything to do with The Lost Levels. You Vs. Boo is a race mode with what I would call original courses based on Super Mario Bros. backgrounds. There's more details on these modes here, but based on my knowledge of the game I don't believe the challenge modes relate to this game. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Giants2008, that's fine--I removed it czar 01:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Support – Since that was my only remaining concern with the article, and it appears that AJona's issue was also resolved, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Cas Liber

  • References formatted consistently, and webrefs archived.
  • Earwig's copyvio clear.
  • FN 15 - used twice, material faithful to source.
  • FN 16 - used three times, material faithful to source.
  • FN 25 - used twice, material faithful to source.

Spot check ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


@WP:FAC coordinators: , is this one good to go? Wanted to make sure bases are covered before Wikicup deadline (in a few days) czar 07:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments: A couple of issues for me. First, not all of the refs are in numerical order. Was this a conscious choice, as most articles use ascending numerical order for their refs. Also, I have a little issue with "Journalists have ranked The Lost Levels among the least important in the Mario series[38][39] and of Nintendo's top games" as this is referenced to a "125 top games" article. There is no indication in that article that the reviewer intends to make a negative "worst in series" comment, or is in fact making any such judgement on its importance (the article specifically says that it is explaining why each article is important). At a stretch, if all the other Mario games were in that article and listed above this one, I could just about accept the Mario comment except that there are 3 more "Mario" games below it in the list. And given that Nintendo has surely released substantially more than 125 games, I really cannot accept "least important of Nintendo's top games". Such an apparent misrepresentation of the source does worry me slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Sarastro1, thanks. Yes, the refs are ordered by pertinence, not numerically. The "top games" sentence was discussed with IDV's comments above. I specifically avoided making a "worst in series" claim (what would "worst" mean?) but the articles did call the game among the "bottom tier" (#26 of 35) of the series and the other source implied the same (#16 of 18). Based on that, it wouldn't be appropriate to describe its legacy as illustrious or even lukewarm, and short of more descriptive language, the rankings do clearly show that the game was among the least important in the series. The argument is similar for the listing at #117 of 125—the least important of Nintendo's top games, though that's a mouthful. I think it would be more deceptive to omit that it was at the bottom of the list by saying only that it was just included in a list of top games without describing where it stood in that list. (And for what it's worth, I think that writing "ranked 117 of 125" instead of the qualitative description would make for shoddy prose. The sentence is also not written declaratively, with its rank/position as incontrovertible fact, but neutrally offers that journalists have ranked it in this position, which the sources support and which other sources can certainly refute, were they to exist.) Happy to discuss further, but know that it has indeed been discussed here, in the edit history, and on the article's talk page. czar 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

SMS Weissenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Another article on a German battleship, this one had a rather lengthy career, under the German, Ottoman, and Turkish flags, and was involved in some fairly significant events (the Boxer Rebellion, the Balkan Wars, and World War I to name a few). The article just passed a MILHIST A-class review, after having been heavily rewritten since it originally became a GA back in 2009. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Brassey's should be italicized
    • Done
  • Suggest scaling up both maps
    • Done
  • File:Brandenburg_Brassey's.png: what was the author's date of death?
    • Added
  • File:SMS_Weissenburg_steaming_at_high_speed_NH_65755.tiff: when/where was this first published? Same with File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_48568.tiff, File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_88653.jpg, File:SMS_Weissenburg_NH_47896.tiff. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Unknown, but the NHHC's position is that all photographs hosted on their site are in the public domain in the United States. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth

I bring no special expertise in naval matters to this review, but the article's prose is quite good, and the content seems comprehensive. I have a few questions and suggestions.
  • The images need alt text.
  • ¶2 "...heavier than other capital ships of the period..." – Link capital ship?
  • Good idea
Construction to 1900
  • ¶1 The six repetitions of "she" in this paragraph seem a bit much.
  • Good catch, reworded a few of those.
  • ¶4" While steaming back to Kiel, a severe storm hit the fleet, causing significant damage to many ships and sinking the torpedo boat S58." – Since the storm wasn't steaming, maybe recast as "A severe storm, striking the fleet as it steamed back to Kiel, caused significant damage to many ships and sank the torpedo boat S58."
  • Good idea
  • ¶6 "included stops in the Shetlands" – Link Shetland?
  • Done
Boxer Rebellion
  • ¶2 "The four battleships and the aviso..." – Link aviso, recasting to avoid link bump with Hela?
  • Linked, but I think the general rule of thumb is three adjacent links, and I can't really think of a way to reword it to avoid two links that isn't clunkier.
  • ¶1 "in an accident that damaged her ram bow..." – Link ram bow?
  • Done
Italo-Turkish War
  • ¶1 "Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire..." – Why? What was the war about?
  • A land grab, in a nutshell - clarified that in the text
  • ¶1 Link "central battery"?
  • Done
  • ¶1 "Unaware that a war had begun..." – This surprised me. No radio? If not, why not?
  • No clear reason why - the ship was originally fitted with a wireless set, and I'd assume it would have remained aboard when the Germans sold the vessel to the Ottomans. Later on in the article, there is a reference to the poor condition of the ship by the start of the Balkan Wars in 1912, and given the general level of neglect the Ottoman fleet was famous for, I'd think the wireless sets were simply inoperable.
  • ¶1 "the fleet returned to Nagara" – Might be good to say where Nagara is. It's included in the World War 1 map later in the article, but it might be nice to know the location on first mention of Nagara.
  • Good idea
Balkan Wars
  • ¶1 "The Balkan League declared war on the Ottoman Empire..." – Maybe a sentence or half-sentence what the war was about? The link helps, but just a bit of an explanation would be nice.
  • Added a bit to clarify this.
Battle of Elli
  • ¶2 "completed a 16-point turn" − I think this should be explained, perhaps in a footnote. Does this mean 16 degrees of the compass? Is it important to say whether the turn was clockwise or counterclockwise? It's hard for someone unversed in these matters to imagine the layout of the battle scene. The illustration of the Battle of Lemnos is really helpful in that regard, though it depicts only one instant in time rather than a set of maneuvers.
  • Linked to points of the compass - it should be pointed out that the Lemnos illustration is simply the order of battle, not representative of anything that occurred. Unfortunately there don't appear to be any maps of either battle
World War I
  • ¶1 "the actions of the German battlecruiser Goeben – What actions?
  • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • All looks good except for the missing alt text. Very interesting article that caused me to link through to articles such as Boxer Rebellion to brush up on my history. Assuming you'll do something about the alt text, I'm happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

  • In the lead, suggest replacing "along with" with "which also included"
    • Good idea
  • the ihp and kW conversions in the infobox don't match the body
    • Good catch
  • link Ship commissioning, Kiel Canal, Queenstown (Cobh), Qingdao (Tsingtau)
    • Done
  • "Wörth and the other ships"? Should this be Weissenburg?
    • Yup, good catch
  • "was in a state of disrepair"
    • Fixed
  • per MOS:TIME, there should be a leading 0 in 9:50 etc
    • Think I've gotten all of these
  • could probably dispense with Greek in "Greek Georgios Averof"
    • Good idea
  • decapitalise "and the Navy"
    • Done
  • "By (when in) 1915, some of Turgut Reis's guns" Perhaps "At some point during 1915" if that is what is meant?
    • Works for me.

That's me done. Great work on this article. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda

Nice readable ship life story! I made a few changes, - revert if you don't like. Only minor points, and already mentioned above, such as please supply alternate texts for all images. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hmlarson

Few comments mostly related to prose:

  1. Can you work the one book listed under Further Reading into the article as a reference and omit the Further Reading section? (Wikipedia:Further reading)
    1. I guess I don't really see the point - there's nothing wrong with a Further Reading section, and it seems sort of artificial to add a citation that isn't necessary.
  2. Under Design - Can you provide a brief summary of the design background and who designed it before describing dimensions? Looks like there's some info that could be briefly summarized in a sentence or two in the Design section of Brandenburg-class battleship without duplicating the lead sentence of the Construction to 1900 section.
    1. Added a few lines on that
  3. Under Service History
    1. Suggested re-wording of second sentence: "Ordered as battleship "C", she was laid down at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Stettin in May 1890 under construction number 199."
      1. Works for me
    2. Three consecutive sentences start with "The ship" and could be slightly re-worded for better flow/readability.
      1. Done, good idea.
  4. Under Battle of Lemnos
    1. Are there sufficient references for a Ramiz Numan Bey article?
      1. Probably, yes - he was a Fleet Commander of the Ottoman Navy, and general assumption is that individuals of that sort of rank will be notable.
  5. Under World War I
    1. Add WP:INTERWIKI link to Guido von Usedom
      1. Done
    2. Are there sufficient references for an SS Üsküdar (1907) article?
      1. More than likely, yes - resources like Miramar should be able to provide a good deal of information.

Hmlarson (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • One of my "random googles" turned up this which appears to be a guy ripping Wikipedia articles and publishing them as ebooks, since the print edition is from "Create Space". Just putting this here in case someone brings it up ... it's obviously the book plagarizing Wikipedia, not the other way around.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. [ Earwig's tool] shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking these, Ealdgyth. Parsecboy (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap, Cwmhiraeth and LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

This article is about the octopus, one of the most intelligent invertebrates, rivaled only by other cephalopods. The article was expanded, improved on, and passed a GA review. We feel it is ready for FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Drive by comments

Drive by Comment - It looks like the taxonomy list is a bit out of alignment. For example Suborder Cirrina is at the 3rd level of indentation and Suborder Incirrina is at the second level. Shouldn't all suborders be aligned, all families be aligned, etc? It's mostly aligned just Cirrina. Mattximus (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I aligned the suborders. The families of the two suborders can't be align as one order is divided into superfamilies. LittleJerry (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Siuenti says

  • I'm not happy that the article states blankly "is a cephalopod mollusc of the order Octopoda." without explaining what "cephalopod" means. I think other examples of cephalapods would help (squid, nautiluses). Also it would be good to work in soft-bodied (Coleoidea) near the top because that characteristic is high-level than octopodae. Also try to avoid WP:consecutive blue links Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks that's much better IMO. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Footnote that the "arms" are not "tentacles" on first mention please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@LittleJerry: do it again please, maybe after "centre point of the arms" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 12:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Because later it says " known as arms (mistakenly called tentacles)". It seems like 'The modern convention however, is to speak of appendages as "tentacles" when they have relatively thin "peduncles" or "stalks" with "clubs" at their tips'. (from tentacle) so they might be referred to as "tentacles" but don't match this strict definition. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Made further changes. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems it was depicted more like an octopus. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you feel like explaining the difference between octopodes and squidopodes somewhere? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
So actually the arm/tentacle thing is the primary difference? Squid have "specialised feeding tentacles" and octopies don't? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That's the difference that's mentioned in the literature I've come across. LittleJerry (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I still have some quibbles but overall it's a good candidate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually the thing I'd like best is to go through the whole thing, adding "as with other cephalopods" and linking to "X in cephalopods" where appropriate, I keep wondering whether things are specific to octopuses or not. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed all the "as with other cephalopods". Much of what is true about octopuses is true about other cephalopods. We can't keep adding in this phrase to every section as it is tiresome and redundant. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
How about "unlike other cephalopods" then? they can't both be redundant... (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Major differences between octopuses and other cephalopods is already noted in taxonomy. That's as far as I can go. LittleJerry (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Also there are two bits about chromophores or something, they need to be harmonized. And I think there's a ; that should be colon in one of them. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap would probably be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait, it says they have no skeleton but Cirrina apparently have internal shells. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 14:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Great article!

  • Pronunciation. (/ˈɒktəpʊs/ or ~/pəs/) seems like the wrong order. Cambridge, Macmillan, and Oxford seem to favour ~/pəs/ although the Beatles pronounced it /ˈɒktəpʊs/. Could these be swapped?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The skin consists of a thin outer epidermis overlying a connective tissue dermis. The epidermis contains mucous cells and sensory cells and the dermis consists largely of collagen fibres and various chromatic organs; chromatophores, leucophores, iridophores, reflector cells and photophores. says the same thing twice. There is a bit too much redundancy in general; we get the coconut shells and the mortality experiment twice each and there are (I think) a few things like that.
Fixed. The coconut shell mention is relevant to both locomotion and intelligence. I removed the part in locomotion about it being used for shelter since it is not relevant there. LittleJerry (talk)
I also slit information on the ink. Anat&Phys talks about its contents while defense mentions its effects. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved information on mimicry to defense. The major redundancies should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Was very overlinked and there is likely some more work to be done in honing links to the really useful ones.
Did some. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Did some more, seems to be about right now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Octopuses may be preyed on by fishes, seabirds, pinnipeds and cetaceans; I think humans' role should be mentioned if it is a significant one which I suspect it is.
The source doesn't mention humans as predators. Anyway, we usually don't mention humans as predators in animal article expect in relation to conservation, hunting, ect. The consumption of octopuses is mentioned. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Not entirely happy with this, but let me think about it. Regardless of what other articles do, human predation should be mentioned in these terms if it is important, and we imply it is by discussing the role in cuisine. Let me think about it some more.--John (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Other zoologists thought it a spermatophore; the German zoologist Heinrich Müller believed it was designed to detach during copulation. "Designed" is rather jarring here. Do we need it?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Is "adapted" better? What language does the source use? --John (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It quotes Muller. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably a few more items. Nothing that can't be fixed. --John (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What does cleavage is superficial mean? --John (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth would be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm less worried about this now that I have found and wikilinked the cleavage (embryo) article. It should ideally still be explained for the lay reader if it is important enough to mention. --John (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Better. --John (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this makes sense. Octopuses generally avoid humans, but attacks have occasionally been verified. For example, an 2.4-metre (8 ft) Pacific octopus, said to be nearly perfectly camouflaged, "lunged" at a diver and "wrangled" over his camera before it let go. It seems rather lame as "attacks" go. Is there a better example? Or is this example individually notable so as to need recorded? --John (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The point is that real attacks do exist but have this rather tame character, very different from the overdramatised versions in film and fiction. Seems well worth having. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Point taken. Does the source refer to it as an "attack"? Maybe "incident" is fairer? --John (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. It uses the word "ambush" which is a type of attack, e.g. the cougar is an ambush predator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It does, but I don't like the use of this low-quality source to support either "attack" or "ambush" on a biology article. --John (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, incident it is then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What does Several questionable size records would suggest the giant Pacific octopus is the largest of all known octopus species by a considerable margin... mean? If they are questionable, why are we referring to them? In a philosophical sense, all information is questionable. Can we clarify this? --John (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Said "Much larger sizes ... have been claimed": the situation is that reliable sources report a history of somewhat doubtful claims. Hope this wording is satisfactory! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please check these edits. I am almost finished. I'd be ready to support after one more pass. --John (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
These seem entirely good to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I now support on prose, apparent completeness, sourcing and images. It's been a pleasure to work with such a collegial team. Thanks for working on this important article and making it so good.--John (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a number missing here. Also, a more modern source would be good. "Octopus fisheries exist around the world with total catches varying between 245,320 and 322,99 metric tons from 1986–1995." --John (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Source says 322,999 mt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Tremoctopus_violaceus5.jpg needs a US PD tag, and what is the author's date of death?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Same with File:Octopus_vulgaris_Merculiano.jpg
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:AMI_-_Oktopusvase.jpg: should include an explicit tag for the vase itself
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Colossal_octopus_by_Pierre_Denys_de_Montfort.jpg needs a US PD tag.
PD-US. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Same with File:Tako_to_ama_(detail).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I have since added a new image which was uploaded by the author. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's support comments


Always good to see the higher level taxa being taken on. Some comments:

Many thanks!
  • , after which he goes into a decline. a touch euphemistic. after which he dies?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm reasonably familiar with behavioural language and I'm uncertain what and behaviourally diverse " means
This was discussed at the GA review. It refers to their ability to mimic other animals, problem solving ect. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is locomotion divided between the first and third paragraphs of the lead?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I was going to ask why global distribution and habita wasn't covered in the main article but instead I'll ask why it doesn't have its own section but is instead crammed into the front of behaviour and ecology. I'd separate.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • On distribution, are there any patterns in distribution? (More diverse in the tropics, or in the abyssal plain?)
Sources don't say but presumably its like other groups of animals. More diversity at coral reefs and tropical areas, ect. LittleJerry (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of the octopus body is made of soft material Material? Maybe tissue?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Even the larger species can squeeze through any opening close to 2.5 cm (1 in) in diameter.[ I think it would be better to introduce the idea that they can do this before showing how impressively they can do it. This allows octopuses extreme flexibility and the ability to squeeze through tiny gaps; even the larger...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does the section on ink sacs separate the senses and nervous system, surely those two should be linked or possibly a single section?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll do some more reading tomorrow. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The respiration system could be clearer about why various states increase or decrease the percentage the amount of respiration through the skin
Clarified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Minor point but it makes more sense to have ingestion before excretion
Done, always nice to have a sense of, er, progress, in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • to vary from species to species, being present in O. aegina but absent in O. vulgaris. I think a for example is needed before introducing examples here
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sense of touch is touched (badoom) on paragraph one and three of the senses section. I can see why, but maybe they could be merged?
Moved the offending sentence into the touch paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, long day. Will finish soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Second wind!
  • In most species, fertilisation occurs in the mantle cavity feels like it would sit better in the section on sex itself
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The young paralarvae are planktonic for a while, feeding on copepods, arthropod larvae and other zooplankton. They then sink to the seabed to continue their development; some deep sea species do not have a planktonic stage.[56] Maybe this instead. Most young paralarvae are planktonic for a while, but some deep sea species do not have a planktonic stage. Planktonic young feed on copepods, arthropod larvae and other zooplankton. They then sink to the seabed to continue their development or something like that
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • adopted by the argonaut. I think paper nautilus is a more commonly known name and should be used here as well
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Octopuses are not territorial and may leave an area in search of food. an area? What area? Maybe they travel widely to feed, or are nomadic?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Other creatures often share the den with the octopus, either because they have arrived as scavengers, or because they have survived capture. They include fish, crabs, molluscs and echinoderms Maybe move the examples into the first sentence after other creatures
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Major items in the diet of the giant Pacific octopus include bivalve molluscs such as the cockle Clinocardium nuttallii, clams and scallops, and crustaceans such as crabs and spider crabs. why does this article about the whole group suddenly narrow down to a single species?
Because the behaviour of so few species of octopus have been studied in detail. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Prey likely to be rejected include moon snails, is this referring to the group or just the giant species again?
Still the giant species. Clarified. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The predation line seems a bit thin. If there's not more to say, maybe move it to the defence section and rename that section parasites and disease.
A good suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the relationship with humans needs a bit more structure. Maybe general (danger and legal) cultural (history, myth, literature, erotica and metaphor), economic (food, captivity and science).
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It also needs a prune. Try and find concepts that octopuses represent (gods, danger etc) and find examples to illustrate them, rather than just listing every occurrence of octopuses in human society.
Done. Incidentally, I removed the section on metaphor but an uninvolved editor has just added it back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
While the relationship with humans section needed reorganization, I don't think the way it was done was an improvement. The new "dangerous sea-monster" section mixes monster stories, creation myths, and scientific information about actual danger to humans. The important "metaphor" section was removed entirely (I have re-added it). My suggestion would be to split an "in culture" level 2 section off of "relationship with humans" to contain myths, stories, symbol, and erotic fantasy. "Relationship with humans" would retain danger to humans, food, and science and technology. I will do this myself when I get off work if there are no objections. A2soup (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly I now need to wait for you and Sabine's Sunbird to agree on the structure the section is to have. I will do my best to implement whatever you agree. However, I have added a section heading 'As an actual danger' to separate myth from science (the text remains unchanged). I note in passing that food, science and other human interactions are all part of our culture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean to be a bother. Don't feel like you need to be the one to implement my suggestions - I can do it myself, followed by you and Sunbird revising or rejecting it (by comment here or by edit) per the normal wiki process. A2soup (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, but since we're here we'll have to proceed by consensus now. If you mean that (like me) you'll now accept whatever Sunbird proposes, then obviously that makes consensus easy. I imagine they'll take your suggestions into account. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I made some chances. I hope nobody minds. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I like the changes - I think the organization is good now, thanks! I will add a (cited) sentence or two to the symbol paragraph if I can find the time. A2soup (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The structure is much better now. I have one final point below but from my perspective this issue is resolved. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • he supposed attack on a Staten Island ferry in New York, leading to the loss of the ferry and commemorated by a bronze sculpture, never occurred, nor was there any such ferry disaster This is odd and trivia-ish and I'd remove it. If its kept then some context is badly needed.
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Octopuses were often depicted in the art of the Moche people of ancient Peru (100 – 700 AD), who worshipped the sea and its animals.[117] I am fairly sure I've seen this line in lots of other animal articles. So what?
Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the see also.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's me. Thanks for being responsive to my other points, should be good to go when this is done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, one final section that needs tightening - As food:
    • I don't like the title. Maybe fisheries or economic importance
    • They are a common food in Mediterranean and Asian sea areas Asian sea areas? Maybe just around the Mediterranean and in Asia.
    • The intro of this section focuses on their foodstuff role - you need to briefly touch on their fisheries, how they are caught (which I was curious about and then interested when I learnt), economic importance (for jobs and subsistence) and fisheries management.
All done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
What units are the numbers for fisheries? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay that should be it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support (conditional on one tiny fix noted above about fisheries). Thanks for working on a high level taxa and being responsive to feedback. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: Can you elaborate on why you don't like "as food" as a section title and why you think "fisheries" or "economic importance" is better? The section is not just about fishing, it is about catching and eating octopuses. The unifying theme is octopuses as a food for humans, which comprises both fishing and culinary aspects. IMO, your suggested titles only cover the first of these and do not tell the reader that the section also covers octopus dishes. A2soup (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
As food doesn't really cover fisheries or economic importance. The economic, ecological and logistical background of any natural foodstuff is separate from their culinary nature. To avoid getting bogged down I didn't insist on it but I would prefer the section touched on overfishing, economic size and jobs, and so on. Also - as food only really works as a title if you start with Relationship with humans - as food. If you insist on keeping it then Octopuses as food would read better. Although Cuisine and fisheries is better than that. Or something else. I don't really care, if you really prefer as food then switch it back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This seems to have been resolved by the choice of 'Fisheries and cuisine'. Good as any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber (and spot check/source review)

  • If possible, avoid having all four paras of lead starting with "Octopuses..."
Fixed one of 'em. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that helps Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • one specimen was recorded as 272 kg (600 lb) with an arm span of 9 m (30 ft). - I would clarify how/why this is unsubstantiated.
  • I also don't think you need standalone sentences in this section.
Closed up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd link circulatory system somewhere...
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do all species have inksacs? Be good to know and reference that...
Its mentioned that Cirrate octopuses don't have ink sacs. LittleJerry (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Did classical folks call them octopuses? Or is it a modern construct (i.e. when were they first called octopuses?) Be good to note in the Etymology and pluralisation section
Yes, it's ancient Greek, linked in that section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
What I meant was, did they call them that or was it a medieval or later invention of word by joining two ancient Greek words...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
It's new Latin transcribed from genuine ancient Greek as spoken and written by the ancients, such as Alexander of Tralles, as oktopous or more usually oktapous. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Are any species endangered? Are any invasive?
Can't seem to find much on either. I mostly find articles on the "endangered" Pacific Northwest tree octopus, which is a hoax. LittleJerry (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwigs threw up a result at copyvio check. Hard to tell if it is a mirror but there are a few segments it might be prudent to change.
The YouTube text is certainly copied from here. I'm basically sure that the World Animal Foundation text is too, but copyedited just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Ref formatting ok, though could we add some more info to web refs? (FN 136, 137)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • FN 18 used once, faithful to source (NB: has the material to elaborate on largest Pacific octopus above).
  • FN 46 used once, faithful to source.
  • FN 104 used once, faithful to source.

Happy with spot check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

Ref 13 is dead and a couple of the external links are dead. Also, while not an absolute requirement, I think that FAs should use alt text as they are an example of best practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ref 13 removed; ref 14 covers sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
2 dead external links removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Supplied alt texts for all the images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns in the middle ages. I am nominating with trepidation as this is an enormous and contentious subject. That said it has been through a GOCE copy edit, Good Article Review and a Milhist A-Class review so it should be well placed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

Some initial comments while I read through in depth...

  • In the bibliography, I'd be looking for consistency in page numbering - e.g. we have page numbers given in "Constable, Giles (2001). "The Historiography of the Crusades". In Laiou, Angeliki E.; Mottahedeh, Roy P. The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World. Dumbarton Oaks. pp. 1–22. ISBN 978-0-88402-277-0. Retrieved 2016-10-04.", but not "Bull, Marcus (1999). "Origins". In Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280312-3."
  • All the pages are Harvard in the Ref section so I have removed from Bibliography Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • At first glance, "Rose, Karen (2009). The Order of the Knights Templar. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4486-5190-0." looks self-published. Is there a strong case for it being a reliable source?
  • Bacon died in 1292, so I don't the point this citation was supporting makes sense (i.e. support for the Crusades post-1292) so I have removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Strack, Georg (2012). "The Sermon of Urban II in Clermont and the Tradition of Papal Oratory" (PDF). Medieval Sermon Studies. 56 (30#1): 30–45. doi:10.1179/1366069112Z.0000000002." - I wasn't sure what the "30#1" meant.
  • That has come from the issue number, should I remove to avoid confusion?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you'd be safe with just the volume number - it's all the publishers seem to use on their website. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Done, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Worth checking all capitalisation of titles in the bibliography and further reading - some fall into lower case.
  • Can you give an example so I know what you mean, I don't want to assume? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • e.g. "The art and architecture of the Crusader states" would be " The Art and Architecture of the Crusader states" under the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the images look like they are missing a source (and licensing) for the underlying mapping - e.g. :File:Map Crusader states 1135-en.svg, :File:Seljuk Empire locator map.svg, :File:Deutscher Orden in Europa 1300.png. The coastline, rivers etc. look very detailed, and that they've come from somewhere other than the author who did the overlay etc., but I can't see where this is detailed.
  • Struggling to find appropriately source maps so might be tempted to remove them all. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Might be worth asking on the map project on Wikimedia - someone might know which underlying map was used? Be a shame to lose them if we can identify where they came from. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, but sorry to be a pain, and I am happy to do it but can you guide me as to how?
  • The map project on wikimedia looks pretty much dead, but you could try leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:Graphics Lab/Map workshop? Hchc2009 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have left a request for them to have a look at these Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  :File:Schlacht bei Askalon 1099.jpg needs a date of death to justify the life+70 claim. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I still can't see the date of death of the artist (the artist who did the drawing, not the earlier glass painting). In order to justify the claim that they died more than 70 years ago, the file needs to list when they died - at the moment the file just gives the publication date, which isn't the same thing. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Smurrayinchester

This isn't a topic I know much about, so these comments are only really about structure:

  • There's nothing in the intro about when the Crusades took place - there's quite a bit about how the First Crusade started, but nothing about how they ended - it doesn't mention how much success the Crusades they had, nor how they failed.
  • You could probably trim some of the detail and focus more on the big picture - for the intro, you don't need say exactly which Germanic states were created, for instance, but rather talk about how the crusades strengthened Christian states in Northern Europe - but it's the right direction, yeah. Smurrayinchester 14:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The etymology of Crusade is probably too detailed for the intro.
  • There should be a year attached to "The Islamic prophet Muhammad founded Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. The resulting polity in the 7th and 8th centuries..." - I'd reword it to something like "The Islamic prophet Muhammad founded Islam and by his death in 632 had united much of Arabia into a single polity. Arab power expanded rapidly in the 7th and 8th centuries...", but maybe there's a tidier way of writing it.
  • The Background section talks about lower-case crusades a couple of times ("In northern Europe, the Germans used crusading as a method to expand Christianity" and "Participation in a crusade was seen as a form of penance") before the First Crusade has happened. This seems to be jumping the gun a bit.
  • The word "Frank" appears quite a lot, but it's never explained what it means. My understanding is it's basically a synonym for Crusader, but this isn't clear.
  • I've restored a definition for Frank to the terminolgy section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • without actually explaining what it means - basically "French". Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The explanation is there, as per OED as western European not French as many if not most of the Crusaders were not French even if they might have been French speaking Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Political events in the 20th century such as the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel led to the growth of historical parallelism between modern politics and the Crusades." This is a bit convoluted for a final sentence, and "historical parallelism" is an obscure phrase. "Historians have drawn parallels between the Crusades and modern political developments such as the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, Mandatory Palestine, and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel."? Smurrayinchester 12:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Done—I've taken you advice on this one. @Smurrayinchester: I think I have addressed you intial comments, are there any more? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

  • I have to say I'm rather disappointed on a first look over. The big picture seems missing.
  • Only 3 paras worth of things to say in the lead? Including half a para on the terminology - that is almost immediately repeated.
  • Loads of paras are very long & should be split.
  • In general the infuence of the papacy, which was well out of touch once campaigns were underway, seems over-stressed. The situation in the Crusader kingdoms receives hardly any attention. Maintaining them was really what it was all about, after the 1st. The Italian contribution in shipping the Crusaders out, then hanging round as virtual bandits, breaking every truce, is not mentioned at all.
  • Various universally or very widely-held views are randomly attributed to current historians:
"David Nicolle called the Fourth Crusade controversial in its "betrayal" of Byzantium." - "controversial" is bathetic, and Runciman goes far further. Does anyone have a good word to say about the 4th?
"Similarly, Norman Housley viewed the persecution of Jews in the First Crusade – a pogrom in the Rhineland and the massacre of thousands of Jews in Central Europe – as part of the long history of anti-Semitism in Europe." - does anyone not?
"The historian Paul Everett Pierson, asserts that Urban also hoped that aiding the Eastern Church would lead to its reunion with the Western under his leadership." - in the lead confidently stated as fact. Of course all historians can do is guess, but don't most guess this?
"The scholar Norman Cohn identified a "messianism of the poor" inspired by an expected mass ascension into heaven at Jerusalem.[36]"
"According to historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, these states were the first examples of "Europe overseas"."
  • AS before reviewers who know the subject less well asked for attribution. I agree with you and have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Too much of a list o'facts approach, and too little overall analysis. The developing pressures in the Islamic world don't come across very well.
  • "The 1071 victory over the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert, once considered a pivotal event by historians, is now regarded as one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia." - strikes me as a false contrast. As a look at the map shows, it was always "one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia".
  • The old thinking on Manzikert was that it was a pivotal moment that led directly to the conquest of Anatolia, this is largely discounted now. It is worth mentioning for histiographical reasons and also to prevent editors using old sources to put the obsolete interpretation back. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Nothing on the economic motivations of crusaders, and potential settlers in the kingdoms.
From the start:
  • "The Crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period, especially the campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean aimed at recovering the Holy Land from Islamic rule." - "especially" is the wrong hinge, no? Ungrammatical, for one thing.
  • "other church-sanctioned campaigns fought to .... resolve conflict among rival Roman Catholic groups" - hmm. See if this justified later.
  • I think all the 1st para terminology stuff should be merged to that section, or at least brutally shortened in a later lead para.
  • "The First Crusade arose after a call to arms in a 1095 sermon by Pope Urban II," too many prepositions? Date false title. "In 1095 Pope Urban II called for the First Crusade in a sermon in France..." maybe.
  • "Others participated to ... seek opportunities for economic and political gain." Indeed, but is this expanded on later.
  • "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders." Rather debatable - is there a modern "pro-crusade" historian? All the ones I've seen take pretty much the same dim view, with of course shades of emphasis.
  • Ok, so the lead is currently missing:
any sense of the time dimension after 1095
any mention of the C kingdoms
mention of WHO WON! Levant and elsewhere.
I know that this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd say pretty awful. First of all, you don't seem to grasp the concept that you should link any significant person or thing the first time that it is mentioned in an article. "failed to retake Jerusalem in 1189 to 1192" is almost grammatically incoherent, you went from giving us no perspective of time to inundating us with years. You also spend several sentences discussing things that happened after the Crusades were finished, and weren't technically part of them. All this could be summed up in one or two sentences, especially because you said that after 1291 "there was no further coherent response." By the way, that phrase both makes no sense and is later contradicted by the sentence beginning "The rise of the Ottoman Empire." Also, I recommend creating a separate section known as "14th century" and include the information on the 15th and 16th centuries in one known as "Aftermath," because technically the Crusades were over by that time. Display name 99 (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Historical scholars and modern research have no problem with the concept that the Crusades continued as an ideology long after 1291 and the Papacy considered many of the events mentioned as Crusades. Indeed Riley-Smith considered Crusading still active to the end of the 19th century. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
For now I guess I'll take your word on that. But that paragraph still has lots of problems. How about all the other stuff I mentioned? Display name 99 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Without getting into detail, and while it gives more sense of the overall timescale and "result" etc, as requested, I think it has problems that affect the whole article in terms of the level of "magnification" used to examine extremely complex events over huge ranges of time and place. I'll mention the general question below. As it is, I think it has too much compacted detail, and will confuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth I tend to agree with you @Johnbod:—it has been a struggle to hit the right level of detail. When there was less other editors/reviewers wanted more and now your view, I think, is to have this at a higher level. I can simplify in the lead if you think that will help but if you pick up the points as you work through perhaps we can come to a happt medium? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As above, the meaning of "Franks" as French needs explaining.
  • OED matches this to the detail in the article i.e. "Western Europeans" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In northern Europe, the Germans used crusading as a method to expand Christianity and their territories at the expense of the non-Christian Slavs,[25]" Placing implies this was before 1095. Was it? Do we have a link?
  • No, removed this line. Links and detail are in the later section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1054 centuries of attempts by the Latin Church to assert supremacy over the Patriarchs of the Eastern Empire led to a permanent division in the Christian church called the East–West Schism.[26]" A pretty POV summary. The Latin church had for centuries merely asserted, without anything much in the way of attempting. There were plenty of other issues.
  • "... control of Palestine from the Fatimids.[31]" - better explain who they were - Shite dynasty, based in Cairo.
  • "the first major outbreak of European antisemitism" - bit dubious? Of violent popular European antisemitism maybe.
  • "In Speyer, Worms, Mainz, and Cologne the range of anti-Jewish activity was broad, extending from limited, spontaneous violence to full-scale military attacks.[38] Despite Alexios' advice to await the nobles, the People's Crusade advanced to Nicaea and fell to a Turkish ambush at the Battle of Civetot, from which only about 3,000 Crusaders escaped.[39] Both Philip I of France and Emperor Henry IV were in conflict with Urban and declined to participate." Whaaaaah! Not even a para break. This para is currently 418 words.
  • "These five Princes" - they weren't all princes, arguably only one was (at this point).
  • Antioch "massacring the inhabitants" - the Turkish garrison certainly, but was there a wholesale massacre of the inhabitants like Jerusalem? It was mainly a Christian city, held by the Byzantines 969-1084. Mayer, 52 makes no mention, Runciman I, 234-235 gives a more detailed account of a general massacre of Turks, in which local Greeks and Armenians joined, adding "Many Christians perished in the confusion" and all houses were pillaged.
  • "Sunni Islam now recognised the threat, and the sultan of Baghdad sent a force, to recapture the city, led by the Iraqi general Kerbogha." "Now" is rather misleading - Kerbogha was only 2 days away when the city fell, and there had already been two attempts to relieve the city. Kerbogha was a Turkish warlord with territories in Iraq (Emir of Mosul), who (Runciman says 215) wanted Antioch for himself. He was supported by Baghdad, Persia etc with troops, but any control over him by the caliph & sultan was probably just theoretical, and the phrasing is misleading.
  • "Under the papacies of Calixtus II, Honorius II, Eugenius III and Innocent II smaller groups of Crusaders continued to travel to the Eastern Mediterranean to fight the Muslims and aid the Crusader States in the early 12th century." - I can't see why the first 2 are mentioned, and really only Eugenius III is important for the Crusades. The phrasing is misleading for him, and his dates (Innocent II was actually 3 popes before him).
  • Before continuing with a systematic nit-picking process, some general thoughts. As I've said, the article lacks analytical overview, and tends to be just a condensed version of the various milhist individual articles, which concentrate on a basic narrative (however convoluted it gets). I don't think this approach can take it beyond GA standard. Combining the Levant with north Europe, Iberia, and various heretics adds to the lack of focus. I'd like to see better thematic sections on the aims of the wars, ie the various types of societies the crusaders were trying to establish (which varied greatly), and how that worked in different places. Also the economics, and more consistent explanations of who the opponents were. In the Levant there is stuff on this, but the wood tends to vanish under the trees, and in Europe there is less - "who were the Wends?" has been asked already. Really I'd suggest adding these components first, then seeing how much room is left for narrative, and getting a consistent level of detail across that. It's asking a lot, I know, but I don't think just sorting out details on the current text is enough.
  • Other editors and reviewers have been keen on the narative structure and where there wasn't detail looked for it to be added. However, if you can be more precise about what you feel needs adding I'll see what I can do Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've looked at the history and the Milhist "A" class review. In most respects the balance was better, and the article less overwhelmed by detail, after DaB's edits around the beginning of the year (though the women section was undue). Frankly, listening to and acting on Hawkeye7's comments (which he admitted were parti pris) was a mistake, and though the 1st Crusade does have the clearest narrative structure & is in many ways the most interesting, it now has too much space. You absolutely need a section on the Crusader kingdoms, how they worked and how long they lasted. A longer one than was there before. I notice at the A-class review, but sadly am not surprised by, the lack of comments (other than Hawkeye7's) on the structure, content, and indeed anything much above the sentence by sentence level. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll have a look at a Crusader kingdom section, starting with restoring the one that was there and expanding out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Musings by Dank

Thanks much, Smurrayinchester, Johnbod and Hchc2009, now I'm thinking this one is going to succeed (eventually). These musings will eventually turn into copyediting, and support, I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Much appreciated Dank—there is clearly work to be done to build on the ACR, but with the guys help it looks achievable. I'll start with Johnbod's comments in a day or two. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'd appreciate a ping when you're satisfied with the result. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

This happens to be a topic that I know a little bit about, which provides an advantage when reviewing.


  • I agree with what others have said regarding the terminology and coverage of events after 1095, as well as with some other points that they have made.


  • This section mentions that Islam spread rapidly through the Middle East and around the Mediterranean, but it does not say how. The fact is that most of its spreading came through military conquest. I believe that the Siege of Jerusalem (636-637) should be specifically mentioned because that city was the primary goal of all the crusades except for the Second.

First Crusade (1096–1099) and aftermath

  • Far more than one historian has cited reunification of East and West as a major factor in the First Crusade. Do we really need to single one of them out? Why not just say "historians?"
  • What was Pope Urban II's role in the crusade after the Council? (That's all for right now. I made some relatively minor edits. Feel free to look them over.) Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Due to the distance, very little, although his authority was delegated to Papal Legates in the Levant Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

12th century

  • Is there an article on the fall of Aleppo? If so, please link it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion. I have an FAC and a GAN both up right now. Once that's over I might consider it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bernard of Clairvaux, who had encouraged the Second Crusade in his preaching, was upset with the violence and slaughter directed towards the Jewish population of the Rhineland."-Wait, so there was widespread violence against Jews before the Second Crusade too? This needs to be explained more than just in passing in a single sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Who were the Wends? Why were people fighting them? Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I get the feeling that the events in the first paragraph are more notable than those of the second, as they formed the central part of the Second Crusade. So why is such great attention given to the events of the second paragraph, while those in the first are hardly mentioned at all?
  • There was criticism before that the article didn't reflect the Islamic response to the Crusades. This paragraph gives context on the Muslim world in the 12th century Levant. Without this we are left with a very Occidental Pov Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you condense the paragraph on Egypt, per above? Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC) Actually, don't. Just expand the other stuff. Display name 99 (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Saladin "seized Damascus?" I thought the Muslims already had Damascus. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Muslims did hold Damascus, but weren't a unifilied polity. Damascus was held by the Zengid dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, please do not strike my comments. I'll strike them if and when I think they have been resolved. Anyhow, I'll take a look at the article later today and also finish my review during that time. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK Display name 99—won't do it again Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What promise did the father of Henry VI make? Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To Crusade to the Holy Land, as he died in transit. Added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

13th century

  • Get rid of that whole first paragraph. 1) The Children's Crusade is said to have happened in 1212, after the Fourth Crusade, so it shouldn't be mentioned before the Fourth Crusade. 2) It may not have happened, so why is the article citing it as evidence of something as if we know for certain that it did? I recommend reading an altered version of the paragraph after the section on the Fourth Crusade. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Childrens Crusade is mentioned because it forms part of the historiography of the Crusades. Whether is actually happened or not, it is widely reported. This paragraph forms an introduction to the entire century and discusses the rise of Crusading sentiment. The CC is used as an example Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I just struggle with the article drawing a historical conclusion from a story for which it admits "little reliable evidence survives." It would also probably be a good idea to make known earlier in the paragraph that evidence for the events is scant. I need a third opinion. Johnbod, would you mind providing your perspective on this? Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not striking yet. I won't oppose on the basis of this though if everything else is dealt with properly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've moved this paragraph down as suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I find it disappointing that I have to tell you this in an FA review, but the paragraph on the Fourth Crusade needs many more links. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "an army advancing into Egypt was compelled to surrender."-You need to provide the name of the military action and a link. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "a strip of territory from Acre"-The Crusaders already retook Acre. Why do they need to negotiate for it now? Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded— a strip of territory linking Jerusalem to Acre through Muslim territory was negotaited Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest switching the placement of the Frederick II and Constantinople pictures based on the order in which the associated events took place. Display name 99 (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Use Asbridge's full name.
Norfolkbigfish, I've reviewed the changes you have made up until here. Anything that I've struck you can regard as having been answered satisfactorily. Those things that I haven't struck are parts that I do not yet know have been resolved. Below you'll find more of the review.Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Military orders

  • "In 1312, Pope Clement V issued a series of papal bulls, including Vox in excelso and Ad providam, dissolving the Knights Templar on the grounds of false allegations from the king of France of sodomy, magic, and heresy, but probably for financial and political reasons."-The article alludes to Philip IV, but, without even mentioning his name, makes it seem as though the dissolution occurred largely because of Clement V. That isn't the case. Philip IV was deeply indebted to the Knights Templar and, being in the midst of conflict with the papacy, probably saw this group as a threat to his power. He persecuted its members quite severely. It was probably only because of the stranglehold that he had over the papacy that he managed to get Clement to bend to his will and dissolve the order. Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
This looks better, but it's still not entirely clear if the "financial and political reasons" were the behind Philip IV's opposition to the Knights or Clement's bull. To me it looks more like the former. Maybe you could say that "in reality, Philip's opposition to the order was primarily for financial and political reasons." "and" works better than "or" in my opinion because it seems like both. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

  • "and the County of Toulouse passed under the direct control of Capetian France with the Treaty of Paris of 1229." Could you add one or two more sentences about the meaning of this? Display name 99 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

14th, 15th and 16th centuries

  • Fix "Siege of Constantinople" link in the second paragraph. Shouldn't you also explicitly mention that they succeeded in capturing the city and thus finally crushing the Byzantine Empire? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed link completely, doesn't seem like it was a formal seige, so much as a gradual encirclement over a number of years/engagements. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Mention added—what was wrong with the link? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It's to a list of sieges, rather than to a specific siege. I'm guessing you want the one from 1453. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)


  • "manifesting itself in the habituation of the clergy to violence"-What? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Rephrased, although it did match the source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "including Helen Nicholson"-Again, do we need to single out one historian? If you're referencing whatever the consensus is, you probably don't need to single out a single person unless you're quoting him or her. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


  • "The Muslim world exhibited no interest in European culture until the 16th century and no interest in the Crusades until the mid-19th century." I find this sentence, especially the second part of it, very hard to believe. I'm sure there was less interest in European culture amongst Muslims than the reverse, and there may have been less interest in the Crusades. But none whatsoever? I don't think so. Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed, that is a bit extreme, toned down to little Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


  • This section is arranged a bit oddly. Usually there is an individual section containing footnotes. I also think it makes sense not to

have "Further reading" in between the secondary and primary sources. Wouldn't it be better to keep all the things that the article uses as a source together, and to put whatever else after that? Display name 99 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I have matched the formatting to other Medieval Feature articles and removed the further reading as this seems a bit unusual. What do you think @Display name 99: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, I like what you have done, except it is normal and perfectly acceptable to include a "Further reading" section. The purpose of that is to give reference to reputable material on the subject of the article which, for whatever reason, is not officially cited. Plenty of articles have such sections. I recommend re-adding this one to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree the FR section should be restored - or at least much of it. It is entirely normal to have one, especially for such a vast and well-covered topic (many FACs are such micro-topics it may not be needed). At the least have major and very detailed treatments like Runciman (v. cheap 2nd hand - 3 x £0.01 + p&p!) and Setton, which I see is fully free online - well done U Wisc! Probably this is a somewhat random selection, though, & could be refined. Joshua Prawer was top man on the C kingdoms, and The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. 1972. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson (later edns The Crusader's Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages) a massive doorstop on that subject, which should be included. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Further reading restored—or at least the visible portion. Thanks Guys. I will add Johnbod's suggestions later. What do you think now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks a lot better. However, the "Further reading" section usually comes last, after the notations and the bibliography section. While "Further reading" is useful, we give greater importance to what's actually cited in the article. I ask you to fix that, and to respond to the other points that I mentioned above. I'll check back later. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish, we're getting close, but I need you to follow up on a couple more things that I mentioned above. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support-All my concerns have been responded to. The article is apparently accurate and seems just about detailed enough for such a broad topic. Display name 99 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Great Seljuk map caption should explain the symbols used
  • Suggest scaling up 13th century map, conquest of Constantinople, Northern Crusades map
  • File:Vexillum_Regni_Hierosolymae.svg should include an explicit tag for the original design
  • Per Hc above, File:Schlacht_bei_Askalon_1099.jpg needs an author date of death
  • File:Battle-of-Ager-Sanguinis.jpg should include details of original source, not just the upload
  • File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg is tagged as lacking author details
  • File:Dirham_struck_in_Acre_by_Christians_1216-1241.jpg: should include an explicit tag for the original coin
  • File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: the given tag suggests that if this was first published in 1954 it would not be PD in Syria. This would also need a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query

Can I check how we are progressing working through Johnbod's concerns? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I've been concentrating on Display name 99. Now I have his support will pick up on the detail JohnBod concerns which should be straightforward, The more general will require a bit of research and I am tied up a bit IRL. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • NB: My detailed run-through has only got about halfway through the article. I agree the more general concerns will require research. I'm in no hurry myself. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Ada

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a natural disaster that can be considered a precursor to the subject of my most recent FAC, Cyclone Althea. Taking place one year earlier and a little to the south, Ada destroyed just about every resort in the booming Whitsunday Islands, ruining lots of holidays/vacations. Though all traces of the cyclone are long gone, it still periodically breaches the surface of the public consciousness when politicians talk about how nice it would be to erect a memorial somewhere, or belatedly honor particularly brave helpers in the storm's aftermath. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "A$12 million": I wrote that, changed from ... (1970 AUD), per MOSNUM. I think that's been in MOSNUM a while, but I respect that people don't want to flip back and forth. It would also be fine to drop the "A", since many readers (but not all) will assume Australian dollars from the start. I'm not sure if the meaning of "normalised" is clear, but I generally avoid the tougher usage questions in FAC reviews.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A really good tropical cyclone article, about an important Australian storm. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I removed the normalized figure from the intro, since it's non-essential and a bit technical, like you say. As for MOSNUM, yeah, it's been a while since I've brushed up... I'll try to ensure better MoS compliance before my next nom. Thanks for the edits and prose review. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
    • MOS compliance is generally fine, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp:
First read-through:
Aftermath: "The destruction of resorts in the Whitsundays triggered a sharp decline in Australian tourism revenue, described as one of the worst in the industry's history at the time." Does this mean the year 1970 had one of the worst yearly revenues so far? Moisejp (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I was unable to find any statistics to quantify the economic impact, so I just removed the second part of that sentence, which I agree is too vague to be of much use. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Very well written and comprehensive; I'm happy to give my support. In my second read-through my only other mini-suggestion is in the lead, "guest accommodation cabins" could be shortened to just "guest cabins"; but feel free to use or reject this idea as you wish. I also made a few small edits myself to the text. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and support. Agree about the redundancy there – edited as suggested. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Edwininlondon

A fine article. To the point. Just a few comments:

  • Lead opening: Severe Tropical Cyclone Ada -> I don’t want to be too fussy, but should all of this be bold?
  • That's the storm's official name, so per WP:LEADSENTENCE I believe it's correct for the full title to be in bold. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ada devastated multiple resort islands -> Surely loss of life comes first
  • Well, conventionally with natural disaster articles, we place the most important figures (ie. loss of life and monetary damage) at or close to the end of the paragraph/passage/blurb as a logical place to round out the storm's effects. I'm willing to make the suggested change if you consider it crucial, but I do think it would be a bit strange to mention the number of deaths before placing the disaster in proper context. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, it's fine. I don't think we should break with convention.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As Ada reached North Queensland -> was there no prep at all for the islands?
  • There were generally no preparations anywhere except by the BoM. I was grouping together the islands as part of North Queensland, but since that wasn't clear, I linked the North Queensland article which does discuss the Whitsundays as part of the region. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Findings from studies of -> Would this not be better in the aftermath section?
  • Perhaps from a purely chronological standpoint, but the placement of that line was deliberate as it's closely related to the rest of the preps info. I wouldn't even know how to incorporate it into "Aftermath" without compromising the flow of the text. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • was identified near Long Island. -> definitely a link, but maybe even a modifier such as “one of the Whitsunday Islands”
  • may have exceeded 220 km/h -> should this not be in the Met section?
  • I feel that it's more natural where it is now, since it's an impact-dependent figure. Typically winds actually observed on land are mentioned in the "Impact" section. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • a woman in one of the structures was killed -> again I would describe loss of life first, definitely before trees
  • Well, the first few sentences of that section describe the overall impact before transitioning to a by-island breakdown, including individual fatalities. I've added a line break to hopefully make that transition more apparent. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and suggestions! – Juliancolton | Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
All fine. I support.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I especially like the tracking image for this one: a mind-changing storm? Reads well. I have but three minor suggestions.
  • Images need alt text.
Meteorological history
  • "Beginning around 14:00 UTC, the core of Ada crossed the Whitsunday Islands." – As I read the lede and this section, I found myself wondering just how far off the coast the islands are. Since Hayman Island is the first individual island mentioned, perhaps adding the approximate distance to the coast from there would be helpful.
  • "and public awareness was overall inadequate" – Slightly smoother as "and public awareness was generally inadequate"?

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image review anywhere? And just to note that there are still some unaddressed comments by Finetooth; the alt text is one that I'd also be raising. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege

Nominator(s): PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege is a bit of an odd duck of a video game, beginning with the title, as the game contains no besieging of dungeons. It got great reviews and sold 1.7 million copies, enough to still be the 70th-best selling PC game even as the market continues to expand... and yet it's considered only the 3rd-best computer RPG of 2002, behind Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind, both of which had better reviews and higher sales. And today, 15 years later... Dungeon Siege is less remembered than either of them: its plot was almost nonexistent, Chris Taylor's favorite word seems to have been "cliché" when it came to designing anything, and its sequels seem to have gotten progressively worse. In fact, the first thing I found when researching this article was a claim that Dungeon Siege represented the turning point where RPGs shifted from experiences focused on deep stories and characters to shallow thrill rides that emphasized "loot", number treadmills, and massacring hordes of enemies for paper-thin reasons.

And yet, Chris Taylor did one thing incredibly right by pushing so hard to release extensive modding tools and documentation—because some of the mods and total conversions people made with this game are still some of my fondest gaming memories, and therefore despite all its flaws Dungeon Siege will always have a place in my heart. I hope this article represents the game well, and if it inspires you to play it... well, you should probably play Morrowind instead, honestly, but I hope you like it anyways. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe the infobox image needs an ALT text. I believe ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box needs to be completed for the image in the "Gameplay" section. There are a few spots with "n.a." shown that need to be filled in.
  • When you describe how you can change the main character's appearance, I was wondering if you could change the character's gender as well. Would it be worth to noting that? This is more of a clarification question.
  • In the lead, you mention that the Krug are "resurgent after being trapped for 300 years" yet that information does not appear to be directly present in the "Plot" section (at least to my knowledge). Could you possibly clarify this?
  • This is not a major issue, but I am a little curious about the image used in the "Development" section. It is definitely appropriate for the content, but the image's quality seems rather low. I am leaving this point for whoever does the image review, but I was curious if you could possibly get a higher-quality image. If not, then it is fine; just wanted to point this part out.
  • IGN should not be shown in italics in the Reference section. Same for Metacritic.
  • Would it be worth noting that the films were directed by Uwe Boll considering that he directed many films based on video games and has a rather infamous reputation?

Wonderful job with this article; it was an interesting read. There is not much that I noticed that needed improvement. I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Responding in order:
  • Alt text added to all 3 images
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated the FUR
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes you can, added
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a combination of a couple lines from Plot- that the Seck brought down the Empire of Stars and were then imprisoned underneath Castle Ehb, and the first line that the kingdom of Ehb was created 300 years prior at the dissolution of the Empire of Stars.
  • That makes sense to me; I assumed that it was addressed somewhere in the section and that I was just overlooking it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I went searching before nominating, but I couldn't find a better free-use image of Taylor (or fair-use I could ask to be re-licensed)
  • Just wanted to make sure; the image appears appropriate for the section, but just wanted to check on the quality. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (handled below)
  • Yes, I think so. Added. --PresN 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; this was a very fascinating read. I will support this nomination. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could add some comments for my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so though. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from TheSandDoctor
  • I have added an ALT text to the infobox image as mentioned by Aoba47.
  • Regarding the comment by Aoba47 about IGN and Metacritic being italicized, isn't that something just to do with the cite template used? I looked at the source and at the references and saw a lot of |work=[[IGN]] but no '' (which would indicate it being italicized).

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It was a small factor that I noticed while reading through the article. If it is something caused by the cite template used, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands. Thank you for adding the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: About to run to a meeting so I haven't gotten to these yet, but yes, any website that's in italics in the references is because the cite web template italicizes whatever's in "work", which IGN is with Ziff Davis as the "publisher". My understanding is that trying to counter it by italicizing it again inside the parameter is contraindicated as it makes some very weird html as the output. --PresN 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries, thank you for clarifying this for me; then I will strike out my comment as it has already been addressed. Good luck with your meeting! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its been awhile since I listened to them, so I do not know if they provide additional information to your other sources, but Matt Barton has interviewed both Chris Taylor and Neal Hallford in his Matt Chat Youtube series. Might be worth checking out. Indrian (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were a couple sentences in there that I didn't have, added. Thanks! --PresN 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth studio album by American rock group Marilyn Manson. I've edited the article significantly since it was last nominated here (it's been nominated a total of 6 times since 2011). I've gone through every archive with a fine tooth comb and dealt with everything that was ever raised—except the issue in archive3 about converting the Mercury logo from *.jpg format to *.svg (I have no idea what an svg is, and none of my image editing software has the ability to create svg's). Aside from this, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. This would be my second FA, after The Pale Emperor. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Does "declaration of war" have to be wikilinked? Its strikes me as a bit inappropriate. Suggest you put it in quotes also.
Done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • "citing rumors that they contained animal sacrifices, bestiality and rape" - strongly suggest you add a comma and then add information that these rumours were completely false. Snopes has a article you might find handy for this: [11]
Changed to "Numerous politicians lobbied to have their performances banned, citing false and exaggerated claims that they contained animal sacrifices, bestiality and rape." Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • "alleged that the shooters were fans, and were wearing the group's T-shirts during the massacre" - again, can you find a source that states this was incorrect then add that information to the sentence?
added ", although these reports were later proven to be false." with new source.
  • "Gigwise ranked it at number ten on their list" - What year did this happen?
2008. Added.
  • "Drowned in Sound rated the album 10 out of 10, highlighting the band's performances." 'highlighting the band's performances' is rather vague and seems to raise more questions than it answers regarding why it got 10 out of 10. Can you be a little more specific?
Added quote from review.
  • "was seen by music critics and fans alike as the best album of the band's discography, as well as one of the greatest rock albums of all time" - I think you're going to need direct inline citations for that claim.
This was sourced by The Needle Drop's review of The Pale Emperor, but apparently he's not WP:RS. Whoever removed the review neglected to remove this comment. I couldn't find another source to match the exact wording, so I've removed this completely and expanded the entire paragraph with some more features/articles discussing the album's impact. Homeostasis07 (talk)

Well done on the article overall. Very close to supporting. If this nomination doesn't pass, notify me the next time it gets nominated and I'll be happy to comment on it again. Freikorp (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed everything raised above. Let me know if you're not happy with any of the changes I've made, and I'll try again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks great. Supporting. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

M-1 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about what is arguably the most important state-level highway in Michigan. It's the only All-American Road in the state and home to many of Detroit's historic sites as well as the city's entertainment districts. It's been a state highway for over a century. I think it's a subject worthy of evaluation for inclusion among Wikipedia's best work. Imzadi 1979  03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at the previous FAC and have reviewed the changes since then and still feel this article meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I reviewed this article several years ago at the ACR stage, and commented extensively in the previous FAC. While I felt that there were some nitpicks that could have made the article better, I felt that the article was FA quality. I still feel the same way today, even after reading through the controversial Culture section. However, I do have a few comments:
    • Later, the street was home to the jazz clubs of the 1910s and 1920s - this is a bit vague/awkward. All the clubs? And just those of the 1910s/1920s?
    • During the 1940s, ministers lobbied for a law to prevent the issuance of additional liquor licenses in their neighborhood; the law was overturned in 1950 - missing context, or perhaps the order of the last 3 sentences in the paragraph should be rearranged
      • I think I clarified these two points together, trying to tie in the notion of transition from "sacred" to "profane" as noted in the quote at the end of the paragraph. Imzadi 1979  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • undergone a renaissance - a bit vague
    • important entertainment fixtures - according to?
      • Added a citation, tweaking the wording a bit to match. Imzadi 1979  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The district is the most compact collection in any American city - needs an "according to"
    • "huge crowds" - be more specific or drop it entirely. Rschen7754 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I moved up the specific example from later in the paragraph to clarify. Hopefully this helps, Rschen7754. Imzadi 1979  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - issues resolved. --Rschen7754 02:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "enough so that two of them were stolen in the first months after installation": There's a continuing discussion at FAC over whose opinions and actions are significant enough to warrant inclusion in featured articles. Some people want to see only those opinions with the highest levels of gravitas; others believe that polls of popular opinion are just as inclusion-worthy. No one has been arguing that the actions of vandals count as data to back up opinions. Some of the paragraph feels a little bit promotional to me, but it's not my call.
  • Everything else looks great, so far. Back soon. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the work so far. I've removed most mentions of theft-related issues to the signs, but since they are sold to support roadway maintenance, I don't feel it's too promotional to retain that angle, Dank. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979  21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Now I don't have a problem with it at all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Through various approvals in 2011, and subsequent changes including a bus rapid transit system with a dedicated Woodward Avenue bus lane.": Not a sentence.
  • "The line was to have 20 different stations serving 12 stops", "The line will have": The line has opened, so "was to have" is wrong, and "will have" should be replaced by how many it has.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  1. File:Michigan 1 map.png: Use of image is obviously appropriate. Wondering if the file may merit a better name, but not strictly relevant here. What is the provenance and copyright status of the basemap? The file description is a bit unclear.
  2. File:M-1.svg: License and use OK.
  3. File:DetroitWoodwardAvespringsummerday.jpg: License(s) and use seem OK to me. Is that really the starting point of a highway?
  4. File:Wayne State U-Woodward Avenue.jpg: License and use OK.
  5. File:M-1 at I-696.jpg: License and use OK. Looks already more like a highway in that point.
  6. File:M-1 in Bloomfield Hills.png: License and use OK, curiosity wonders about the lack of EXIF.
  7. File:Woodward tribute.jpg: Same issue as below, although it's closer to meeting NFCC#8.
  8. File:Woodwardsign.jpg: Concerned that the non-free image does not meet the f its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding NFCC#8 standard; it certainly does not help me understand anything about this highway.
  9. File:Fox theatre Central United Methodist church.jpg: License and use OK.
  10. File:Woodward Dream Cruise Batmobile.jpg: License and use OK.
  11. File:Old map 1807 plan.jpg: License and use OK, might want to add a commons:Template:PD-scan template to dot the i's.
  12. File:Judge Woodward.jpg: Use OK, but how do we know that the image is free to use?
  13. File:Woodard Avenue & Windsor.png: License and use OK, might want to add a commons:Template:PD-scan template to dot the i's.
  14. File:Woodward Ave Detroit 1942.jpg: Use OK, license in source a bit vague.
  15. File:Woodward Avenue in winter attire, Detroit, Mich.png: Use OK, license in source a bit vague.
  16. File:Test train at Campus Martius station, May 2017.jpg: License and use OK.

There is some incomplete ALT text. I am guessing that it is supposed to be completed by the caption, yeah? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbering your points, Jo-Jo Eumerus for specific replies:
1. The naming scheme for the map files is over a decade old, and as time allows, the maps on the Michigan state highways (M-) are being replaced to match the updated style used by other articles with a better naming convention for the new map file. The entire map, save the inset, is from the same dataset, and the result is entirely the creation of the cartographer who made the map, again save the inset.
3. I'm unsure of the meaning behind the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" That is south of the M-1 segment of Woodward Avenue, which doesn't start until the intersection at Adams Avenue on the north side of Grand Circus Park. Not all state highways are rural roadways or freeways, and many follow what otherwise appear to be city streets in whole or in part. The photo is included to illustrate the southern segment of Woodward Avenue, which is discussed in the article in the adjacent paragraph.
6. That photo was taken by me with an old iPhone and then processed in Photoshop CS6 to correct the perspective and color tint from the car windshield. I believe the phone didn't record the same range of EXIF data that the current models do, and what it did record, Photoshop may have discarded in the editing.
7 & 8. These two images are illustrative of the topic (sign, tribute) discussed immediately adjacent to their usage.
11. Added.
13. Already had that template.

As for the alt text (which isn't a FA requirement), yes, it's supposed to be supplemented by the captions. Imzadi 1979  21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Eumerus. Hard to spell name? Anyhow, the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" was more an offtopic curiosity question seeing as as highways are a fairly alien thing for me. The problem with #8 is that it's not at all clear that the article would lose much if at all if it were removed. And non-free images are generally only kept if there is a good "keep" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Blame auto correct sneaking back in on that one, Jo-Jo Eumerus. As for the sign, it's illustrative of the National Scenic Byway/All-American Road status of the roadway, which is why it was put in the section discussing it, although it could be argued to be just as identification-based as the main M-1 marker in the infobox. Imzadi 1979  22:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if that logo is particularly helpful. The signs, sure, if that highway is well used many people driving on it are bound to see them. But the logo strikes me as useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp: I'm close to supporting. Just a few comments, the first of which is below.

  • Some inconsistency of serial vs. non-serial comma, with a few examples below:
  • (NS) "The street is one of the five principal avenues of Detroit, along with Michigan, Grand River, Gratiot and Jefferson avenues."
  • (NS) "Along the way, it passes several important and historic sites, including notable buildings like One Woodward Avenue, the Guardian Building and The Qube."
  • (NS) "In addition to music clubs, many of Detroit's other major entertainment venues are located on or near Woodward in downtown Detroit, including the Fox Theatre, Majestic Theater and the rest of the theater district,"
  • (S) "ll of M-1 north of I-75 is listed on the National Highway System,[5][6] a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility."
  • (S) "South of I-94, Woodward heads through the Cultural Center Historic District, which includes the campus of Wayne State University, the Detroit Public Library, and the Detroit Institute of Arts;" Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Religion, entertainment, and cars:

  • "Nightclubs along Woodward hosted a burgeoning music scene in the early days of rock 'n roll,[34] and the area also had plenty of bars and even burlesque shows as late as the 1970s." Is "even" necessary here? It sounds possibly non-neutral. Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Streetcars and subways:

  • In the end it sounds like no subways were built. Would a better name for this section be "Streetcars and other public transportation"? This would also include the buses that are mentioned in this section and take emphasis off the non-existent subways. Just an idea.

Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  • One other thing: there are some places where multiple instances of "also" are clumped together. You could try to use some synonyms such as "similarly", "likewise", "as well", "additionally", "too".
  • (Lead) "It has also been designated a Pure Michigan Byway by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). The roadway was also included in the MotorCities National Heritage Area designated by the US Congress in 1998."
  • (Lead) "The Saginaw Trail also connected to the Mackinaw Trail, which ran north to the Straits of Mackinac at the tip of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. In the age of the auto trails, Woodward Avenue was also part of the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway that connected Portland, Maine, with Portland, Oregon through Ontario in Canada. It was also a part of the Dixie Highway, which connected Michigan with Florida. Woodward Avenue was the location of the first mile (1.6 km) of concrete roadway in the country.
  • (Woodward Dream Cruise) "The numerous drive-ins, each with its dedicated local teenaged clientele, were also popular. Woodward also had numerous car dealerships and automobile accessory shops in the age of the muscle car which completed the formula for young adults to "cruise", race and hang out along the road." Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review, Moisejp. I've acted on your suggestions. We should have serial commas throughout now, and some judicious applications of editing or synonyms should help. Imzadi 1979  13:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool. It all looks good now. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Coord note -- did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Metallurgical Laboratory

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, one of the key sites of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have one query. In British and Australian English, "down tools" means stop work as a form of industrial action. I take it from your edit that this may not be understood by American readers? So I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Correct. In American English, your edit "taking action" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A year later the opening paragraph, much less the opening sentence, still doesn't say what the Metallurgical Project is. What is it, by the way? I think if no one is willing to do the most basic work on an article to address issues already raised, it's premature to nominate it for FA status. See old ignored post on article talk page. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BA (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It is in the article. Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
One word? Is it a building? A project (if so to do what)? A group of scientists? A mission? Wasn't the Met Lab the group that was supposed to design the first production pile? The first sentence is more about the Manhattan Project, the second about the Metallurigcal Project, then we move confusedly onto when it was established, whatever it is, some Nobel laureate, a university. The Metallurgical Lab is a cat. What is it? If it can't be said outright without all these asides that seem to be obscuring a lack of insight, I'm not sure there's enough information to write a FA. I disagree with it being a good article with this lead. I'm pretty sure it's the mission for creating the production pile, but not positive. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:87 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It already says it all. If you cannot comprehend something so simple, you cannot review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The lead is obscured by asides everywhere. It talks about everything the Met Lab is part of, people who had Nobel prizes and led universities. Maybe you know what the Met Lab is. So, why not say it? "A rocket is a ...." "An electron is a ...." "The Metallurgical Laboratory is a ...." Not what it's part of. What it is. Not where it was. What is the Metallurgical Laboratory? What is it?
Even here, you want to bring it to FA, but you discuss me rather than say what the Met Lab is. --2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's some examples from other parts of the Manhattan Project: "The Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (ALAAP), was a United States munitions plant ...." "The Alsos Mission was an organized effort by a team of United States military, scientific, and intelligence personnel ...." "The Ames process is a process by which pure uranium metal is obtained." "The Ames Project was a research and development project." Then after saying what it is the articles go on to say where and the topic's role in the Manhattan Project. --2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have re-organised the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. My only opposition was the lead, but I don't know how to do a strike through, maybe someone could take care of that?. I think the lead is not only better but quite good. Thank you. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:54 (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Be consistent on using states with publication locations, you sometimes give them and sometimes don't (i.e. Berkeley ...I understand not doing New York, but Berkeley is not a well known world city nor is Urbana (trust me, I live near Urbana!)
    I imagine that it is a university town. I have added states to the locations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

  • the term "bone seeker" in the lead should be explained in layman's terms, also in the body, and linked
    Astonishingly, bone seeker has an article, so linked to that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest μg is not commonly recognised, and microgram be used and linked, with the abbrev after in parentheses
    I would have thought it was pretty common; it's been on the Year 2 syllabus since 1972. There is an article though, so linked to that.
  • link Zinn at first mention (instead of second), and then use just Zinn per WP:SURNAME
    done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Same with Anderson
    done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the license of File:Argonne history Chicago Pile-3.jpg needs work, I think the DoE license would be the right one to use here
    done. I vaguely recall that Flickr does not allow you to upload with PD, so many agencies up;load PD images as CC-BY-SA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

That's me done, great work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

Painting about old age and aging by Jan van Eyck dated to c. 1434-36. Its great for several reasons, most of all because of how van der Paele, a significant operator in early 15th century Bruges, allows himself to be depicted without any regard to vanity, at all. Alas, Victoria is retired and will not be active on this FAC, so I'll have to do instead. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review All images seem to be properly used and in proper format, with the following issues:

Ok. Have added licencing to the first, and replaced the second. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Have swapped out this now. Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I was watching you work through. Appreciate the edits and support very much. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

This is an interesting article, nicely illustrated. I bring no special knowledge of the subject to this review, but I'm able to comment on the prose, the logic, and questions related to the Manual of Style. Overall, the article reads well and has very few problems that I can detect. I made a few minor edits, mostly substituting en dashes for hyphens in page ranges. Here are my other thoughts:
  • Images need alt text.
  • When I read these alt texts, I try to imagine what they would mean to me if I were blind. Some seem helpful; "Representation of Eve shown on the arm of the throne" would allow me to imagine, at least to a limited extent, what the image is showing. Some, though, would not give me much to go on. For example, "The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, Oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434–36. Groeningemuseum, Bruges" for the lede image doesn't tell me that there are two other people in the painting or how they are dressed or positioned or that the canon is kneeling. The alt text can't be enormously long, but many of these seem too skimpy to me to be helpful. Would you mind having another stab at these with blind readers in mind? Finetooth (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, with the disclaimer, that the lead and body describe the paintings in detail, and the alt text should prob also adhere to the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. Can you take another look. Re sources: some of the alt descriptions are from other articles I and a few others had worked on earlier, and are well sourced...if needs be. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. They are much better. I deleted "with an overhanging" from Madonna of Jan Vos because it made no sense to me, and the sentence made sense without it. Please adjust if I misunderstood. I'm now happy to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph seems problematic to me in a couple of ways. The lede is to be a summary and should not contain information that is not mentioned in the main text. Examples: Is the oak frame mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the panel "contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting"? Is Illusionism mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the work is "one of the earliest known sacra conversazione paintings..."? The other problem that I see is that some of the claims in this third paragraph are supported by citations, and usually the lede needs no citations if the claims are repeated and cited in the main text. My suggestion would be to move the direct quotations in this paragraph to appropriate places below and to cite them there and to make sure that other claims such as the one about the oak frame appear there also.
  • ¶2 " question his mortality..." – Perhaps "to reflect upon" rather than "to question"?
  • ¶2 "His bequest allowed him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week." – I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps "In return for his bequest, the church granted him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week meant to intercede with the divine on his behalf"? Some of this becomes more clear to me later in the section, but I think something is needed here. Adding something here might mean tinkering a bit with the stuff lower down to avoid repetition.
  • ¶3 " known to have actively sponsored..." – Delete "actively" since "sponsored" contains the action?
  • ¶1 "The Virgin sits on an elevated throne situated below..." - Delete "situated"?
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, all done now. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Van Der Elst The Last Flowering of the Middle Ages appears to have a wrong ISBN - when I click on the ISBN link to go to WorldCat, WorldCat shows no entry for that ISBN number. I can find the book through searching the title, but not for a 2005 printing.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, have fixed the ref for Van Der Elst. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Looks good - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

...left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality and his position as canon. - I'd be tempted to switch to "left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." - gives it more gravitas..and can't be a canon if you are dead...?
do we have any clue as to van der Paele's illness? As a doctor I am curious about these things... oops, missed the footnotes. nevermind.

Otherwise looks all in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ta. I've moved the diagnosis from the notes into the article body; it was a good question and I think most people would wonder when reading. I agree also on the reflections of mortality; done. Ceoil (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

  • The detail pics should be redone from the decent main pic, rather than using old ones from the ropey Yorck Project pic. This doesn't take a moment with croptool.
  • Only 2 paras in the lead.

More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Re the images - am intending to redo tonight per your suggestion. Re the lead; see comments above; also on my radar! Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any good reproductions to crop from. This is always an issue with the Groeningemuseum. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod, were you still planning to add further comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
er, well, yes, I hope so, but please don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Continuing:
  • "both the front piece for an altar and serve as his epitaph". Not just a normal altarpiece, fixed over the altar? Surely not an altar frontal, below it?
    Resolved Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The painting is line with a series of inscriptions which comment of the saint they are positioned, and include van Eyck's signature." huh?
    Hmm. Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "St. George stands beside him, presenting the elderly priest to Mary, with his hat raised in respect." It's metal, so "helmet" surely? So called by Brine (first page), Pacht (quoted below) and Snyder (Snyder, James. Northern Renaissance Art, 1985, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN 0136235964).
    Resolved Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • We are I think using British English, but there is: centered, center, colors (otherwise there is "colour" also).
    Mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The concept of purgatory as an intermediary state before admission to heaven was at its height" - not really; it was becoming standard, and indulgences were reaching their height, no? Masses for the dead were perhaps at a peak (Harbison, 60).
  • "Donatian is described as having "Enjoy[ed] the Glory of God"," - Harbison, 59 has "now enjoys the glory of God" which seems better (and which you use later).
    Have applied Harbison. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "phrases from the Book of Wisdom, comparing Mary to an "unspotted mirror".[7]" - might expand, per Harbison, 59. - Could add later, around note 28.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Commission" section - Brine covers this in massive detail, & is the most recent. Some 2nd refs to him would be good.
  • "Van Eyck abandons the strict symmetry and clear theological basis of the typical Italian sacra conversazione to create a work that stands up to a variety of interpretations" - there hardly was a "typical Italian sacra conversazione" in 1436, indeed Encyc Brit describes as the first sc the Annalena Altarpiece by Fra Angelico, c. 1438–40 (probably wongly, but even so). If by "clear theological basis" you mean not mixing saints and sinners in the same space, better to say so.
  • "It is a departure from conventional and contemporary central and northern European memorials" (I changed from "epitaphs" which are strictly text only). Not quite what Brine is saying, I think.
  • "The carved figures on the throne and on the capitals behind include Old and New Testament characters, and may allude to either the Crucifixion – to the left of the Virgin and Child – or the Resurrection – to the right of the two figures." (and picture captions below) And then later: "The carved figures on the upper arms of the throne are representations of Adam and Eve, and those on the legs are prefiguring events from the Life of Christ,[7] as well as Old Testament scenes, including the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac.[6] All too compressed, and rather confused. Adam and Eve are on the uprights of the throne, with Cain and Abel and Samson killing the lion the carvings in the round rising from the arms. There isn't any difficulty in identifying these, surely? Also the other scenes are on the architectural capitals, which is where the meeting of Abraham and Melchizedek and the Sacrifice of Isaac are. Harbison, 61 & Snyder. The iconography section would be the natural place for this.
  • Personally I'm super-dubious about doctors diagnosing figures in old master paintings, though they do love to do it.
    Readers love to read it also; its human interest. Will need to make a call - either heavier disclaimers or banishment to footnotes. Not decided. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "reflective of his status as patron saint of the Bruges collegiate" - or more simply, "dedicatee of the cathedral the painting was made for, and of the city of Bruges"? Earlier you refer to "St. Donatian's collegiate church", but it was the cathedral. Better to say so (adding destroyed 1799). I was confused.
  • George "is the donor's name saint" - belongs much earlier I think.
  • "The artist depicts himself standing at his easel," could be earlier than the end of the style section.
    Now moved to the St. George paragraph in description; though considering mentioning it in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Provenance - Brine has good detail on the history before the French.
  • In general the layout seems a bit higglety-piggelety, with info coming slightly randomly. Brine and Harbison's conclusions & interpretation are only covered very allusively (they are the sources you use that I have or can see). The whole question of the purpose, and intended placing, of the work deserves a bit more, i think.
Thinking about coherence; this will likely be the last issue addressed as the article evolves from the above points. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks John. It will take around 3 weekends to reconfigure the article, if that timeline is ok with the delegates. I will reply to John's subject matter expert review intermittently, and then ping him here when done. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry it took so long for me to do a proper review. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, there's no rush here. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for offering another stunning beautiful painting! I took the liberty to change some image positions, and the fixed sizes, "upright" is more considerate of a reader's preferences.


  • I'd prefer the explanation going from the things you see at a glance to those covering details, especially mention the Canon sooner. I fear that not every reader will know without a link what a Canon is, or - worse - may think to know. As usually, no other comments to the lead until I read the rest. Just one:
  • Not sure I know what a "sacred space" is.
    The lead was gutted last night, as it had a bunch of info not covered in the body. I agree with your approach; will be redrafting later. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


  • "... left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality" - means he was unable to fulfill and unable to reflect, no?
This has been redrafted Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "'In return for his bequest, ..." - where does the quote end?
    EEk, wasn't a quote, stray punctuation. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • chaplainy, chaplaincy?
  • "It was installed at the main altar" - what does it mean? As the main altar? Adjacent?
  • Should have been "On" (or in front of). Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Yes, there's a link to sacra conversazione, but how about a few words explaining, or at least a translation?
  • Check sentences beginning with "it" and "he" if it's really clear what is meant.
  • If Virgin and Child are linked again, how about other terms from the lead as well. New Testament didn't even appear there. (Common practise, to my knowledge: link in lead and first appearance afterwards)
  • Please decide Romanesque vs. romanesque, and St. Donatian/George/other vs. St Donatian/George/other. (I know the latter as strictly English.)
  • Romanesque is only in lowercase within a quote - looking at the others. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Parrot? (The sources probably have it, but it looks less like a parrot than this one, - also a FAC, btw.)
    I need to follow up more on this - if it is a parrot, its one ugly example :) Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    More to follow on the parrot / or not! Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the building's relic seems a bit too complicated, - split?
  • Yes, and trimmed Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Explain or link ADONAI?
  • link to biblical source?
  • Not sure how, if you mean to the likes of 7:29. Can you help here? Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • yes: Wisdom of Solomon 7:29 (and to bed) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How about explaining Mary's first, then the left, then the right?

Style and format

  • Can the image with the self-portrait go here, where it's mentioned? (... and the pilasters, not mentioned, elsewhere?
Thank you, for this and many more. Next wish: The Rolin to where it is mentioned, to focus on the Canon (and have his image right). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


  • "local French-speaking and national Dutch-speaking officials of Bruges" - to my knowledge, the locals speak Dutch, and the nation is divided Dutch and French, both official. I'd say Flemish, not Dutch, but have been corrected several times. This year, I have an image from Bruges on my user page, DYK?
Hmm. I have simplified this a bit. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Can the (last) image of the Canon's head go to where the rendering of his illness is described?

That's it for now, enjoyed it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Gerda, glad you like the painting. Will be getting to these very helpful points this evening. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
All, done, I think Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Very nice, though hardly Maoist art:) Just a few comments.

  • "Mary is positioned at the center of a tight semicircular and space" is semicircular a noun?
  • The ending of the lede seems weak.
  • "An illness around 1431[3] left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." I might substitute "function" for "role", or use some other term. Role doesn't really seem to fit. I might add a "caused" after the first use of "and".
  • "Art historian Barbara Lane speculates that van der Paele may have sought divine protection through prayers and the depiction of intercessors in the painting as relief from his long illness." I'm in doubt what the last part of this sentence means, whether vdP was hoping for a distraction or divine healing.
  • "There was a trend towards the sponsorship of requiem masses, often as part of the terms of a will, a practice that van der Paele, in his official capacity, is known to have sponsored. With this income he endowed the churches with embroidered cloths and metal accessories such as chalices, plates and candlesticks" In the second sentence, assuming the income spoken of is the gifts coming in and vdP had the responsibility of spending it, I might say "In his capacity as canon, van der Paele spent money paid for masses on embroidered cloths for the churches and metal ..." or some such.
  • "Most likely the work was first hung in the church nave as an accompaniment to an altar for Saints Peter and Paul and used for memorial masses for van der Paele and his family." How was the panel used?
  • "The painting contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting[" I might say "depictions" for "examples" unless I'm missing something. I might also switch to "of an Oriental carpet"
  • "Madonna of Jan Vos. Jan van Eyck and Workshop, 1441–43s." (picture caption) what's with the s on the date?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Wehwalt, all valid and useful points. I agree with all your observations; working. Ceoil (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: All done. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Support all looks good. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

These articles are one of the reasons I still hang about Wikipedia, though past my sell-by date. My review is limited to prose and presentation, and i have a few minor points. I'm not insisting you accept them all.

  • "who was then gravely ill" → "who at the time was gravely ill" (otherwise it might be thought that the illness followed the commission, rather than being the reason for it).
  • Why isn't St George linked, while Saint Donatian is?
  • "...a position which afforded him income from the various parishes under his remit, and allowed him to commission the best painter in the region". Suggest a slight rewording: "a position which afforded him sufficient income from the various parishes under his remit to commission the best painter in the region for his proposed work of art".
  • "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the function and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." Again, a slight modification suggested: "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the functions of his office, and led him to reflect upon his position as canon and on his mortality".
  • "the donation" seems a bit weak; perhaps "der Paele's beneficence" (or "benefaction")
  • "It was donated to the church..." → "He donated it to the church..." (active voice)
  • Second para: Can anything be done about four "ands" in the second sentence?
  • The word "from" (second word in third para) needs deleting. "After from..." doesn't make sense.
  • "He abandons..." → "Van Eyck abandons..."
  • "and evidence the influence..." → "and evidences the influence..."
  • Link Romanesque architecture
  • "at the side of her lap" → "at the side of the Virgin's lap"
  • "c. 950". I believe that the use of such abbreviations in WP text is frowned on, so I'd make this "around 950" 9you use this form elsewhere) – and I'd specify AD (There are other instances of "c." in the text}.
  • "According to Ward it is odd...": from the wording it's not clear what Ward considers odd – is it the symbols themselves, or their placement? If it's the symbols, shouldn't it be "they are odd"?
Style and format
  • Third para begins: "As with his..." Pronouns should not be used on the first mention of a person in a paragraph. Van Eyck hasn't been named since the first paragraph in this section.
Provenance and attribution
  • "and while it was in the mid-19th century going through a process of rediscovery..." Rather clumsy – suggest: "and while in the mid-19th century it was going through a process of rediscovery..."
  • "Memling" should be identified as Hans Memling, and linked.

A fine article as expected, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brian, have worked through all of these very helpful and clear suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: Well done, team, and keep on giving us these great articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

Minor comments:

  • Lead: Furs and silks are mentioned, but I couldn't spot mention of them in the main text. (I guess there is mention of St. Donatian's cope, which we find out from the wiki-link would have been silk.)
  • Panel section: "It is a departure from conventional and contemporary central and northern European epitaphs. Van Eyck abandons the strict symmetry and clear theological basis of the typical Italian sacra conversazione to create a work that stands up to a variety of interpretations." Is this meant to fall under ref #14 or possibly ref #11?
  • Style and format: In the sixth paragraph of this section all meant to fall under ref #41 (except for the point about the allusion to early Netherlandish art)? Moisejp (talk) 10:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Question Hi Ceoil, is there any reason why the {{harvnb}} template has not been used on the book citations? I always find it useful to click on a citation and it takes me to the book reference being used. Also, we do not generally hardcode the image pixels. In this case you are already using individual pieces from the main image to illustrate the article. I don't think you need to hardcode the pixel for it. Leads to accessibility issues in narrower screens/tablets/phones etc to view them. —IB [ Poke ] 05:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Because so many people loath it? There is absolutely no required or preferred citation style, and I suggest you don't push your favourite. Johnbod (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Update to delegates Working through the more general, structural issues raised by Johnbod and Moisejp, ie strength of lead, a more coherent structure and groupings of factoids, and a more up to date, comprehensive detailing of the circumstances around the commission. Meeting these will add about another 10kb of text, but its hardly controversial stuff. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

Hi Ceoil, Nice to meet you recently (and several others who have commented on this page too!) Excellent article and some very minor nit-picking from me, none of which detracts from my admiration of your work. I know little of the subject matter, so this is a review of the prose only.

  • You have "center" at the top (and center and centered lower down), but "colour" and "coloured" and a few other British English spellings in the rest of the piece.
  • I'm not sure about the construct "canon; including" – I think a comma would work better than the s-c.
  • Second paragraph we jump from Mary's importance to van der Paele's duties to where van der Paele kept the panel in three sentences. My problems are threefold:
    • The jumps between subject on each sentence are a bit of a bumpy ride. (To overcome this, van der Paele's duties could be moved to the first paragraph, which is more about the man himself);
    • There is no mention that van Eyck completed the work (or when) – that is referred to in the following paragraph
    • Should this history of van der Paele's holding the panel, demolition of the church, etc, be in the Commissioning section? (Renaming to Commission and history, or similar, may suffice?)
  • There is a sneaky "doesn't" which should be un-contracted

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat, yes meeting of some of the five families of the wiki arts and humanities community was very much fun :) Re your comments above, agree with all, and Johnbod has noted other structural issues similar to your suggestion of re-giging the soon to be renamed "Commission and history" section. Am knee deep in all this, drowning in sources, mud and grit; will ping you to revisit towards the end of the w/end if thats ok. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about everything in Sarawak, a territory at the northwest Borneo. Notable of its old rainforests, Mulu cave systems and orangutans. This article has undergone extensive peer-review and copyediting process. All the issues in the previous FA nominations have been addressed. Therefore, I have decided to renominate this article for FA review. Thank you. Cerevisae (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

Interesting article! A few comments:
  • "By 1912, a total of five divisions had been established in Sarawak, each headed by a Resident." A link to Resident (title) is essential here, and possibly a short explanation of what the Resident did (it sounds like it was more-or-less equivalent to a colonial governor?) - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In 1928, a Judicial Commissioner, Thomas Stirling Boyd, was appointed as the first legally trained judge. However, unfamiliarity with local customs led to an advisory Supreme Council, mostly consisting of Malay chiefs, being created to provide guidance. This council is the oldest state legislative assembly in Malaysia, with the first General Council meeting taking place at Bintulu in 1867. - This bit confused me. When was the council created? After 1928, or before 1867? - The council is created when its first meeting took place in 1867. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, the second sentence sounds a bit awkward due to passive voice, and it's not clear who made it. I'd reword it to say "However, due to unfamiliarity with local customs, [Someone] created an advisory Supreme Council, mostly consisting of Malay chiefs, to provide guidance." - Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei People's Party, and Sarawak-based communist groups opposed the federation and in 1962, the Brunei Revolt broke out." This sentence is confusing because it mixes countries and parties. I'd say "The governments of the Philippines and Indonesia opposed the federation, as did the Brunei People's Party and Sarawak-based communist groups, and in 1962, the Brunei Revolt broke out." - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The table of districts and subdistricts seems to be incomplete. For instance, the article on Kuching District says "It is subdivided into three subdistricts: Kuching Proper, Padawan and Siburan", but Siburan doesn't appear in the table. In general though, I don't think you actually need the table - if you do keep it, it would good to link to the articles on the districts themselves. -The table is complete, actually. The Siburan subdistrict had been transferred to "Serian Division" since 2015. All the links to districts have been added. Cerevisae (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The regiment, renowned for its jungle tracking skills, served in the campaign to end the intertribal wars in Sarawak, engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Japanese, in the Malayan Emergency (in West Malaysia) and the Sarawak Communist Insurgency against the communists." A lot of commas and clauses make this sentence hard to read. Maybe deleting the "engaged" and adding an "in" before "Sarawak Communist Insurgency" would make it a bit clearer, but perhaps it would be better as two sentences. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Sarawak coastline is covered with mangrove and nipah forests, comprising two percent of the total forested area in Sarawak, and is most commonly found in the estuarine areas of Kuching, Sarikei, and Limbang." I think this should be something like "...and these forests are most commonly found..." - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cite 110 and 111 are identical! Having four cites in a row looks a bit messy, so you should bundle these. - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "A rail project was announced in 2008 to be in line with the transport needs of SCORE, but as yet no construction work has begun despite an anticipated completion date in 2015." Any update here? - No more updates from the project again but the Sarawak government proposed a new LRT project this year. Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pagan Animism was the traditional religion among the Melanaus, but over time as the Islamic rule of the Bruneian empire dominate, 73% of the population is now identify as Muslims." This sentence sound a bit strange. "but due to the dominance of the Islamic Bruneian empire" maybe? Also, the citations in this sentence are weird. Why is one a footnote? - Done. The footnote is used to specify the exact page that the sentence is coming from, so readers can find the reference faster. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "While the ethnic Chinese originate from a variety of backgrounds and speak many different dialects such as Hokkien, Hakka, Foochow, and Teochew and also the Standard Chinese." This seems to be a sentence fragment - is something missing, or does it just need rewriting? - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hope these comments are useful! Smurrayinchester 09:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Cerevisae (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The second point, about the creation of the Supreme Council, is still not resolved to my satisfaction - it still talks about an event that happened in 1867 as if it happened as a result of something done in 1928. If the Supreme Council came before Thomas Stirling Boyd was appointed Judicial Commissioner then it should come first, or not be connected to him. All the other points look good. Smurrayinchester 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: Issue addressed. The appt of legal judge happens after the first general council meeting.Cerevisae (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Great! All looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 11:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's comments Support

I'm deeply disappointed this was nominated for FAC before Sabah. I look forward to this lamentable lapse being rectified in the future :P (I'm biased because I've been to Sabah and not Sarawak, but I look forward to rectifying that lamentable lapse in the future!).

  • and the independent state of Brunei in the northwest. Brunei is to the west of Sabah but I'd struggle to call it to the northwest of Sarawak. I'd rephrase. - Then I call it north of Sarawak. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • During the 16th century, the Kuching area was known to Portuguese cartographers as Cerava, one of the five great seaports on the island of Borneo.[26][27] By the early 19th century, the Bruneian Empire was in decline The empire is introduced as being in decline over the area - you really need to introduce it as being in the area at all before you do that. The article is a little biased towards colonial and post colonial history, so maybe flesh out pre-colonial history out a bit if you can. - Mid 15th century, Brunei controlled coastal regions of Sarawak before declining in 19th century. Most of the details are dedicated to the Bruneian Empire itself, so there is no mention on what happened in Sarawak during Brunei's rule. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I still think you need to summarise it briefly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: There are few contemporary sources dealing with the Bruneian Empire, as noted in its own article. I have reordered the statements as you wanted them though. Parcly Taxel 09:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You do a good job of explaining the expansion of the Brooke rule, but the statement and brokered a peace in Marudi. cries out for a little more context. - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • and became federated with Malaya, North Borneo, and Singapore to form the federation of Malaysia it's unclear what is meant by North Borneo in this context. Sabah? Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak? Maybe unimportant but would be helpful to clarify. -Done. Clarified as Sabah Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Meanwhile, there are several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues yet to be settled with Indonesia this begs the question about what they are. If they are uninteresting or of low import, maybe rephrase There are also several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues with Indonesia or similar. -Done Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The dominant trees in the peat swamp forests are: ramin, meranti, and medang jongkong. I would link to the articles for these trees if you're going to use the local rather than scientific or English names, as you can't search for them in EN:WIKI - Done. Added scientific names.Cerevisae (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The state is the habitat of endangered animals, including the borneo pygmy elephant, proboscis monkey, orangutans and rhinoceroses. I'd name the rhino species (Sumatran Rhinoceros)
I'll finish my review tmrw. In general though this is a good article and I don't see many problems in getting it featured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC) - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Definitely Sabah will achieve FA soon, because the article is much more detailed and the state is more well-known to the tourists when compared to Sarawak. Cheers. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarawak has a large immigrant work force with as many as 150,000 registered migrant workers working as domestic workers or in plantation, manufacturing, construction, services and agriculture Are these international migrants? (I ask because it's noted earlier that migration from other states is regulated. -Done. Cerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC) Yes, they are foreign migrant workers from other countries.

Otherwise I'd like you to address one more point above, but still I'll Support. Good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Sabine's SunbirdCerevisae (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: I think that this article has reached the FA status. Your help in closing this FA review and formally promote it to Featured Article is very much appreciated, thank you and have nice day. Regards. Cerevisae (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
As a general rule, FACs require a minimum of 3 supports, plus an image and source review. So this one has a little way to go yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Image and source review, support (Parcly Taxel)

I live in Singapore, not far from Sarawak…

Therefore all the images are under free licences or public domain. The captions are also short, sweet, descriptive and related to the surrounding text; the images themselves are neither too few nor too many and complement the text. So the article passes on the images.

Parcly Taxel, thanks for your extensive image review. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Second-last paragraph of History section: Thousands of Sarawak communist members went into Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, and underwent training with the Communist Party of Indonesia. The most significant engagement of the confrontation was fought at Plaman Mapu in April 1965. The defeat at Plaman Mapu ultimately resulted in the fall of Sukarno and he was replaced by Suharto as president of Indonesia. Negotiations were restarted between Malaysia and Indonesia and led to the end of the confrontation on 11 August 1966. Needs a source (or is it already covered in the preceding sentences? If so you can clone the references to here).

The source review is finished and they are all completely fine except for the one issue I pointed out above; once that is fixed I'll support. I've corrected some minor typographical errors along the way. Parcly Taxel 04:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Parcly Taxel:, citation added. Cerevisae (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. All sources are reliable, formatted with citation templates and archived where things have changed. I've changed the wording of some passages too, further addressing the close paraphrasing issues in the second FAC nomination of this article and which I believe have been suitably addressed in the time afterwards. Therefore I support. Parcly Taxel 18:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the support! :-) Cerevisae (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's always good to see a high quality article on a 'big' topic such as a state. I have the following comments:

  • "The Gawai Dayak is an annual festival celebrated on a public holiday, and a lute called sapeh is a traditional musical instrument." - this looks out of place in the lead
    Well it does seem out of place. I've removed that. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The British forces retreated to Singkawang in Dutch Borneo bordering Sarawak." - it was previously stated that the garrison had been withdrawn to Singapore - which is correct?
    Read closely. It said that the air and marine forces were withdrawn. Thus the ground troops must have been left to defend against the Japanese invaders, which I've added in as a clarification. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    That clarification was added after I posted the review. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The author of Australia in the War of 1939-1945. Series 1 - Army - Volume VII - The Final Campaigns (Gavin Long) should be identified in the citation
    You've done it already. Parcly Taxel 09:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't make that change. Why are you posting ill-informed responses to my comments? Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    @Nick-D: I must have been confused while editing the article in response to your comments together with Cerevisae; this includes the immediately preceding point. I am sorry for that. Parcly Taxel 11:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does the history section effectively stop in the 1960s?
    - Developments after 1960s are already addressed in the Government, Economy, and Infrastructure sections. Cerevisae (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    I suppose so, but it does seem surprising that there's nothing worth mentioning. I suppose it says a fair bit about the one-party state and the country's generally positive economic sitution. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The 'Government' section should make it clearer how the government is formed (eg, that the state is - at least nominally - a democracy)
    - democractically elected state assemblymen Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Sarawak's democracy rigged like that for the national government? - the fact that the governing party has never lost an election implies so.
    -Added the allegations of vote buying. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The 'Divisions and districts' section should note whether the positions described are filled by appointees or through elections (or a mix of both)
    - Except for state assemblymen, all other positions in Sarawak are appointed. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sarawak has land and maritime disputes with neighbouring Brunei" - given that the previous paragraph notes that the Malaysian Government now handles foreign affairs, wouldn't this be a dispute between Malaysia and Brunei rather than the state and Brunei?
    - Yes, it is a dispute between Malaysian government and other countries, but border disputes is located at Sarawak borders. Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "with average daily temperature varying between 23 °C (73 °F) in the morning to 32 °C (90 °F) in the afternoon" - is there a specific location this applies to? This also implies a uniform climate, which seems unlikely given the geography - are the highlands cooler than the lowlands?
    - Added highland temperatures.Cerevisae (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding the 'Economy' section, how do living standards / GDP per capita in Sarawak compare to Malaysia as a whole - are the citizens richer or poorer? Are there notable differences in wellbeing across the state?
    - Done. Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " The latter two are satellite campuses of Curtin University in Perth and Swinburne University of Technology in Melbourne, Australia" - while uncontroversial and correct, this sentence needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Suppport My comments are now addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

First of all, kudos in tackling a subject as broad as this. The lead looks good.

The generally-accepted explanation of the word "Sarawak" is that it is derived from the Sarawak Malay word serawak, which means antimony. - a bit repeititve but hard not to be for obvious reasons, I'd tweak to "The generally-accepted explanation for the state's name is that it is derived from the Sarawak Malay word serawak, which means antimony."
"Saya serah pada awak" (I surrender it to you), when he gave Sarawak to James Brooke in 1841. - add who/what Brooke was at the time.
However, the latter explanation is flawed - "flawed" is not a word, I'd use, I'd just say, "wrong/incorrect"

Actually, article looks really good overall. Well balanced ( a feat in itself given the size and breadth of the article), and prose good enough to make me forget I was supposed to be checking it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D and Cas Liber, thanks for your support. I have addressed the comments by Cas Liber. Cerevisae (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Given that concerns were expressed by Graham Beards at the last FAC about close paraphrasing, I'd like someone experienced in this area just to give this the once over before we think about promotion. I should also point out that issues were found in places that weren't directly cited as well, so I'd be grateful if someone could check this too. It might be best to put a request at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe I went through this prior; while checking the references and prose I copy-edited the article to break up close paraphrasing. Earwig's detector does not turn up anything significant after my edits, with the great majority of similarities being small and coincidental. Parcly Taxel 01:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Boogeyman 2

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the horror film Boogeyman 2. A sequel to the 2005 film, Boogeyman 2 takes place in a mental health facilty and focuses on a woman named Laura Porter who wintessed her parents' murder as a child and believes their killer to have been the Boogeyman. She currently is in the asylum to get over her phobia of the creature. This being a horror movie however, things quickly turn to shit, with her fellow patients being murdered one by one and their fears being used against them. I started working on the article in March and after about a month of editing, was able to get it to GA-status a few weeks ago in April. I also had it copy-edited very recently. I'm nominating for FA because I genuinely believe that, considering this is a relatively obscure direct-to-video horror sequel, the article is as informative as it can be. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox and the image in the body of the article.
  • Done, though I kind of suck at alternative descriptions. I'm pretty sure I messed up the description for the second image.
  • In the sentence (Casting began in December of the same year with the casting of O'Connor, and Savre was cast as the star in January 2007.), I would avoid the repetition of "casting" and "cast" in the same sentence.
  • I think I might be having a brain freeze but I really can't think of any other way to write this.
  • Found good alternative. :D
  • Could you clarify the meaning of a "more grounded" version of the character? I am thinking that means a more realistic interpretation of the character, but some context or further information would be greatly appreciated.
  • Rewrote to "grounded and realistic".
  • Please link the Boogeyman in its first reference in the body of the article (i.e. the first sentence of the "Plot" section).
  • Done.
  • Please use the characters' full name when you first introduce them in the "Plot" section (where the characters have full names of course).
  • Done.
  • I would combine some of the paragraphs in the "Plot" section together as I am not sure the separation into smaller paragraphs is necessary beneficial to the reader, specifically the one sentence paragraph at the end.
  • Done. Though from what I've seen, mid or end-credits scenes are always placed alone.
  • I am a little confused by what you mean by "bogyphobia". A little more context would be greatly appreciated.
  • Added that bogyphobia is a fear/phobia of the Boogeyman. I did google it and it appears to be a legitimate phobia.
  • I am not sure that the separate subsections in the "Production" section are entirely necessary as they are pretty short. It may be better to remove them to avoid make the material appear choppy to the reader. Same comment applies to the "Release" section.
  • Followed the "Production" style (which usually goes: Development, Casting, Filming, Effect etc.) presented in other articles. Same goes for "Release", removing the sub-sections and placing them all together would muddle things and information up.
  • Makes sense to me; I will leave this up to more experienced reviewers to look at further. I actually think the subsections negatively affect the article more than help it as having one-sentence subsections (i.e. the "Box office" subsection" and short one-paragraph subsections (i.e. the "Effects" subsection) makes the information come across as choppy and a little underdeveloped. Removing the subsections and interweaving the information into a more cohesive narrative would be beneficial in my opinion to the article. I just wanted to clarify this point; I will keep my support vote up, but I would like a more experienced reviewer to provide some input on this matter if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have any information on how Bell modeled his performance after Dick Cheney?
  • Sadly not as this was the director's comment and he doesn't elaborate further.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "got cast" sounds a little too informal to me so I would revise this.
  • Rewrote to "was cast".
  • I am not sure the identifier "former Heroes actress" is appropriate for the article unless her ties back to the show was influential to the casting process in any way. I would just say American actress or just actress.
  • removed Heroes reference.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do you have any information on how the film performed commercially after debuting in theaters in Russia and Italy? I understand that this information may not be available, but I just wanted to ask about this.
  • I didn't find anything about Italy but in Russia it apparently made 362,724 dollars. However, the Box Office Mojo link to the movie's international gross does list Russia there. Additionaly, the amount of gross for Russia provided at Box Office Mojo is different than the one shown at KinoPoisk.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section needs to be revised to make it have a cohesive narrative tied together by clear topics (i.e. common areas that the critics pointed out or putting all of the negative reviews in one paragraph and the positive reviews in another). I would also use topic sentences to make this clear. I would highly encourage you to use this resource as a guide for revising this section.
  • The reviewes were placed in negative-positive order. However, in both paragraphs I placed the reasons for the reviewers liking/disliking the film and which elements were generally praised or criticized.
  • I would highly encourage you to archive all of your links to avoid having your work being lost due to link decay or link rot.
  • Trust me, I've learned to do that with every article.
  • and Rotten Tomatoes should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for Google Play and MovieWeb and Dread Central.
  • Done.

These are the primary things that I noticed while reading through the article. You have done wonderful work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've attempted to fix all of your comments. I'm not sure if the changes I've made are satisfactory, if not just let me know. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. Great job with this article. I will support it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments for my current FAC? Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support Aoba :). I'll look into Eve, hopefuly by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paleface Jack

Interesting choice for a featured article candidate. I've always said that every article has the potential to become FA or GA, and I did like the first film (hopefully that one gets worked on to GA status)... That being said, regrettably, I don't think this article can go beyond GA status considering there's not a lot of sources that make this stand out as FA material (From what I've seen, Featured Articles usually have a bare minimum of 50 references, although I have seen some with a slightly smaller number). Even though it's a great article, I think GA status is probably the best and highest grade this article can be given since, to me, doesn't feel like FA status material. Sorry man, although this is a good starting point, I wish you best of luck with all your other article projects.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Sorry for intruding on this discussion, but I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I also believe that every article has the potential to become a FA if it fulfills all of the requirements in the FA criteria. I would disagree that only articles with a set amount of sources or more can reach the status of an FA. If the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written with a lower amount of resources (either from the subject matter not receiving a lot of coverage or any other reason), then it should still be in the running for becoming a FA. There are articles that have passed that use lower than 50 sources (respectfully, I do not agree with requirement for " a bare minimum of 50 references"), and some examples are Troy McClure, MissingNo., and Michael Tritter (I primarily cite articles on fictional characters as that is one of my primary focuses on here). I have even brought up an article through the FAC process with a lower number of sources than this nomination and had them successfully promoted. Number of resources is not a part of the FA criteria so I do not believe the commentary and discussion on here should more so focus on the prose and other elements listed in the criteria. Thank you for putting up your comment, and this may be an interesting discussion for the FA talk page, but again I just have to respectfully disagree with you on this point of a source number requirement. Hopefully, a more experienced FA reviewer (and Wikipedia user/contributor) than myself will better address the point, but I just wanted to add my two cents to this. I apologize if I sound rude, and this will most likely be my last comment in this discussion to keep the focus on the review process. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you mean Jack, I too at first thought that if an article doesn't have enough sources, then it would be hard or impossible for it to become a featured article. However, as Aoba pointed out, featured articles are not about how many sources an article has. As I said on the film's talk page, featured articles need to meet four criteria in order to be considered for FA-status; having a bare minumun number of sources is not required and I do believe that Boogeyman 2 meets the four criteria necessary. This is my own opinion - outside of the criteria - but I believe that if an article, regardless of its overall length, provides enough information on the subject that it's talking about, in all important areas, then it has the potential to become a FA. This being a film we're talking about, the article does provide info on development, release and reception. Granted, the information provided is not as much as, for example Alien vs. Predator, but those are two very different movies. PanagiotisZois (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Bluesphere

  • Use the Plainlist template where it is required in the infobox (i.e, producer, starring), and the gross should be condensed, rounded value ($4.3 million vs $4,282,637). Also, I don't think the runtime you provide is correct. The BBFC, which is the most cited reference for a film's runtime here, says it's 89 minutes. [12]
  • Alright, fixed all three points. I hope I used the right plainlist.
  • I notice that the article is not using a consistent date format. (On the one hand the inline citations use the dmy, and on the other uses mdy in the prose.) Since this is an article about an American film, dates should be formatted accordingly using the mdy format. And while we're at it, please add the publishers of those references you added.
  • Regarding the publisher, I believe I've added all of them, at least where possible. Regarding the date format, I might be confused a little but what you're saying is that while the text itself uses the MDY format, the references use DMY?
  • I took care of the date formats for you. What I meant about the publisher concern was that you separate the original work of the reference (putting it in the |work parameter), and the owner/entity of the source in the |publisher in the inline citation. For instance, ref 2 cites Bloody Disgusting which, according to its own article, says it's owned by The Collective. So Bloody Disgusting should be in the |work param while The Collective is in the |publisher. All the other ref must observe this accordingly.
  • As for the prose, everything is flawless. It's like I was enticed to watch the movie just by reading its introductory section. And I must say the same with the plot section. Bluesphere 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Glad to see I'm not the only one that's tempted to watch movies whose articles are well written. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I forgot, the identifier should go "edited and directed by Jeff Betancourt" in the introductory section since he's also credited as the film editor. And unlink his name in the infobox under editor parameter. Bluesphere 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I just took care of the last concern, although I'm not sure if I was allowed to do so. The references appear to be delicate so I archived them. Btw, you've done a pretty decent job with this article, and for that I give you my Support. Best of luck with the other reviewers. While you wait for the other reviewers, perhaps you could take a look at my FL nomination here? Bluesphere 07:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It was very kind of you to fix the references though you didn't have to. I would have done it by the end of the day. I believe large edits aren't encouraged with FAR but those were relatively minor edits and only to the references so I believe it's alright. Thank you for support and I will look into the list; hopefully by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

  • I reviewed this at GAN, and it's looking tighter now. No quibbles to speak of....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed them somewhere, we still need an image and source review. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominators first FA. So we will also need a spot check for accurate usage and close paraphrasing. These can be requested in the same place. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Image/Source review etc. from Cas Liber

  • Both images have suitable Fair Use rationales.
  • References formatted consistently.
  • Earwigs ok, raised score due to (attributed) quotes.
  • FN 10 cited once, faithful to source.
  • FN 13 cited twice, faithful to source.
  • FN 29 cited once, faithful to source.
  • FN 27 unavailable (needs archive?)

Northern England

Nominator(s): Smurrayinchester 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Northern England is, well, the northern part of England. But it's also an increasingly distinctive cultural area, shaped by centuries of Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norman and Scottish invasion and more recently by the rise and fall of heavy industry. In this article I've tried to summarise the region's history, its economy, and its culture to explain why there is such a North–South divide in England. Unfortunately it didn't get any feedback at peer review, but it has had some useful edits from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom. Thanks in advance for any reviews, comments or suggestions. (Still needs a source review) Smurrayinchester 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • (To reviewers - the Politics section may be out of date after tonight's election (eg. if Conservatives become more popular in the North or UKIP utterly collapse). I'll update it once the results are all in and analysis of the results in the North are available from RS.) Smurrayinchester 15:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Updated! Smurrayinchester 18:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Media review

  • Generally speaking maps and diagrams should be scaled up, and as much as is possible the captions should help the reader understand what the colours and symbols used represent when no legend is present.
    • Scaled up where possible (although I haven't been able to check that the page layout still looks OK one the largest screens checked). All images now have legends (except EWHealthMap, which uses a continuous scale (which should be readable at standard resolutions) and instead has a note that "Lighter colours indicate longer life expectancy").
  • File:British_Isles_at_night_by_VIIRS_(cropped).jpg: source image includes a NASA tag, suggest this one should as well
    • Thanks - bug in the Crop Tool meant it wasn't carried across.
  • File:012298-Baltic_Flour_Mill_Gateshead_unknown_1950_(4075866463).jpg: the statement from Newcastle Libraries is not consistent with the licensing tag given - they do not appear to have been the copyright holder
    • Have rewritten the source info, but given that the library seem to be being slightly slack here, I've taken the image out (since can't be 100% sure it is public domain).
  • File:NorthernEnglandPopulationPie.svg: what was the source of the data used to create this diagram? Same with File:EWHealthMap.svg.
    • Sources added.
  • Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Impressive article, done through the bit on agriculture and only a few comments:

  • " The deindustrialisation that followed in the second half of the 20th century hit Northern England hard, and many Northern towns remain deprived compared to Southern England." I would cut the second use of Northern.
Done. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Charles had to call the Long Parliament," it wasn't Long when he called it. Suggest "what became the Long Parliament" or similar.
Done. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "especially Pakistan and Bangladesh, in the 1950s and 60s " Bangladesh became referred to as such in 1971.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Have changed to say "starting in the 1950s" (the source also discusses Bangladeshi immigration in the 1970s and onwards, so that's fine). Before 1971 Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, so the sentence should still be correct without bogging the reader down in the details of the history of East Pakistan.
Thanks! Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "over the previous two decades" I might specify years, since you are saying previous to a two-year range, making exactly what you mean uncertain.
Done. This one was a bit tricky, because life expectancy stats are averaged over several year ranges. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even before the Second World War, the Belgian coast at Ostend had become popular with Northern working-class tourists," There is a slight hint that the war caused the coast to become more popular with British tourists, which may or may not be true, but I'm not sure it's what you're driving for.
Clarified. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "of 24 national museums and galleries in England outside London, 14 are located in the North." I might put a "the" before "24" to make it clear these are the only such museums etc.
Done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Since The Guardian moved to London in 1964" This is the first time you mention it so a link would be appropriate, as might be a way of signaling to the reader that it used to be the Manchester Guardian.
Done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On media, can anything be said about electronic media? More generally, there doesn't seem a lot said about the internet throughout the article. Likely towns are installing wifi through the town centre, or otherwise encouraging technology.
Done. See Northern England#Communications and the internet. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the disbanding of the Cheshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire military bands" possibly a synonym for "disbanding", considering ...
Ha ha, good point! Went for "dismissal" Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some unsourced matter under "rugby". Also under "Rail"
Assuming you're referring to the lists of rugby teams and list of light rail systems, done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jews were forcefully expelled from England by the 1290 Edict of Expulsion" This may be an ENGVAR thing, but "forcefully" comes across more as "energetically" in American English. Also, "expelled ... Expulsion". consider "forcibly banished" or some such.
Done - your wording sounds better. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Links between Northern cities remain poor," It's unclear to me if this sentence is a follow-on from the previous, about freight transport, or is a commentary on transport in general, which is the subject of the previous sentence, the topic sentence of the paragraph.
Have clarified. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Very nice article on a large and somewhat indefinite subject. I certainly learned a few things from it!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Support by Edwininlondon

I enjoyed reading this well-researched, well-structured, well-written article. A few comments so far:

  • This has left the North a region of contrasts -> not quite sure what This refers to
Removed the sentence. It doesn't add anything, and it reminds me of Bart Simpson's awful "Libya is a land of contrasts" essay filler. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Roman place name are in italics, but I don't think that's what [BADITALICS] tells us to do
Yeah, this is unclear to me. Foreign names should be in italics, but proper names generally not. Going to follow the FA Greater Manchester and unitalicise them. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Great Britain in 878 caption -> it may be my monitor but the darkest brown on map does not look much like the darkest legend
I also thought that when I created the legend, but I just double checked and they are identical colours (#dfc779). I guess it's an optical illusion caused by the contrast with the grey box around it. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • many place names and surnames -> an example of each would be good
Have added some examples of place names (for the most part, Northern surnames are taken from place names - Scargill is Norse name for instance, but it's derived from the village of Scargill. The sentence is already a bit bloated, so I've just taken out the mention of surnames) Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Following Norman subjugation, monasteries returned to the North seeking to -> sounds a bit odd to me, monasteries as actors
Added a mention of missionaries. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pilgrimage of Grace -> delink second link
Done Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • the United States or to other colonies -> US no longer a colony at that time
Yeah, that's a slightly confusing sentence. Changed. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • chiefly to the US -> inconsistent with United States just mentioned
I think this is OK - United States at the first instance, US afterwards. I do the same thing with European Union/EU. (MOS says that US and EU are both widely understood enough that they don't need explanation.) I just don't like having two uses of "United States" right next to each other. Maybe it's just inelegant variation. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yorkshire and Humber and the North West both -> Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West both
Oops! Thanks. Smurrayinchester 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A bit more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As promised, here's more:

  • 55.85% --> 2 decimals feels a bit over the top accurate, and inconsistent with other stats
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • register of places of worship registered --> 2 x register
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • the entire north is covered by -> capital N perhaps? Without entire, you would have written "the North is covered by", right?
Yep, fixed. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • United Kingdom or UK? I think it's ok to have United Kingdom once and then do UK, but not "United Kingdom outside London" and "The first mosque in the UK " so far down in the article
Changed. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • in same era caused bus use -> in the same era caused bus use
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • public tram system in UK -> public tram system in the UK
Fixed Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • footnotes: all of them need references
All the footnotes are referenced.* I've changed a couple to nested footnotes where the footnote needs a separate citation, but in cases where the footnote is simply a parenthetical remark (i.e. explaining the non-standard definition of "English-speaking", or enumerating the 10 most deprived boroughs) to a sentence that is cited, I've not added a reference, per WP:CITEDENSE ("Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements."). *(With the exception of footnote 2, which explains terminology used in the article rather than an external fact) Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In general the formatting of the references needs quite a bit of work still:

  • not all books have ISBNs; those that do have inconsistent format: either all ISBN 13 or all 10. I always use to get to ISBN 13
I'm going to try running a pywikibot task to convert all these - there are 87 ISBNs in this article. Run! (The only books I can see now that lack ISBNs are those are older than the ISBN system; The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth for instance doesn't have an ISBN in any catalogue I checked, because it was published in 1920. There are also some university theses and white papers, which don't have ISBNs either) Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • books need a location of the publisher too, I believe
Per MOS:REF, it's optional, and I don't include it because a) it's not always available and b) it clutters the reference without adding any useful information. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • quite a few books don't seem to have a publisher listed at all (just as an example, but there are more: Upton & Widdowson)
Thanks. I think I've caught all these now. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't work out what rules determine whether something is listed in Bibliography or not. Take Highways England (2016). Northern Trans-Pennine Routes Strategic Study (PDF). Department for Transport. pp. 8–9. Why is that the only one with page numbers in Bibliography? Should it even be here?
Page number was a copying error. Any book where more than one page/page range is cited appears in the bibliography, so Harvard referencing works. Books that are only referenced once are simply footnoted - I don't think it helps to clutter the bibliography with books that are only mentioned to cite a single fact. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Bibliography items at the end don't seem to be in alphabetical order anymore.
They should be, although I listed the books without named authors (i.e. the IPPR North and Highways England whitepapers) after the ones with authors. I could mix them in if that makes more sense. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 10:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! If I can get pywikibot working, I should be able to iron out the last point later today. Smurrayinchester 12:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, have managed to convert the page to ISBN-13. (pywikibot doesn't make it easy!) Smurrayinchester 19:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
All fine. I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Many of the comments by Edwininlondon have resulted in the sources being cleaned up a bit, so that's already good.
  • Everything in the article that needs a citation appears to have one. No deadlinks.
  • Sources are of encyclopedic quality.
  • Spotchecks: I looked at the sources for footnotes 29, 92, 122, and 241. All are represented correctly in the text.
  • To conclude: everything looks good as far as sources go. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Smurrayinchester 18:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Kunersdorf

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of Frederick the Great's catastrophes, brought about by his dismissal of Russian and Austrian military skills and his belief in their inferiority. The article is one of four I'm working on: Battle of Hochkirch just passed the rigors of Featured article assessment. One of Frederick's great successes, the Battle of Leuthen is currently undergoing its A class review. The Battle of Rossbach, another success, is presently in puberty. I present it to you for your consideration and look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

This article is in fine shape. I have a few comments/nitpicks:

  • the citation in the lead shouldn't be necessary, the material should be in the body done. added during discussion at A class review.
  • According to the body, Frankfurt was already in Russian hands at the time of the battle done

Seven Years' War

  • suggest replacing "the Silesian province" with "Silesia" done
  • link Company (military unit) I'm not sure what you want here. None of the units have articles (yet). To further confuse things, the units werenot numbered until 1806.'
  • Prussia had achieved done
  • "to pay himFrederick" done
  • suggest "to reinforce the army of Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel." done
  • "and thehis brief occupation" done
  • "the successful" done
  • suggest "carve out a piece" done
  • suggest "had resulted in a draw" ok.done
  • I'm a bit bemused by the anglicisation of Feldmarshalleutnant. This is a unique rank, like the pre-NATO Generalmajor and Generalleutnant, that is easily mistaken for something else when anglicised. I prefer to see it in the original German. Iwould too. It came out in the GA review. I think I have them all now.
  • I would still pipe a link to Lieutenant field marshal, which is, in my view at the wrong title (for the same reason), but that is another matter.
  • suggest "Prussia was strategically on the defense;" done
  • Lieutenant General is not linked to Generalleutnant, but suffers from the same confusion. Modern readers would think this was equivalent to a modern-day LTGEN, when it was not, until NATO at least. the ranks were not even the same then. Generalfeldwachtmeister, etc. it's confusing.


  • In the situation in 1759 section, it says that Laudon joined Saltykov on 5 August, but in this section it says the two armies joined on 2 August. fixed. It actually takes a couple of days for armies to joinup.
  • commander-in-chief' needs an s after it done
  • unscrutable is an archaic form of inscrutable, which I think would be more familiar to casual readers done
  • suggest "they mistrusted each other's intentions" done
  • we've already had the ground explained, so "a ridge of small hills" is a repetition done
  • suggest "by using fallen trees to break up the ground on the approaches" done
  • "that the Frederick" done
  • perhaps "to the south east of the Allied position"? done
  • "feigning", do you mean "feinting"? done
  • one more in this section, the sentence that explains the plan for marching around the Allied position is confusing. It should include where he started from, and how he got from there to the start line for the assault. At present none of this is clear. It appears from map #1 that he started from Müllrose, marched north, skirting around to the west of Frankfurt, then crossed the Oder at Göritz then marched east to an assembly area north of the Allied position. Is that right? It needs to be explained in a similar way.
  • I have to say that the maps do not really help here. With no legend, I can't tell which units belong to the Allies and which ones are Prussian.


  • suggest the section starts with "The battle" rather than "It"
  • the description of the modified plan begs a few questions. From what directions were the two pincers to approach? I suggest referring to the pincers as left pincer and right pincer. The earlier confusion doesn't help.
  • yes, there are some better maps in Die Kriege Friedrichs des Großen. Dritter Teil: Der Siebenjährige Krieg 1756–1763. Berlin 1903 - 1912 but I don't have access to them.There's a series of 4 or 5 that show the entire battle laid out. auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • PM, see if this makes better sense. I tried to clarify. Also could put in a bit on the effort to hold Frankfurt, and the orders Wunsch had to take Frankfurt back....21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest stating that the semi-circle was around the eastern flank of the Allied positions
  • suggest "attack from the southeast" rather than approach, and a comma after southeast
  • the explanation that the three columns exposed them to Russian firepower might not be in the right spot, as battle hadn't been joined at this point
  • shtetl is an unfamiliar term that hasn't been introduced at this point. Could the fact that it was a Jewish settlement and its location be introduced under Dispositions? yes good idea
  • I might not be understanding the ground well, but if Saltykov's left flank was at the shtetl, wouldn't he have been facing northwest?
  • so Finck was going to attack as well, not just demonstrate? Was his the "northerly line" mentioned?
  • suggest the ground was uneven rather than unstable sources say unstable. I think there was quicksand
  • "the horse carriages" should have an initial cap
  • Seydlitz should be in full when first introduced

Turning the Russian flank

  • If Frederick emerged at 08:00 am, then how were the guns in place at dawn? different guns....clarified'
  • what was "the field" the Russian guns were trained on? fixed
  • what sort of soldiers were the first wave? grenadiers? 'probably. He favored mixed troops---guys with muskets, guys with swords,,, and grenadiers.
  • should it be from the Walkberge and...?
  • suggest "assault the well-defended" yep
  • I get lost again when the pincer's are mentioned. I thought the Russian left had been defeated by this point, yet there is mention of the second half of the pincer squeezing the Russian left. Was this Finck's corps attacking from the north, or another force element? It isn't clear what the left and right wings were or where they were located. I'm afraid this needs more work.
once the left was defeated a "new" left formed.  :) I need better maps. but have a look and see

Cavalry attack

  • suggest massed rather than massive, which is a bit puffy

Evening action

  • just check all the examples of Muhlberge for the umlaut yep
  • italicise the German ranks consistently throughout (or not). Rittmeister is italicised, but Generalleutnant isn't. yep


  • who was Frederick's brother? Prince Henry? This should be mentioned when he is first mentioned in the text fixed
  • The format of Duffy (2015b) doesn't match the other citations. I suggest, "The historian/author Christopher Duffy places..." then use the usual citation at the end of the sentence cited to him. Ok, that was some fancy smancy stuff another editor wanted me to use. I'm happier with simplicity
  • Carl Heinrich von Wedel should just be von Wedel or Wedel at this point fixed
  • I think it should be "Prussian kingdom"


  • link abatis, which could bear being introduced in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this is the first mention of the causeway, this should also be mentioned in the Dispositions sectionfixed
  • the redans and bastions should also be mentioned in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this assessment should also mention the blunders pointed out earlier. Perhaps they could be moved to here, not sure...
  • here it is mentioned that the cavalry attack was piecemeal, but earlier it is "massive". I hadn't got the sense that it was piecemeal or that the abatis etc had broken up the cavalry charges until now.
  • Prussian Army should be Prussian army
  • Redman (2015) should be treated the same as Duffy above fixed


  • I'll let you work through these comments and I'll then re-read the article as a whole in a few days to see if there are any other suggestions I have. The lack of an easily interpreted map really detracts from the article overall, as the dispositions and Frederick's scheme of manoeuvre and the various attacks are fairly complex in my view. I'm still struggling to get a sense of all of the moving parts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi PM, @Peacemaker67: I've overhauled dispositions and added a section on terrain, massively expanding the explanation of the ground. I found a couple of different maps, tried them out. See if this helps? Also incorporated your suggestions above. auntieruth (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, I'm just working through now, making minor c/e type tweaks here and there. Please check my work so I haven't changed meaning or inserted errors. A few more points:
  • One thing that still confuses me is in Allied dispositions; it says that Saltykov faced his troops to the northwest, and so did Laudon. Is that right? If he expected the attack from Frankfurt at that stage, wouldn't he have faced his troops to the west? basicallly the attack occurred in the reverse of what Saltykov originally expected.
  • Perhaps mention that Reitwein is 28 km north of Frankfurt when it is first mentioned rather than a sentence or two later.done
  • It now says that the assault across the Kuhgrund was Frederick's second blunder, but I believe the first blunder is no longer highlighted above. Perhaps it would be better to relocate the assessments of Frederick's mistakes to the Assessment section? done
  • Most of the references in the Bibliography don't have locations, and the foreign language ones could do with title translationsI don't believe in translating the titles. if someone can read German, the title is obvious, and if someone cannot, the title is superfluous. Lingzi convinced me to use this *&FO#HG template and this is what it gave me re publications. I read in one of the guidelines too that location was not necessary. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's me done (finally...). You've really improved this article significantly, Ruth. It is easy to follow now, a great read and captures the key aspects well. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Joachim-Bernhard-vp-2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Added
  • Same with File:Brief_von_Friedrich_der_Große.jpg added a publication don't know if it's the first though.,

File:Kleist-fällt-bei-kunersdorf.jpg. added publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • In general, it's probably better to just give the page range rather than use "pp. 400 ff"
  • Be consistent in using pp. for multiple page ranges in the citations (curent ref 19 at least is inconsistent) fixed
  • In the notes - you have no citation for note 2 I added the harvtxt into the note.
  • In the notes - you are inconsistent in using parenthetical refs - some have the year and page # in parenthesis, others have name, year and page # in parentheseis. Also, why do you use parenthetical referencing in the notes but regular footnotes in the body of the article? the template did that. And this is (probably) the last time I use that template!
  • I'm not seeing that Zabecki is used as a citation anywhere? If not, it needs to be in the further reading. moved
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: responses to your comments. Thank you!! auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

HAve you tried using the Template:efn for explanatory notes? It lets you use references like the rest of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • no I haven't. I looked at it, and it appears unintelligible. auntieruth (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It's actually pretty easy - you put in {{efn|Text for your footnote.<ref as usual>}} and it handles the refs as usual - either using ref tags, or sfn or harv. The default is to use little letters, but you can specify some other type of superscript if you'd like, the details are at the templates page. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I saw that. I'd rather keep the citation with the note instead of splitting it out. auntieruth (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Hi, I'll review this soon. At first glance, it could perhaps be nice to add date to the various artworks throughout the article, as you do in the infobox, and perhaps author. This will help put them in context, and show if they are for example contemporary or retrospective works. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Added to artwork, but not to contemporary photographs. auntieruth (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Saw the comment here, looks fine, I'm in the process of reading the rest, will comment soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A small nitpick before I continue, Flag of Prussia indicates the Prussian flag currently used in the infobox was only used from the 19th century onwards... Perhaps change to avoid anachronisms. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the flag icon says it is 1750, and I don't have a clue how to mess with icons, nor would I want to change an icon that has wide use across wikipedia
Alright, I see the filename now, I ended up elsewhere when I clicked on the icon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Judenberge (Jews Hill), Mühlberge (Mill Hill) and Walkberge (also spelled Walckberg)" "Berge" is "mountains" in plural, what does the source specifically say? Sure "hills" wouldn't be more accurate? My German is pretty rusty these days, but it seemed odd to me.
  • sources from 18th century have variations of spellings. There is also the Prussian variant of German. Any spelling in that century would be irregular in German or in English (or French-Spanish-Italian for that matter). If you look at the maps (which were done in the late 19th century), they all say ...berge....
I'm talking about their English translations, though, not the German words themselves. Why are they translated as singular (mountain, which would be "berg") instead of plural (mountains, "berge")? Pinging GermanJoe for advice, a regular at FAC who is also a native German-speaker. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kuhgrund (cow hollow)" Why "hollow" and not "ground"? The source states it is a ravine, but gives no translation. it is a ravine with two hillsides where they grazed cattle. Have you been to West Virginia?
Nope, but I have never seen "grund" translates as "hollow", which is what I'm puzzled about. Perhaps GermanJoe has something to add here too. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am probably of not much help here. These location names stem from older German dialects, so modern German-English translations might often be imprecise (some of the more obscure medieval terms don't even have a modern-German equivalent, let alone an English one). The translations here seem OK, but I am no expert. GermanJoe (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that goes for "berge" as "hill" (plural) above too? FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
(moved your response into sequential order) The answer was meant for both questions, should have made that clearer. GermanJoe (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it is the way itshould be, but I will add a note to the text if you want. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Hühner was joined by another stream" If this is the "Hühner Fleiss" mentioned later, why not spell it out here at first mention? I will fix that
  • "around the eastern flank of Russian line" The Russian line? the line of troops. They were set in a line. linked to Line (formation)
You say "the Russian line" everywhere else in the article, though, so this outlier seemed odd. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, that was the problem. I didn't understand your comment. Added a the to the sentence.
  • "he sent no reconnaissance, not a single hussar or dragoon" Isn't the latter part of the sentence superfluous? no. Not only did he not send a patrol, he didn't send out a single man to investigate. Very poorly done on his part.
  • "The day was already hot and sultry, and the men were already tired. " Double "already" seems a bit repetitive. emphasis
  • "Avec moi, Avec moi!" Shouldn't the exclamation mark be in italics? ok: it's been moved about a bit.
Added some further comments above and below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "recovered to a strength of 32,000 men and 50 cannon." Cannons? either way would be fine. Cannon is more slangish, so I added an s...
  • "was arguably Frederick's worst defeat." Only stated in intro. Could it be specifically stated somewhere in the article body, with citation? ok, will put in exact text. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FunkMonk comments! thanks. auntieruth (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - all fixes look fine, it's of course hard to find issues with such a well-polished article, so excuse my sometimes reaching nitpicks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth

I find this article to be fascinating, professionally written, and well-illustrated. I'm certainly leaning toward support, but I have a small number of suggestions, as follows:
  • ¶3 "the penultimate success..." – The word "penultimate" doesn't seem quite right here since it suggests that some sort of ultimate success followed the penultimate. The rest of the article suggests that there was no ultimate success for the Russians beyond this battle.
  • Well, they had one more success in the war. so yes, penultimate works. But I can probably change it to another word if you suggest it....? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So little is made in the article of the Russian capture of the fortress at Kolberg, that I, perhaps wrongly, thought of it as inconsequential. Maybe "last major" rather than "penultimate"? Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Situation in 1759
  • ¶1"west to occupy Frankfurt an der Oder, Prussia's second largest city, on 31 July." – For 21st century readers more familiar with Frankfurt am Main, it might be good to head off the confusion by inserting a clarification here. Otherwise readers might find themselves wondering how the Russians got by Berlin to attack Frankfurt. fixed
  • ¶1 "and to the far right of Kunersdorf" – Should this be "south of Kunersdorf" or "on the southern edge of Kunersdorf" for clarity? "Right" would depend on where the observer was standing.
Prussian plans
  • ¶1 "the Prussians reached Reitwein, some 28 km (17 mi) of Frankfurt...". – Missing word between "(17 mi)" and "of"? south
  • ¶1 "north-northeast the Kunersdorf on 11 August...". – Missing word between "north-northeast" and "the"? fixed
Cavalry attack
  • ¶1 "His scouts had discovered a crossing past the chain of ponds south of Kunersdorf, but would have to deal with the artillery batteries on the Grosser Spitzberg." – The "but" part of this sentence doesn't quite fit the "scouts" part. Maybe "His scouts had discovered a crossing past the chain of ponds south of Kunersdorf, but it lay in full view of the artillery batteries on the Grosser Spitzberg." Or something like that. fixed
  • ¶2 Note 5 "Of the non commissioned..." – Since "non commissioned" is in a direct quote, I didn't change it. The correct spelling today would be "non-commissioned".
Yes, but since it is a direct quote, I didn't either. However, it is also a translation. Advise please. auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The Manual of Style doesn't seem clear on this exceedingly minor question. I'd add the hyphen on grounds that no one will notice it, but someone like me might gritch about its absence. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A good fraction of this section seems to repeat what has already been said earlier in the article. A more concise assessment would be nice. I think most of paragraph 2 could be deleted and perhaps another sentence or two here and there. I tweaked this down a bit.
  • Looking good. Your addition of compass directions is really helpful to me in understanding the complex troop dispositions and movements. I'm going to do another complete read-through later today to search for low-level stuff like new typos. Finetooth (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • On the latest pass, I made a few minor copyedits. Please revert if any seem wrongheaded. I found three new things worth mentioning:
  • ¶2 of the Terrain section says, "East of the Kuhgrund, the ground rose again..." – If I'm reading the map correctly, that should be "West of the Kuhgrund...". yes....Also defined "Fleiss'
  • Link redan in ¶2 of the Assessment section?
  • ¶5 of the Assessment section says, "After Hochkirch, he had no one to blame but himself." – Shouldn't this say, "After Kunersdorf..."? clarified this paragraph
  • Switching to support, as noted above. This and the Hochkirch article are quite well-done. The maps seem essential. Looking forward to the next article in the series. Finetooth (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Reference 57 is dead; I think we are good to go after that is sorted. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school system

Nominator(s): Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Canadian Indian residential school system which involved the active removal of Indigenous children from their families and communities with the aim of assimilating them into Canadian culture. The 2015 Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) concluded that the system and it's legacy amounted to cultural genocide. The final reports of the TRC included calls to action with a focus on education and awareness about the system - this page is a step toward that goal. With Canada's 150 anniversary taking place this July, all aspects of the country's history should be highlighted including this one.Dnllnd (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

This is most interesting; the prose is of professional quality, and the topic worthy. I began to fade a bit in the lowermost sections, where I think some abbreviating and some minor revisions would make the going a bit easier. Here are my questions and suggestions:
  • Section heads and subheads should not refer redundantly to the article title or echo one another. My suggestion would be to remove "residential schools" from the section heads 2 and 7 and to remove the word "apologies" or "apology" from subheads 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not quite. You removed the first two but not the second group of three. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. (For real this time!)--Dnllnd (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Although two of the images have alt text, the rest will need it too.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Indigenous and aboriginal are usually lowercase, but in this article they begin with an uppercase letter. I would recommend lowercase unless there is some special reason for uppercase.
In Canada Indigenous is, today, most commonly capitalized. The Government of Canada style guide is a good point of reference. Generally, the word is capitalized when discussing peoples, cultures or communities in the same way we use European or Canadian.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a perfectly good special reason. Might I suggest adding a note about these preferences that includes a link to the style guide, as above. The Canadian style guide on these matters is interesting and relevant, and referring to it might head off future "fixes" of things that don't need fixing. Finetooth (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I have added in a Notes section and a note next to the first instance of 'Indigenous' explaining the capitalization. Rephrasing suggestions, if required, would be appreciated. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I struck this one but trimmed the data in the source ref for Note 1. Please re-add anything you think is really needed. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. The trimming was very much needed - thank you for taking care of it!--Dnllnd (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The article includes many direct quotations. Each needs a citation placed in the text directly after the quotation; in some cases that means that the paragraph containing the direct quotation will have more than one citation even if the whole paragraph relies on the same source; i.e., citation for direct quote and somewhere later, citation or citations for the other stuff. For example, the third paragraph of Financial compensation has three direct quotations. Each needs its own citation; you should add two more, one for Fontaine and one for Cotler even though all three share the same source.
I have gone through and added refs immediately after direct quotes. Quotation adherence was flagged by another editor, below, which I have also tried to address. Since there are so many quotes through out the page I expect I likely missed some, so let me know if any outstanding instances jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like you got most of them. I saw only one more on my most recent pass-through. It is in the Mortality rates section: At Sarcee Boarding School near Calgary, all 33 students were "much below even a passable standard of health" and "[a]ll but four were infected with tuberculosis." I would add a citation with a page number after "tuberculosis." Finetooth (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Got it. Curly "JFC" Turkey helpfully flagged other quotations that were in need of (clearer) attribution or citations. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful to spell out and abbreviate Truth and Reconciliation Commission on first use in the main text and then use TRC from then on. It appears often in the lower sections, which seem a bit more populated by government-speak and less lucid to me than the early sections. Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a big mouthful each time.
I have replaced all full references to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission with TRC after the first mention in the lead.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Was there any organized non-indigenous resistance in Canada to the TRC or, more generally, to do anything at all to make amends? If so, it should be mentioned somewhere if only in a note.
Not that I know of. The most recent news event that may speak to your question is Senator Lynn Beyak insisting that a focus on the negative aspects of the system (like deaths, forced removal of children, and inter-generational trauma) has overshadowed the 'good' of the system. I don't believe that including her views adds substantive value to the page as it serves only to undermine what has been legally recognized as systematically abusive and harmful legacy. I am, though, open to other views on this point.--Dnllnd (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that the issue, since it revolves around only one person, does not deserve much weight. Since she's a Senator, and since the controversy forms part of the Lynn Beyak article in Wikipedia, might a good compromise involve a brief note attached to the end of the first paragraph of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee section? It might say, "Lynn Beyak, a Conservative member of the Senate Committee of Aboriginal Peoples, voiced disapproval of the TRC report, saying that it had omitted anything positive that could be said about the schools. In response, the Conservative Party leadership removed her from the Senate committee." This is just a suggestion, not a mandate. Finetooth (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I have added a section about Beyak. Thanks for suggesting it. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting and nicely done. Finetooth (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Yep! Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "is the result of Imperial colonialism" – Lowercase "i"?
  • "resisted by Indigenous communities who were unwilling to leave their children for extended periods of time" – Delete "of time" since "periods" already says it?
Done.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "and foundling colonial children limited Church resources..." – Lowercase "church"?
Government involvement
  • The direct quotation at the end of the first paragraph of this section is supported by a citation to a PDF file that is more than 1,000 pages long. To be useful, the citation needs to include a specific page number. Ditto for any other long works cited in the article.
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Parental resistance and compulsory attendance
  • Should the "baby bonus" be explained either in the main text or a brief note?
I've added a wiki link to a page explaining the term wrt Canada.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Conditions in residential schools
  • "The Executive Summary of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission..." – Better as "executive summary of the TRC"?
This is the official name of the document, so using the capitalization is most appropriate. I will, though, clean up how often it appears by making use of the TRC acronym, as you suggested in another comment.--Dnllnd (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "would imply a difficult to prove legal responsibility" – Perhaps hyphenate "difficult-to-prove"?
Mortality rates
  • "Indian population of Canada has a mortality rate of more than double that of the whole population, and in some provinces more than three times." – Generally, the supporting citation for a direct quote should be inserted immediately after the end of the quotation.
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1920 and 1922, Dr. A. Corbett was commissioned..." – It's preferable to use a brief description than an academic title like "Dr.". Something like "A. Corbett, professor of otolaryngology at the University of X Medical School" if you have the information necessary.
Agreed. Unfortunately there isn't much info about Corbett, but I have added text indicating that he was a physician from Regina. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I have gone through and added similar text to others named without any context.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Missing children and unmarked graves
  • "later 'razed' by priests or built over" – Is "priests" the right word? It seems to point to a subset of the church schools.
Text revised and refs cleaned up. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Self-governance and school closure
  • "after being run by the Oblates" – Should "Oblates" be linked to something?
Done.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's still unlinked and unexplained. Am I missing something? Finetooth (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The first reference to oblates, which appears in the Government involvement section, is linked to the Oblate page in keeping with WP:BTW. Do you think it's necessary to link all occurrences? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, no. My mistake. I missed the first instance. Finetooth (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Reconciliation attempts
  • "Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis..." – "Coined" seems not quite right. Would "Called 'the Okra Crisis' by media outlets,"?
Revised to "Referred to by media outlets as the Oka Crisis.." --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Coined by media outlets as the Oka Crisis, the land dispute sparked a critical discussion about the Canadian government's complacency regarding relations with Indigenous communities and responses to their concerns prompting then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to underscore four government responsibilities: 'resolving land claims; improving the economic and social conditions on reserves; defining a new relationship between aboriginal peoples and governments; and addressing the concerns of Canada's aboriginal peoples in contemporary Canadian life.' " – Too complex. Suggestion: break it in two with a terminal period after "communities". Delete "and" and proceed with "Responses to their concerns prompted...".
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Financial compensation
  • Lowercase "settlement agreement" throughout? Too many things with big letters reduce the overall effect of big letters.
It's a diminutive of the official name, but it was also given an acronym (which was inconsistently used!), so I've subbed that in as much of the refs happen within one section.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has identified the Indigenous-led mental health and healing infrastructure provided by the AHF as a gap in how current mental health crises being experienced by Indigenous communities, like the suicides occurring in the Attawapiskat First Nation, are being addressed." – The infrastructure isn't the gap. Suggestion: "Former AHF executive director Mike DeGagne has said that the loss of AHF support has created a gap in dealing with mental health crises such as suicides in the Attawapiskat First Nation."
  • I took liberties with this one and made the change. Please revert if you disagree. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Following an illegal process, including an examination of the Settlement Agreement by the courts of the provinces and territories of Canada, an "opt-out" period occurred." – I don't understand this. Should "illegal" here be "legal"?
Typo! Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Reconciliation projects
  • The first two paragraphs repeat the word "healing" six times. How about substituting "services that assist former residential school students and their families in recovering" in the first paragraph and "to sustain their active participation in these recovery efforts" in the second?
Paragraph has been removed and remaining text in section has been collapsed into other sections of the article. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the publication of a multi-volume, 4,000-plus-page report..." – Do we need to mention the length again since it's in the lede and once more in the text already?
I changed the text in the lead so that the 4,000 info only appears once, withing the section dedicated to the TRC later in the article.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I would consider deleting the first paragraph of this section since it seems to echo what's already been said in the Reconciliation projects section, and I would prefer "Recovery" to "Healing", which is overused.
I removed the first paragraph and merged the remaining section into TRC section that appeared in what was formally the Reconciliation attempts section. Reconciliation attempts has been revised and restructured with edits to text and sub-headings in an attempt to cut down on the repetitive nature of the last third of the page. The TRC now appears within it's own section. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness, as noted above. Your decision about the Beyak matter will have no bearing on my support. Impressive article on a difficult subject. Finetooth (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Driveby comments

  • Many quotations violate MOS:LQ.
Thanks for flagging this. I believe that I have addressed most of the instances that failed to meet the MOS guidelines. Specific instances of any I may have missed would be appreciated.--Dnllnd (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I see now that I missed several. I should have employed a Find all search! Thanks for taking care of what I missed.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you'll reconsider the use of {{rp}}—they're such an eyesore and disrupt the text. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Given the contentious nature of this topic, acknowledgement of which has been a hard fought battle for Indigenous communities impacted by the system, the rp references are an important part of the page as they facilitate the location of information that people have made a habit of dismissing. This is particularly relevant in regards to the TRC reports - they each span several hundred pages.--Dnllnd (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Most articles specify page numbers, but do so in the reflist, not inline. For example:
<ref>Turkey (2017) pp. 23–24</ref>
and there are other formats. Take a peak at some other FAs and see how they're handled, so as to make the article more reader-friendly. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a valid approach for referencing the same resource multiple times. I'm not clear on why the citation format for the entire article needs to be redone when this one is applied clearly and consistently throughout the article. Is this really a deal breaker for FA status or a personal preference? --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
"I'm not clear on why the citation format for the entire article needs to be redone"—it doesn't. I'm offering advice to make the article more readable and accessible. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Noted. Thank you! --Dnllnd (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that when you provide a quotation, it must be given attribution in the text itself and not just a citation—"has been described"-type wordings are not acceptable.
Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "and paid $3,100,000,000 in compensation"—this is probably more readable as "$3.1 billion", which is the format you use elsewhere. If the number is so long that readers have to count the zeros to figure out how to read it, chances are it'd be best to spell it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The assimilation of Indigenous peoples is the result of imperial colonialism"—this makes it sound as if assimilation were a done deal. All Indigenous people have been assimiliated? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Rephrased. --Dnllnd (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In Canada, the Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools"—I assume (Aboriginal) is a gloss of "Indian", but by presenting it this way, it appears that "Indian (Aboriginal) residential schools" is what they were called. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Removed. This is another hold over from a much earlier version of the page. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the French is needed in the lead here; we would add it for something that was originally in French, or in Canada's case for official names or whatever, but the French are not official names in that sense—they're merely two ways of referring to the system in French. The doesn't even give an English gloss. I'd drop it, or at least move it to an endnote or something, as it only clutters up the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed! This is a hold over from a much earlier version of the page. I've removed it. --Dnllnd (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • counteracting the "civilizing" of Indigenous children, to convert Indigenous children to Christianity and to "civilize" themMOS:SCAREQUOTES should be considered carefully, as it's not always clear what they should mean: an actual quotation? Referring to a word-as-a-word? Ironic distancing? You should consider a more straightforward, unambiguous wording that avoids scarequotes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
This language gets used repeatedly my multiple people, but I completely agree that the inconsistent and unclear presence of "" throughout the article is confusing. I've removed unnecessary quotation marks and have revised text in the Family visitation section to introduce more logical use of both terms. Thanks for flagging it.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • statements from residential school survivors—"survivors" is a loaded, emotional term. Is there nothing more clearly neutral? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Survivor is accurate terminology used in the reports of the TRC (where it is capitalized), government publications and media outlets. It is also a term used by Indigenous peoples to self-identify as school attendees. Would a foot note like the one used for the capitalization of Indigenous address your concern? --Dnllnd (talk) 00:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Those are not encyclopaedic contexts; the media and the government have different goals than an encyclopaedia. It's not a matter I'm going to push, but if any term is open to debate, then it's not an ideal term for an encycloaedia. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The school system was found to amount to cultural genocide in which sexual and physical abuse was both rampant and, since that time, extensively documented. The system was, as outlined in multiple TRC, legal and government documents, designed to eradicate Indigenous culture, peoples and communities. When considered in reference to the definition for survive, the term is apt. While I appreciate the point regarding encyclopaedic contexts, I disagree that this is a case in which it is being undermined. The term will remain. I have added a note too the first instance making reference to its use in TRC outputs and official government of Canada apology.--Dnllnd (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not going to push it, but the fact that you so vigorously won't even consider another, more clearly neutral term more or less makes my point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll assume you have no additional comment about the note that was added as a compromise. Thanks.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As explained in the executive summary of the TRC's final report—this is the firrst time the TRC is mentioned in the body, so it should be spellt out and contextualized. Remember, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, and the two should be thought of as somewhat independent—the reader shouldn't be expected to have gotten this stuff from the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It appears for the first time in the lead, where it is spelled out and accompanied by the acronym.--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
You respond to "the reader shouldn't be expected to have gotten this stuff from the lead" with "It appears for the first time in the lead"? Please re-read what I've written—the lead is based on the content of the body, not vice-versa. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I missed the distinction you were making between the lead and rest of the article. DIA and TRC have both been spelled out in full when they first appear in the body of the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a mix of -ize and -ise spellings throughout the article. Both are acceptable in Canadian WP:ENGVAR, but you'll have to choose one consistently for the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Can you point me to a specific example? I a did a find all search and found no instances of -ise.--Dnllnd (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"With no requirement for specialised training"
Changed to -ized.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"and loss of privileges that characterised" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Changed to -ized.--Dnllnd (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Support My extensive review is located here. Thrilled to support now. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Current ref 56 is throwing up a BIG RED error... needs fixing
Fixed. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • what makes a high quality reliable source?
Replaced/removed. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that there are 131 footnotes in the article - and I've already done a good bit of time checking them all, could you kindly tell me what it was replaced with? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Responsible for separating children from their families and communities, this process was found by the TRC to be cultural genocide because its aim was "killing the Indian in the child." It was the third ref for an already supported sentence.
  • It previously appeared in the Religious involvement section wrt to the Mohawk Institute. That particular section has been reworked and relies predominantly on refs that were already being used (TRC reports, Milloy book, CBC article, etc.)
  • It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Approximately 150,000 children are believed to have attended a residential school over the course of their existence." It was the third ref for an already supported sentence.
  • It was removed as a ref from the sentence: "Students in residential school systems were faced with a multitude of abuses from teachers and administrators." The statement is supported by the remained for the paragraph/section.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 2 - why is the there when it's not for any other university publication?
Not entirely clear on what the issue being flagged, but I believe it should now be addressed. I've done a ref review to add an entry to the website field, where appropriate, where one was missing. --Dnllnd (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The issue is consistentcy in the references - if similar type references don't use the same format, the references aren't consistent. Yes, it's picky. Yes, it's a bit anal-retentive, but it's all part of being "finest work". Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I've done another pass on of the cite web templates with the aim of ensuring consistency. Please let me know if any issues jump out.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent on whether you link to publishers in the references - mostly you don't but occasionally you do - for example - why is "University of Manitoba" linked in ref 20 (Milloy) but none of the other universities before ref 20 are linked?
Unlinked. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 24 - the publisher isn't the National Centre - it's the original publisher
Revised.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 27 "Davin" - the publisher isn't the Internet Archive, it's the original publisher
Revised.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source? (current ref 28)
Removed. Section reworked. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in either using or not using "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada" as the author for things published by it. Currently refs 4 doesn't have it as the author, but ref 29 does. There are probably others
Cleaned up.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 38 "Carmucks" needs a publisher
Added. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 43 (Titley) needs a publisher
Added. --Dnllnd (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
Although Breach is an independent journal, this particular article was adapted from an MA thesis and includes a list of fully cited references ranging from scholarly publications to major Canadian news publications. The section where it appears has been cleaned up to improve clarity and citation alignment.--Dnllnd (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
As a follow up, I add that this ref also centers Indigenous action regarding, and reclamation of, residential school system history. Centering Indigenous peoples, their work, and their experiences is a central part of the reconciliation process and it makes sense to have that type of narrative included, where appropriate, in the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's tool shows a few concerns:
    • Wikipedia article: "On Friday, August 6, 1993, at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools on behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada." Source: "On Friday, August 6, 1993 at the National Native Convocation in Minaki, Ontario, Archbishop Michael Peers offered an apology to all the survivors of the Indian residential schools."
Reworked.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia article: "the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity" source: "the Vatican issued a press release stating that “the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity.”"
The first is a direct quotation from a Vatican communique, which is appropriately cited. The second is a quote from that same communique. Red herring.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia article: "compensation and psychological support for former students of residential schools who were physically or sexually abused" source: "compensation and psychological support for former students, who were physically or sexually abused"
Reworked.--Dnllnd (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Other possibles need checking from Earwig's report.
      • Sorry about missing that quotation - but the other possibles probably need checking from someone else. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I've reviewed anything with a rating higher than 25% and almost all of them amount to the use of official titles, organization names or direct quotations from official apologies or reports. Those not falling under that umbrella are common turns of phrase or legalese that can only be restated so many ways before the intention of specific words is lost or watered down. I spotted checked the remaining entries and the same applies. I do, though, welcome another set of eyes. --Dnllnd (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise everything looks okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

Shocking article. Topic worthy of FA quality article. But it’s not quite there yet in my humble opinion. Some structural issues I think. My comments:

  • Lead: Over the course of the system's existence, -> would be good to say here how long this practice was in existence for
Added 'more than hundred year existence'. Government run schools began in the early 1880s, but some of the schools, including the Mohawk institute, were opened earlier, leaving the exact number of years up for debate. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead: The last federally operated residential school closed in 1996. -> Bit odd: we go from 1876 to 1996 to 1884. Better to move the sentence about last one closing further down I think
Moved to end of paragraph. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead: were intentionally located at distances -> great distances perhaps?
Changed to substantial distances, since 'greater distances' is used in in the next sentence. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead: he thought counteracted the school's -> maybe plural schools’ ? Or maybe just remove schools altogether: he thought counteracted the efforts
Dropped schools altogether. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Canadian -> this whole paragraph seems really out of place
This section, as a whole, is meant to give a a high-level overview of the how settlers and Indigenous relations. Can you expand on why this particular paragraph seems out of place? Would it be more appropriate in another section of the page? Is the information presented not relevant? Getting more info will help me address your concerns. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I meant to say that the last 3 paragraphs in this section go from 17th to 19th and 20th to 19th. Would it not be better chronologically, that is, swap the last 2 paragraphs? Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, thank you for the clarification. I have flipped the paragraphs, which definitely improves things and have rephrased references to the turn of the century to '1800s', etc. I've also linked to the wiki page for the 17th century to clarify intended era. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • particularly after the War of 1812 -> 1812 and turn of the 19th century are generations apart. Seems odd.
The turn of the 19th century would have been 1800. Can you expand on what you think is odd? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Aha, it seems turn of the century is a rather ambiguous phrase. Perhaps better to rephrase. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • With the threat of invasion minimized, -> Who is threatening to invade whom? You lost me in this sentence
Agreed, this is a clarity issue. Added 'American forces' - link to War of 1812 provides additional context. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 25.25% seems unnecessarily accurate. No need for any decimals I’d say
These are numbers taken directly from the report. I'm open to dropping the decimals but wonder if doing so would open the sentence up to critique about not accurately reflecting source material? What do you think? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The guideline says "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context " and "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason."Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, thank you! I'm less fluent in the numerical style guide points than others. I've kicked out the percentages altogether - the number counts convey things adequately. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • After a failure to assimilate Indigenous children by early .. -> This makes much more sense as the 2nd paragraph in the previous section
I collapsed the Religious involvement section into the History section and rearranged the paragraphs/photos accordingly. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions regarding the flow of information. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Residential schools were funded under the Indian Act -> link Indian Act
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Affairs asserting -> Affairs, asserting
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • By the 1930s government officials -> seems to skip things? We get reports and then what? Did the government act upon these recommendations? When? How? How much money? How many? Etc.
  • By the 1950s the expansion of the residential school system had plateaued, -> how many? And when did numbers start going down? All we have is plateau and 1996 last one. And why?
I've referred back to the TRC reports and other related publications and it seems to be either be a hold over from text revisions or a conflation with enrollment numbers and/or the shift from residential to day schools. Reference to a plateau has been removed as a result - not necessary for set up to remainder of paragraph. Thanks for flagging it. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • that roughly 11,132 -> that looks like a very precise number, not rough at all. I think you can drop roughly, given that the verb is estimated
Dropped 'roughly'. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • reached its peak in the early 1930s -> but expansion plateaued in 1950s? How can that be?
Reference to 1950s plateau has been removed - see above. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 80 schools -> Would it be possible to have a graph with either number of schools over the decades, and/or number of students? In addition, showing the schools on the map would be very good
I'm not able to make a graph myself and don't know of any public domain options that could be pulled in. Do you have any experience with creating graphs for use on Wikipedia pages? Or perhaps able to point me to information about how they should can can be incorporated? --Dnllnd (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't either. Do you have at least the data? A table would be okay too.Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon:The data I'm most familiar with appears in the TRC report or government produced documents and it's often a synopsis as opposed to hard numbers. So, for example, there may be a list of schools along with their location, but there aren't student enrollment numbers included - my understanding is that this is in part due to poor reporting from school administrators. I have to admit that I'm stumped about how to integrate a table. I could attempt to replicate a table that appears in one of the reports, but the nuance of schools/enrollments over time is beyond what my basic table skills are capable of and the summarization of available data makes it difficult to do something unique. More importantly, working with numbers isn't one of my strengths..! Here are some examples of what's available for your reference: [13],[14],[15](p.67) and List of Indian residential schools in Canada. Page 682 of this report has the text and table I used to clean up the number of schools by religious order. Does anything stand out as a possible way forward? --Dnllnd (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • a multitude of abuses -> Previous paragraph also about abuse. Merge?
Merged. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The executive summary of the TRC concluded that the assimilation amounted to cultural genocide -> This is way more important than you make it look structurally in the article. It deserves its own paragraph at least. It does not sit well under the header Conditions.
Fair point. I've moved it down the page to sit within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. --Dnllnd (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Many graduates were unable to easily return home -> But returning home to the reserve wasn’t the goal. Better would be something along the lines of: many were unable to land a job … Such employment he can get at home." But even going back home was not easy, as many graduates were unfamiliar …
Revised. --Dnllnd (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • until 1922, when Bryce, -> Somehow I think, maybe, this info should live in the earlier section of the rise and fall. When did critical voices start? 1922 is earlier than I expected, given what I’ve read so far
  • For most communities, though, the existence of buildings that formerly housed residential schools are a traumatic reminder, and there is much discussion about demolition, heritage status, and how to incorporate sites into the healing process -> I don’t really get why this sentence is in this paragraph
Agreed, it's a poor fit. I've removed the sentence and have integrated a revised version into the first paragragh of the Educational initiatives section.
  • Although encouragement to keep Indigenous languages alive was present in some schools, -> Seems better as a modifier of the opening sentence of this paragraph
Revised. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The stigma created … the list of endangered languages in Canada. -> Sorry,don’t get this one. Stigma? Does this refer to the ugly and dirty? But that is mentioned only by some
In this case stigma is was used to reproach - the system resulted in the transmission of Indigenous culture being a bad and frowned upon act. As a result, traditional languages weren't spoke or passed on to children. Would it help to rephrase that first sentence? I'm not sure what your "But that is only mentioned by some" is in reference to. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli veered -> spell out what acronym stands for. And poor Zaccardelli is the only person not mentioned by full name
Yep! Section cleaned up, additional ref added, Zaccardelli named in full with link to Wiki page. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • he intended to issue a formal apology -> and did he?
Removed paragraph altogether. To date nothing has been issued and it doesn't immediately address the section topic. Thanks for flagging it. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • caption: Mohawk Institute Residential School should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • caption: Egerton Ryerson should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • caption: Peter Bryce should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • caption: Fort Albany, Ontario should be a link
Done. --Dnllnd (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Opposed Comment: There is no history of those who worked to bring the whole issue to the public. Or, tried to bring the issue forward. For example, there is no mention of the signficant cover story in MacLeans magazine <> in 1967. From the '60s to the '90s in the settler community, church community, and in the Indigenous community there were numerous 'heads up' in various media about the problem. The article mentions none of this. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Wassupwestcoast: The final paragraph in the Conditions section that begins with "Details of the mistreatment.." makes reference to abuse reporting and Indigenous led activism to have it publicly recognized. There are also references to Indigenous led resistance worked into the remainder of the page - two examples are resistance from parents as in regards to forced attendance and another is the passage regarding the protests in Oka. There is also coverage dedicated to self-government of schools and reconciliation efforts involving Indigenous communities. Is your concern that there is not a dedicated section on the topic? Or, perhaps, that this specific article hasn't been included? --Dnllnd (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dnllnd: A bit of both. In part, it wasn't just Indigenous activism. And, in part, the example I give of the Macleans cover story in 1967 was very significant in getting the story out to the settler community. From late 1950s onwards, there was growing discomfort in the church communities regarding residential schools. By the '60s, some church communities had relinquished the residential schools to the sole care of the federal government. My point is that there was activism on a number of fronts and over a period of about two generations. The article doesn't reflect this. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
For example:
a) A CBC TV report from 01 May 1969: "Government takes over residential schools from churches" (
b) A CBC TV report from 04 Aug 1967: "Expodition: Expo 67’s Indians of Canada" ( ....'But inside, the Indians of Canada pavilion at Expo 67 tells a different story: one of poverty, unfulfilled treaties, forced religion and the unhappy experiences of children in residential schools. As a young hostess conducts a tour, a reporter from Expodition remarks on a tone of bitterness in the pavilion's exhibits. "
c) the former United Church of Canada Reverend Kevin D. Annett who in 1995 brought to public attention the deaths in residential schools from research he had conducted over years.
Anyway, there were many voices against the residential schools...even at Expo 67! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Of course, the whole thing is nuanced. I'm completely aware that churches still had involvement in the some schools after '69. For example, ... "By 1969 the Government of Canada took over all other church-run residential schools and the Anglican Church was no longer officially involved in the school system. That said, in practice, Anglican clergy continued to be appointed as principals of the school until it closed in 1979."( So my point is that there was this long term muddle about what to with the 'legacy of systemic racism and damage to First Nations peoples.' Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wassupwestcoast:Okay, thank you for the clarification (and the links!). I'll have a closer look at what you've provided, along with the references that have already been used, and see where some of this can be worked into the page.--Dnllnd (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Wassupwestcoast, do you have anything further to add; I'd like to clarify that your oppose stands. Also, Edwininlondon, do you plan to revisit this? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I support on prose. I am not really able to judge comprehensiveness, I'm afraid. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

One of those metals with most effect on humans throughout history. I've deeply enjoyed writing the article myself and from some comments I've got so far I see it must be good to read as well. Comments, positive or negative, are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I'll come back to the intro section later ... for the moment, it looks fine, but I might want to move one or two points up to the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not too important but: you use semicolons where commas would be better, in many cases.
  • "lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor from 3000 BC, from 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; and in Athens, Carthage, and Sicily": That's not what "from" means in AmEng. ("were first worked ... in 3000 BC") Also, did it start in 2000 BC in Athens? If not, add "later" or something.
A good one, thank you; "since" seems more natural anyway.
It's hard to say when exactly it began in Athens; the source is only clear on Asia Minor and Iberia. I found a source, however, that claims the trade had extended to Greece by 1600 BC. Added this and updated the reference.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very accessible and a pleasant read, for a chemistry article. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and for your go-over with this article; it was quite good and made the prose a tad more concise.--R8R (talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

  • My first comment is that the "Main isotopes of lead" table is a complete duplicate of the "Most stable isotopes of lead" so it is not required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a part of a general discussion of a reform of the element infobox. It seems the isotope table is up to go from the main infobox or there will be a small table in the main infobox and a separate big table, not entirely sure. Now, however, that the tables are still exactly the same, I removed it from the main infobox for the time being.
I object the removal. An infobox is supposed to summarize information from the article (body), so a repetition can and should be expected. -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, R8R Gtrs: I formally propose (request) to re-add the isotopes to {{Infobox lead}}. Per WP:INFOBOX, it should summarize the article, and so repeating info that is in the body is by intention. One could propose to change that infobox header into 'Main isotopes' (not 'Most stable'), and adjust the list. To be clear: the table in the article section 'Isotopes' should be there to make the section complete & better by itself, not to replace an infobox function. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It is fair enough to be in the article body, but with more information. If any short lived isotopes are natural, they should be there. Other columns could be added such as spin or exact isotopic mass.
  • "Many pseudohalides are known." → "Many lead pseudohalides are known." so that sentence can stand alone.
Yes, done.
  • Plumbane is not an organic compound, even if it is an analog of methane. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "The lead analog of the simplest organic compound, methane, is plumbane." Leaving plumbane in the organic section, though, because it is commonly discussed with the organolead compounds.
  • "lead commonly used as the whitener" is not strictly correct as it was a compound. could this be reworded?
I used "in."--R8R (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added one based on the caption in the article.
    • File:Lead production graph.svg has been copied with a mirror image from fig A of, so I strongly suspect a copyright infringement despite the licence given. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am quite confident this is not a subject to copyright, as it is a very simple graph of numeric data. There are licenses for such simple graphs if I recall correctly. Will check in a few hours.
I believe the original image would go under commons:Template:PD-text; from that perspective, I think, licensing must be okay?--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am unconvinced. The actual text used, where it is placed on the graph, how it links to the graph points, the graph points themselves, the numbers on the scales are all part of a creative choice in making the whole graph. If the text was arranged in a different way, then you could get away with the PD-text for the text, but the graph still has quite a bit more creative elements subject to copyright. You can compare with the alterations in File:Evolution production plomb.svg which I think are OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look now. I am not sure if this is an aesthetical gain, but the alterations must be sufficient?--R8R (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is better. I would also convert 100 to 1 as it is a bit obscure, and 102 could go to 100 as it can fit. Also BP should probably change to a year as BP numbers is changing all the time! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
We could fit even 1,000,000; but for logarithm-based scales, it's just plain easier to see the trend "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6" than "1--100--10^4--10^6"; when put before such a sequence, first first take half a second to transform that back to "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6". This wouldn't be the case in any other context, but here, I think we should leave the powers as they are. Also, there is a convention about that BP that indicates the numbers will stay as they are (I was surprised, too!).--R8R (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • File:Evolution production plomb.svg shows enough originality in the graph to not violate
    • All images have a suitable free licenses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • The lead image is a picture of the day, and one of the best available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • alt text for "The Holsinger meteorite" should not call it a "meteor"
Fair; done.
    • alt text for the flame test could be a bit more descriptive (for blind people) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Expanded; should be good now.
    • alt text for lead(II) oxide calls it "red powder" but it looks more like cream powder.
Yes, we used to have a different picture there and this must be a remainder. Done.
    • alt text for Chart of the final part of the s-process can be much improved perhaps to say what element transmutes to what. It is not a "greed".
I see I have misunderstood the idea of what should be in alt text; now, I've read WP:ALT and things are clearer to me now. The new alt text must be better.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • for File:Elemental abundances.svg the alt text appears to be for something else.
Why? It is a line chart and the line indeed generally declines to its right?
Sorry, I meant to delete this comment Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • alt text for the Promotional poster should say what is in it. (boy with paint brush, and perhaps all the text in the ad)
I expanded it a bit; please see if it's good now.
    • alt text for Radiography of a swan says it is X-ray like, when in fact it is an X-ray!
Ha ha, you're right! Fixed.
    • There appears to be no alt text for the lede image in infobox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added.--R8R (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • number MOS violation in infobox −23.0·10−6 should be −23.0×10−6
Done.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • According to MOS we should Link the first use of unfamiliar units: eg nΩ·m GPa (I note MPa is linked to Megapascal) neutrons/(cm2·second). I don't think we need to do this in the infobox where the property is linked as that link also covers the unit, but in the article text it should have a link.
I linked "nΩ·m" to ohm and meter; "GPa" to pascal (unit) (removing the MPa link); did not link "neutrons/(cm2·second)" to anything because there is nothing to link to and I think it's fair to say, nothing needs to be linked (it's quite intuitive: "per second per square centimeter").
Actually the first use, now "nanoohm-meters", is not linked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly should've been more careful about this one. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "They may be made by the addition of trimethyllead or triethyllead to alkenes or alkynes; these precursors may themselves be made from the corresponding lead halides and lithium aluminium hydride at −78 °C." This sentence may be true, but it appears that this is not the way that tetraethyllead was made. Trimethyllead or triethyllead appear to be ions or part of other compounds, not that important that they need a mention in the element article, so I suggest removing the sentence or replacing it. That sentence also makes the following "These compounds" unclear.
Removed, as this seemed most appropriate.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound" should be a standalone sentence as it is not related to its oxidising properties. Perhaps it should be moved up to the other bits on tetraethyllead.
It is related: I thought the current wording "The oxidizing nature of many organolead compounds is usefully exploited: lead tetraacetate is an important laboratory reagent for oxidation in organic chemistry;[80] tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound.[81]" hints at that very well. Put an "and" instead of the semicolon to clarify it further.
  • "Retrieved 2017-01-30" and "Retrieved 2017-04-12" dates in wrong format
  • What symbol should be used in formulae to link molecules together? Is it "•" or "·". Personally I like "•" as it is easier to see. But whatever is used it should be consistent.
Used the former for the same reason.
Now I see there is inconsistent use of "•" or "·" for multiplication in units as well.
It didn't occur to me I'd also have to look in the infobox. I've turned to the smaller dot, which is in the infobox right now, because maybe some articles have complied with it as well, in which case I don't want to ruin it.--R8R (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pb5Sb4S11" is messed up, in one place it appears to have spaces, and another new-lines. The Chem template is trashing it somehow by adding some sort of separator before each number. It is important to not insert separators for the case that the text is copied and used elsewhere or a "find" is used to look for something on the page. Either the Chem template can be fixed, or it should not be used in featured articles.
I do not see spaces added in my desktop nor in mobile view. But I do see "Pb 5Sb 4S 11" when copy/pasting (and I removed newlines here). That is by {{Chem}} indeed. Best is to avoid {{Chem}}. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Converted all formulas to the plain sup-sub style.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In "PbCO3" it inserts a space before the 3. (same template:Chem problem)
Same.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence "The fungus Aspergillus versicolor is effective at removing lead ions.[252] Several bacteria have been researched for their ability to reduce lead, including the sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum, both of which are highly effective in aqueous solutions." "reduce" is used in two different senses, chemical reduction, and making the amount smaller. We should probably ahve two different terms so that people do not think that lead-II is converting to elemental lead-0. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
A great catch; done.--R8R (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we need a Farenheit conversion in "tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C (210 °F)" as other temperatures for reactions are not converted from °C.
Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I had my doubts about "bis(disyl)plumbylene" being correct, so I checked the reference and the name is not there. Searching google scholar does not find it, and on Google it is mostly mirrors of this page. So this name need to be fixed or dropped. It probably should have "bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl" in the name perhaps bis(bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl)plumbylene (or lead)
I'll prefer dropping because such long formulas need to be mentally reconstructed back into their formulas anyway.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In "forty-three lead isotopes" normally the number wold be written using digits: 43 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, done.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The unit-cell size is missing (from infobox). This only needs one number since it is a cubic structure.
  • A question about other registries: In chemical articles we include chemspider and pubchem and possible some other registry numbers in the infobox, not just cas. Should this happen for elements too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll contact the WikiProject to work out a project-wide solution.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
These both questions cover essentially all of the elements (both would require alternations to {{infobox element}}). Can we be satisfied for the purposes of this standalone review with the fact that the discussion on the matter has been initiated?--R8R (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There are two different punctuations in "lead-acid" and "lead–acid". The former used in a reference and the latter in text. I suspect that nothing has to change though.
There was one hyphen occurrence---in a quote---so I checked there is actually a hyphen in the original and left it as was.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "osmium— the densest metal" has space after mdash. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "profile" as used in Bairagi reference: Does it really use the typographic ligature "fi" instead of "fi"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't; strange. Anyway, I removed the ligature.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.--R8R (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Now starting review of references.

  • My first comment is that I really do not like the two level references. I would much prefer to see one click from the text footnote to the full reference. The only place for double barreled referencing is where you have different requirements for page numbers from the same reference. In any case I will review the end references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
When this new referencing system was being first introduced to the article, I was uneasy, too. What convinced me is that references look nicer and actually are available in one click (and one hover). I find that okay because when I want to know something about a ref, this is exactly what I do with it in general.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You must have enable some extension for hover to work like that. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I just tried it on my smartphone. Yes, you have to suffer two taps.
I decided to check if other articles can do with just one, and I looked for a random wikilink to click and check. The link I clicked was Vespasian from one of our notes. The system there is even more complicated but, I believe, still acceptable. So I think we can agree that the current system is acceptable, too? Moreover, this system has happened to grow on me. I do think it has the good looks, which is a reason for a referencing style in first place.
From what I remember, fluorine passed an FAC in 2014 with a similar referencing style.--R8R (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Many reference entries could include more complete names of authors, but mostly all we see is initials. Authors are more likely to be identified properly when using known first name also. THis is useful for when we wikilink to the articles on the authors.
As far as I can see, this is something sort of a personal liking thing. I generally adopted the "Last, F." system because I wanted to give it a try and because I knew it wouldn't hurt me back if I do. Many universities use this in their referencing styles.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • eg "The memory of the women's white faces: Japaneseness and the ideal image of women" missing first1= Mikiko
  • We should have authorlink1 etc for notable authors. If we have no notable authors for all the references listed then I wonder have we picked the best ones?
Good call. Will add some.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I just went through the first two columns of the reference list. Added a few links. The third column and journals to be done.--R8R (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First mention of journals should also have a link to the article on Wikipedia. If this is done then ISSN is not needed for the well known journals.
I generally believe ISSN is not needed for any reference. This is well illustrated by how {{cite journal}} this article heavily relies on doesn't list the |issn= parameter in any of the mentioned layouts in "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format."
As for journals: good one, too, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Journals, as well as publishers, linked.--R8R (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adsorption profile of lead on Aspergillus versicolor: A mechanistic probing" is a primary reference. Perhaps a secondary is "International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology ISSN 2278-5299 Volume 3, Issue 1: Page No.24-42 ,January-February 2014" Biosorption for metal ions removal from aqueous solutions: a review of recent studies NT Abdel-Ghani, GA El-Chaghaby - Int J Latest Res Sci Technol, 2014 - (Is that journal reputable?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I spent some time wondering if this was the case and then decided I'd go for a different citation with similar content published by ScholarlyEditions. I think this must be good.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The mentioning of the quasicrystalline lead with two references to Sharma's writings may be undue. They are both primary references, and I cannot see any reviews or textbooks that mention this. A high level article like this should probably not include details like this that are not found in secondary or tertiary references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Could this be re-instated as a note? Sandbh (talk) 04:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
My initial response to a comment suggesting we should delete some information was just that: maybe we could put it in a note. However, I looked this through and the conditions under which it was discovered and it really seems such a minor detail. I am beginning to rethink the need to state that lead could be essential for pigs in trace amounts, because actually, this is super minor, too. A mention by itself gives a lot of credit, probably more than this fact is worth.
I'll take some time to think about it, though; but for now, I think we shouldn't.--R8R (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It could go into some other article (if it exists) such as lead allotropes, solid lead or lead monolyer but not in a high level article like this one. There would be much more content that could be in this article, say on compounds, use, mining, minerals, but we don't have it here as it is too detailed, and can go into other articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That was precisely my line of thinking. I think I agree here. Also, will hide the bioessential stuff.--R8R (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The line about a reported allotrope of lead was added in response to a question by User:Nergaal on wether there were any such allotropes, noting the many allotropes of carbon, silicon, germanium and tin. Allotrope formation is a distinctive phenomenon in this part of the periodic table, so it was a fair enough question. In all other relevant element articles we mention the existence of allotropes so it'd seem reasonable to do so here. The supporting references are primary so it doesn't warrant more than an 'It was reported in…' note. Of course, with things like compounds, use, mining, minerals, one could go into more and more detail but in this case there is only one allotrope and making a brief mention of it is the kind of high caliber information I hope to see in Wikipedia articles, especially at the FAC level. I'll go ahead and add such a note. I would've done so myself earlier but wasn't in a position to be able to do so. Sandbh (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Graeme, thank you for your review. It was good as it did tighten the quality. (Again, I am sorry to say this days after the review itself. Please pardon my poor manners.)

Now, is there a question to which you believe you didn't get a satisfying response or is there anything you'd want to add?--R8R (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have not yet finished my reference review. So I am adding plenty to the delay myself! The idea is to determine if the best references have been used. Whether there is undue references used to support unimportant facts. Sometimes we get people keen to promote their own work dropping in a sentence and a reference to themselves. Though I have not seen this on the lead article yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of nutrition, an old textbook I have says a lead deficiency sign found in rats is hyperchromic microcytic anemia, and disturbed iron metabolism, but considers it not essential in humans. It covers lead far more as a toxic unwanted element in another chapter.[1]
  1. ^ Young, edited by Maurice E. Shils, Vernon R. (1988). Modern nutrition in health and disease (7th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. p. 279,694. ISBN 0812109848. 
Sure. I think the article must be good in this respect, but you're very welcome to check this.
As for nutrition, the purpose why we even used to have that info was that importance in mammals may mean importance in humans. By itself, this is a biology-specific fact, very much so. Since we agreed the human info is of little relevance, then so is the animal info. We don't cover animals; nor because this is impossible or too difficult, but because this is unrelatable information for nearly all people and this adds little to the human information, which far nore relatable.--R8R (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
More reference review / source check
  • Acton: Book, seems to have little editorial input and is a collection of research statements, fact verified 1 use
  • Alsfasser: book, should be OK, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Amstock: book, exists, 1 use, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Anderson: secondary but old from respected magazine, fact confirmed, 1 use
  • Ashikari, journal article, is missing info, it actually has a first1=Mikiko issue=1; fact and quote confirmed. (on page=65)
  • ×Audsley, G. A. Book, exists 1 use; However it contradicts the "fact" in the article; The book says that pipes should be mostly tin, with a smaller proportion of lead, Any use over 25% lead requires an "elastic conscience". also this book says that the material (or how much lead) does not affect the tone. What is affected is the durability, and appearance of the pipes.
I never liked the organ material in the first place. Perhaps now is a great chance to remove it after all.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the reference though. Perhaps the article can say "Organ pipes are often made from a lead alloy." How about that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, why not. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Australian Mining History Association, fact confirmed; better sources may be available in books; we don't actually know who wrote the web site content, or where they got information from. 1 use
I'll add this source instead: [1]. Here's what I could extract from the Google Books snippet view: "MINES AND QUARRIES. CHAPTER VII. Glen Osmond was brought into prominent notice by its silver-lead mines and its building-stone quarries. Silver-Lead Mines. It is generally accepted that Glen Osmond has the oldest mines in Australia"--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ×Bairagi doi and pmid correct; species name should be italic. Appears to have 0 uses, so should not be included, and no facts to check;
Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Baird, book, appears to exist, unable to confirm content facts
  • Bastasch, online newspaper; missing full date, which is important: 9 April 2015; fact confirmed. 1 use in a note
Why is full date important? Is it not better now that all references provide the same amount of data information?--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In any case, I think I'll rather move to this ref: -- and avoid the question.--R8R (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The full date is important because 1 its a newspaper and you may want to find the print edition, and 2, it is connected to the article fact about when it happened.
The first argument makes sense to me. Anyway, as I said, I'll move to the new .gov source. This must be OK, right?--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That ref would be OK. For dates in references they should reflect how often the thing is published. For books just a year will do, most journals should have a month, but weekly or daily publications should have a full date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The point that as I see you raise is unambiguity. Makes perfect sense to me and I'll follow. I'll note, though, that this is not really an issue for most scientific journals. They usually also have several issues per year or something. Rarely is the month ever an essential part of the info. That noted, I'll have your comment in mind anytime from now on.
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Beard: book; fact confirmed; M. E Beard appears to be the first editor. Second editor S. D. Allen Iske. It looks as if the chapter called "Imputing Lead Sources from Blood Lead Isotope Ratios" was written by Michael B. Rabinowitz.
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Becker primary research article; facts confirmed that it has oxidation state 3; Perhaps our article should mention this is called a "plumbyl radical". I am looking for a review article that covers this... It looks like a book chapter covers this: 10.1002/9780470666975.ch10 title=Stable Radicals: Fundamentals and Applied Aspects of Odd-Electron Compounds publisher=Wiley editor=Robin B. Hicks Year=2010 isbn=978-0-470-77083-2 Pages=381-406. authors=Konu, Jari, and Tristram Chivers. chapter="Stable Radicals of the Heavy p‐Block Elements." This radical is covered on page 391-2 of that. You can keep the discovery primary paper, but it is also good to include a secondary source to prove it is genuine.
Yes, the book covers this; will add.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ??Beeman missing doi=10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7 retrieved and url inapprorpiate; primary research/synthesis. 1 use; Facts only partially confirmed, though all significant figures were removed perhaps our article should say 2.3×1025 to 3.4×10189 years ; each isotope has a wide range, and our article assumes the upper bound years with figures truncated to "1".
I don't understand; what's wrong with the url? As for ranges: the article assumes the lower bound of Pb-204 and the upper bound for Pb-207, both truncated to 1. It seems like an appropriate way to make these numbers a little less precise with the purpose of not fixing the reader's attention on these for too long for a secondary-importance fact that it is.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The link is not needed as doi goes to the exact same page. A url is useful if you can get to read the article somewhere else, such as supplied by the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable enough. Will remove.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Beiner primary research publication; 1 use; fact confirmed. Try to replace this with a book or review. eg Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Key Principles and Approaches By Hanna M. Szczepanowska
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ×Berdanier reference does not appear to be used, the linked google books page does not appear to mention lead; so it should be dropped.
Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bergeson one use; This reference is written by a person who appears to be an expert on the legal aspects, and not one the science and health side of things. I would suggest using an alternative medrs quality reference.
  • Bisel, chapter in book reference confirms facts, (and also some others nearby in the text) looks good. 1 use I used this google book URL but it needs transmutation for use here.
Added transformed url.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bisson, 3 uses; all facts confirmed (although p85 calls this Benue Rift instead of Benue Trough). suitable ref.
There is no difference. It doesn't matter.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ? Blakemore, book ref 1 use, superconductivity fact confirmed, but information about resistivity and comparison to other metals is not there - needs another reference.
Will add a reference to the CRC Handbook here.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Boltwood, B. B. 1 use. Primary reference. This is basically the person who first suggested that uranium and thorium decay to lead and helium. The reference suggests using the ratio of U to Pb as a dating method. It says nothing about the lead-lead dating or isotopes, so that previous sentence also needs a reference. A secondary or book reference should back this very old reference up with modern figures.
Replaced with a new reference: Levin 2009.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bremholm 1 use primary research reference; The reference confirms nothing about PbS2 being a semiconductor, we need another reference.
This semicondictivity is not very useful since these are only stable at high pressures. Will change the claim to this per 1 and Bremholm.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Burleson, book ref with one use, confirms lead use as flux for glazing. Looks OK. Could add &pg=23 to the url.
I am not particularly keen on adding &pg=23. We don't do this when we have multiple references to a source and uniformity is nice, I'd say.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I think the citation style used here sort of implies not having these links to exact pages. It seems more logically consistent this way.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Bremner, 1 use, book reference, fact confirmed, looks fine
  • ?Burbidge, 3 uses, review reference. This is over 100 pages long, so specifying the actual page(s) used would be good. s-process p608-610, r-process also confirmed around page 641. facts confirmed.
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • de Callataÿ, review article, 1 use, fact confirmed
  • ?Casciani, reliable news source, 1 use, confirms statement, but statement in article is unclear " subsequent decreases in crime levels" was not due to exposure, but due to removal of lead.
Reworded; OK now?--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for making you wait for so long. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away from Wiki for a few days (one week at most, most probably less) and then I believe I should be able to return and edit at full strength and I will fix all issues you raise that are worth fixing. If waiting for me is what keeps you from posting more reviews, please don't let it be the reason. I'll be back very soon.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
R8R Gtrs: I am not actually waiting for you, I have been a bit busy and doing other things in my life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Charles, primary research article, mentions fact in introduction, 1 use confirmed; a review or book reference would be better.
Replaced w/ a book.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Chia, primary research reference, 1 use, fact confirmed, although most of what was prepared was a Pb(I) dimer. A review would be better.
This one is recent. However, I've found a book replacement, which is three months old now.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Christensen book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed, could add page number 867 to url.
  • Copper Development Association, web site, 1 use, facts confirmed, book may be better
  • Cotnoir book reference, should add pg=35 to url, fact mostly confirmed. But alchemical symbol is not on this page. So another reference is needed for 🜪
Symbol ref added.--R8R (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cox The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance and distribution (should have capital D) book reference with one use in a note, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
Fixed that "D".--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dart Book reference, page links to a section on lead, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
  • ?Davidson book reference, uses 87a confirms only part, fails to mention Goldschmidt classification; native occurrence is mentioned on page 5 (so should be page 4 and 5); 87b confirmed; 87c partially confirmed, should also mention copper as an impurity; 158a confirmed, 158b confirmed; 159a, 159b, 159c, 159d confirmed; 162 also needs page 12 to confirm that sulfate is in the sinter; 165 confirmed; 168 - not all impurities end up in solution, as there is also anode slime which accumulates copper, arsenic, antimony, silver, gold, bismuth, germanium. The reference is good for the use given.
Will work on Goldschmidt; mentioned copper; added pages 5 and 12; mentioned that most impurities remain in the solution.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Added a reference for Goldschmidt.--R8R (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?DeKock book source. appears not to confirm content it is cited for. But I cannot be sure.
This one is disappointingly difficult to find a good citation for. I'll hide the fact for now in a hope that one day, a good source will be found.--R8R (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
It may yet be more complicated. Tl and Bi are next to Pb on the table and have unpaired electrons, and yet they are still diamagnetic. Clearly something odd is going on down here with the 6p elements, but I have not found a good explanation as to why. This makes me sispect that the true explanation would probably constitute a very large excursion from the text if it were to be found. Double sharp (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Delile primary research article, facts confirmed, but review or book reference would be better. I am unconvinced that we need an exact quote: "unlikely to have been truly harmful".
The quote in question seems to be okay either in or out. We say, "According to archaeological research," and a quote seems appropriate. I won't insist on having it, though.--R8R (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a rare topic, by the way. On my look, I didn't find any review of this. I'm not too surprised and that's why we use a quote and say "according to archaeological research," so that it's clear the matter is not settled yet.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Deltares government report, 1 use, fact confirmed, OK
  • Duda, book ref, 1 use, facts confirmed
  • Emsley, J. book source, isbn appears to be for a 2001 edition. The page 280 does not include the information. ref 208 and 210 appear to be covered on page 226. No edition is specified in reference so what was consulted? I am looking at
No edition has been specified because I believe the year covers that well. I've corrected the isbn.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ×Ensafi - primary research article reference with one use; cited fact (Pb2+ is colourless; mostly insoluble) is not confirmed by this article; I suggest that you use a text book. (the first one I checked does not say).
Suggestion taken; using a book now.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Eschnauer; 1 use, book source; citation with quote confirmed.
  • Evans - journal article, one use, facts confirmed.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Finger - book reference, should add page to url, one use, fact confirmed.
I don't think we should. Not in general, but in this current citation style. We treat the information on where in the source the info is found and about the source itself separately. Thus, since the ref info does not include the page info, we shouldn't add it to the url, either.--R8R (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Fiorini - magazine ref, 1 use, partly confirms the facts. OK
  • Frankenburg book ref, should add page number to url, fact confirmed.
  • Frebel book ref, should add page number to url, fact confirmed.
  • Freeman, primary research article, fact confirmed, review article would be superior.
  • Funke, review article, fact confirmed.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Gale - book ref; 1 use; facts confirmed
  • Gilfillan - journal article, 1 use, confirmed.
  • Gill - book page, I cannot see this so only AGF.
  • Graedel - web pdf report page, fact confirmed on page 17 (could add page number)
    Page number added. Parcly Taxel 04:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Grandjean one use, review article, although our article says stoneware, reference says lead glaze, and its reference (Klein) says earthenware, all meaning slightly different things.
  • Greene - web site, 1 use, facts confirmed.
  • Greenwood 15 uses! Checking the google book linked, wrong page specified for ref#82 should be paGE 404 ie should be the same as ref77. the 3 citations on ref77 check OK, ref74 OK, ref71 needs page 384-386 to cover facts. ref 64 has wrong page number, should be 381, ref 60 confirmed, ref59 confirmed, ref55 confirmed, 51b and c confirmed, 51a not on the page given.
Corrected.--R8R (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sandbh

  • Support on the grounds that it appears to meet, subject to Graeme's astute comments being addressed, all the FA criteria. I've been a significant contributor since being asked by the nominator for help with copy-editing. I particularly enjoyed the History section.
  • Re the duplication of the lead "Main isotopes of lead" table as the "Most stable isotopes of lead" table in the main body of the article, this duplication is likely a good thing given Wikipedia articles are commonly viewed on mobile devices. Sandbh (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
At information level: a main infobox is supposed to summarize content of the article body, so some repetition of isotopes is to be expected. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond; thank you!--R8R (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from DePiep

  • My point re isotopes is: -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [16] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I added it is that it means that the values we list in the infobox for abundances, a:s well as the atomic weight itself, may vary significantly outside the obvious range of variation. I agree that it was too long, but I think R8R has accomplished a skilful contraction that gets t;Isotopes in he main point here (a caveat lector sign, if you will!). Double sharp (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It now says: "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". True of course, and also superfluous (because Ar already says so; why not added there btw?), generic not Pb-specific (for example, 12 Ar=[interval] elements are much heavier involved into this; missing the word 'Earth'), and not infobox-level: details of the multi-layered concept of standard atomic weight itself, not the element (you'd always have to look this up before it has meaning). Let the section do this job. -DePiep (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it varies this much is absolutely Pb-specific. The variation is small enough that it hasn't yet been changed to an interval, but large enough that you will very easily find samples outside the range given spanning almost the entire gamut from 204 to 208. Double sharp (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
By now, the all-important 'variance of abundance' is well-described elsewhere. End of issue, all fine. -DePiep (talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Section Isotopes

Disclosure: recently I've tried to clarify "standard atomic weight" (created the article) e.g. being different from relative atomic mass and having derived values like "conventional value". It occurs to me that these subtleties are not easily recognised or distinguished even by scolars/editors, resulting in imprecise term usage in wikis (including wikidata). However, I understand that I should not push this perfection too far. For now & here, I ask awareness of the issue. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, acknowledged.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • About. Existing text: "(For this reason, the atomic weight of lead is given to only one decimal place.)[36]". While factually correct, I'd like to have this a more pleasant reading. Points:
Removing the () brackets would not disrupt anything IMO, so can be done (no need to make it a sidenote, atomic weight is quite relevant). If it is bracketed, it could be removed. If unbracketed, include it in text flow.
I like these parentheses. They are sort of editorial. I used to try to avoid parentheses in texts whenever possible but I don't anymore. This is a good tool when used right. Here, they smooth the transition from the standard atomic mass talk to the relative abundances change talk. Having them costs nothing, really.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
They have a reading effect, they make a sidenote. Then either it should be a crisp sidenote or a more complete side topic. IMO now it is neither. Always, main effort should be to do without them. If impossible, think & re-read why that is not possible: there is an editorial (write/read) issue in there. With my notes below, pls try to find an improvement for eadability. How does it feel when read aloud? -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)+
Sorry, I cannot clarify enough my points about brackets & reading, too subtle English language. I should leave it then. Maybe John could take a look. For me, it's out of my English lang league. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've lost the parentheses.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, out. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And btw, please do not use "standard atomic mass" (ouch) when I'm near ;-) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Prefer writing "standard atomic weight" for "atomic weight" (equally correct, but 'atomic weight' is easily confusing, while adding the word 'standard' is removing all confusion easily). Also to check: use of short 'atomic weight' elsewhere, and adequate linking.
OK, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Corrected in Isotopes; the occurrence in Bulk is vague and we don't need to refer to the standard.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Question. The sentence leaves much to be researched (homework), in how the abundances make the atomic weight. Could we have a more direct explanation, for example: "For this reason, the relative atomic mass Ar [not s.a.w.! DP] is x in normal samples and y in thorium ores", "... this variation shows as a large uncertainty in the standard atomic weight: 207.2±0.1".
I need another go to think on this one.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You may know I love making texts accessible. Accessibility is my top priority. I've tried a few times to improve it but I honestly don't see what I could improve. Pretty clear, isn't it? Anyone should be able to handle it. Bonus fact: if a reader has to think something for themselves and then solves it, they're proud of themselves and keep going on, that's what happens often. The obstacle here is not too high; anyone should be able to do it.
Yet if something is actually unclear, please could you specify what it is?--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No I can not specify. My command of English—science—explain is too low, so I drop this. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. The source now for this remarkable abundance is: [36] Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 368. I have no access. If G&E adds details (such as various abundance calculations), it's fine. When it mentions just the value, maybe the source be {{CIAAW2016}} or [17], which is by the defining institute IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Checked both G&E and CIAAW2016. G&E supports the claim in its entirety; CIAAW does not. No changes are to be made.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable thinking. Will check.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"... CIAAW does not" you say: weird. Alas, I drop it. (Sequence quest would be : what CIAAW report does G&E 1998 use, etc.). Done. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The section's isotopes table ({{Infobox lead isotopes}}) could/should contain all isotopes mentioned in the text. If so, missing are: lead-209, -111, -112, -114 (all with natural traces).
This is possible. Leaning yes here.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Added all without the decay energies (don't immediately know where to get them and I think we'll get rid of them very soon anyway because we don't use them in the text).--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Decay energies are in the grand table Isotopes_of_lead#List_of_isotopes. For this isotopes infobox, removal of energy column is not discussed (so will stay). -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: this is a full infobox, hired from isotopes of lead. If this would limit good usage here by contradicting requirements between the two articles, a dedicated table could be made for this section. IOW, using that external infobox should not require compromises when writing a FA-level section in article lead. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Isotopes in the top infobox
  • The footnote now says "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". That better be like "Isotopic abundances [do] vary significantly".
I disagree here: if they do, then how? We may go for something like "Isotopic abundances vary significantly by sample." Is it OK with you?
OK, even better. Wanted to say: no need for 'may vary': they 'do' vary. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Which isotopes in main infobox: The infobox should give a condensed resume of the article, not a copy. For this, I propose to remove isotope lead-202 from this infobox. As its mentioning shows in section Isotopes, it is an incidental fact not major for this element. (Earlier discussion here).
For the same reason, I'd ask reconsidering listing lead-205 and lead-210, though these could have better reasons to stay in there. I'd claim that having a long half-life alone is not enough (as a characteristic for Pb).
I see your point. Though if we remove all unstable isotopes, then there is no need for a table, as it is equally represented with a short one-line list of stable isotopes. Could we do it?--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If that's the outcome (four stable isotopes only), the infobox should cover it. No reason to feel restricted by this. Not the other way around. (Ask at WT:ELEM for table adjustment, see who responds). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't feel restricted. I am ready to leave only four but we need to reorganize this part of the infobox in that case; otherwise the space will be wasted irrationally. Personally, that's what I'd want to do: only leave primordial isotopes in the infobox, and list only mass numbers and abundances.
If it is something that should be agreed on at WT:ELEM, then here is not the right to raise the issue in the first place.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: the main infobox should only list the main, characteristic, defining, calling isotopes. Then, if the result looks weird, we can change the look (but not the list). That look is maintained element-wide, not ad-hoc for lead. So, if the list only has 4 stable isotopes justified, its OK for this FA. And maybe we should improve the infobox — elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, done.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: until some weeks ago, this infobox had headertext "Most stable isotopes of ...", today "Main isotopes of ...". This change relieves the main infobox of the obligation to give a complete list by half-life. Today, we can restrain ourselves to list only the important ones, preferably those as described in the article section Isotopes. My opinion is to be very restrictive here while being as complete as FA-needed in the section. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The reference for standard atomic weight

Is reference [1], for the standard atomic weight of 207.2(1), good enough? The source could be either the 2013 technical report (as it is now, see {{CIAAW2016}}, p. 273/table 1), or the straight webpage. IUPAC should be mentioned? Maybe someone more familiar with referencing could take a look at this. BTW, the source is coded in two infobox templates so a synchronising is needed. -DePiep (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite good.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
OK then. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support leaving only the stable isotopes in the Pb main infobox, since they are all much more important than any of the radioisotopes. (Removing some of them but not others doesn't sit well with me, but removing them all is fine).

For general elements, I'm not sure "primordial only" is the best thing, because 35 elements have no primordial isotopes at all. Also, I would want the decay modes at least for the unstable ones: the shortest I could stomach for potassium is "39K, 40K (β, β+, ε), 41K", and I would like to see the long half-life too because it is assuredly important enough for the text. So I'd say the primordials make it, plus a few case-by-case exceptions of extreme importance (for example, T, 7Be, 10Be, 14C, 18F, 36Cl). But this is off-topic here and we can discuss it elsewhere. Double sharp (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • The article now uses both BC and BCE. Should be single. In a science article, I'd prefer the more neutral BCE, but I don't know if there is a freedom. -DePiep (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Politely pinging R8R Grts: this question might have been missed so far. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not reacting too fast. Good one, done.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John

It's looking a lot better than last time around. I still hate the unnecessary duplicated pronunciation guide in the infobox. Looks stupid.

Helpful to me. Visually, shall we put them together in one line? -DePiep (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That might help, good idea. --John (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. (punctuation between still ok?) OK? -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple of chemistry queries:

  • The difluoride was the first ionically conducting compound to be discovered (in 1838, by Michael Faraday).

That's quite a claim. Electrolysis was invented in 1785. Do we mean the first ionic melt?

The idea is that it was the first solid substance found to conduct electricity. Also, the date should be 1834. Both fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I raise my eyebrows at the idea of a solid ionic substance conducting. Are you sure? --John (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Are we talking about fast ion conductors? Might be worth a link if so. --John (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Carbon (coke or gas) is added to the molten charge along with fluxing agents.

Are we talking gaseous carbon here? Or a gas containing carbon? If it's the former that's remarkable, if the latter we should clarify which gas we're talking about.

We're talking about coke gas. Added a wlink.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a redirect to coal gas which explains Coal gas contains a variety of calorific gases including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and volatile hydrocarbons. Can we explain a little? --John (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Coal gas was what I meant, of course. Perhaps it is best to add a note. Will do.--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Its prevalence in the human body—at an adult average of 120 mg[q]—is nevertheless exceeded only by zinc (2500 mg) and iron (4000 mg) among all metals.[209]

Really? More prevalent than calcium, sodium, or potassium?

This should be "heavy metals," of course. Added.--R8R (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

May be more to come but I can see supporting this time, once these few wrinkles are ironed out.

  • Further thought: why are lead-acid batteries still so widely used in cars when we have better, safer, lighter, more energy-dense batteries now?
Because they're cheap :) --R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Could we source a sentence on that? --John (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Added. (Also, from what I see, mass is not too much of an advantage because mass of an accumulator is nowhere near comparable with that of the whole car.)--R8R (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is it diamagnetic? (This is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article!). --John (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
If you ask me, our infoboxes have a lot of information that shouldn't be there. I am struggling to convince WP:ELEM this is the case.
As for your question, here's an intriguing idea: Lead(0) itself is 6s26p1/22 [18]. (In addition to that, the next group 14 element, flerovium, has all paired electrons: [Rn]7s25f146d107p1/22; reasons for this are also found in lead, although to a smaller extent. Analogously, Bi+ is 6s26p1/22. [19].) This could very well be your answer. Not sure if we should discuss this in the text, though. (Not to mention I haven't yet seen a source saying that lead is diamagnetic because of this.) I need to consider it for a bit longer.--R8R (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; it might fit into the discussion of its superconductivity. Why does it superconduct at such a relatively high temperature? --John (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Diamagnetic substances are characterised by having no unpaired electrons, as Pb2+ does. The inert pair effect explains why β-Sn is paramagnetic while Pb is diamagnetic, as R8R states, and since the inert pair's effects for chemistry are already mentioned I would support adding a little sentence about the effect on the magnetic ordering. (C, Si, Ge, and α-Sn are diamagnetic for different reasons, having molecular rather than metallic structures.) About the superconductivity of Pb – this is actually also interesting: having a close-packed fcc structure it should have too much damping of the electron-phonon interaction for superconductivity (you can imagine it as there being not enough room for lattice vibrations and hence Cooper pairing). The reason why Pb still superconducts has to do with its extraordinarily high modulus of elasticity (ref). Actually all the post-transition metals (including Zn, Cd, and Hg) are superconductorsat normal pressure, except for Bi which has a semimetallic band structure and needs to be pressurised: the absence of polonium from the list is probably more a case of absence of evidence than evidence of absence. I'm still searching for a source as to why its Tc is so high compared to the elements around it, though. Double sharp (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The more I delve into this, the more I start thinking that this may very well be the sort of thing that cannot be explained easily without doubling the size of the section, but I shall keep trying for a while longer. Double sharp (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Added diamagnetism without superconductivity; at this point I'm not even sure if the latter has an accepted explanation yet, much less one that won't drag the article's focus away for several paragraphs.. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've read the rationale now and I'm afraid this is unnecessarily complicated. I don't think we should include this superconductivity stuff.--R8R (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And I hope you can live with the trims I did here and here. In each case, we had a major repetition, of the nuclear uses and of the chemistry of lead water pipes. --John (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to keep coming up with things. Why does lead have a different crystal structure from that of β-tin? John (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • They're not completely different; the tin structure is distorted fcc (tetragonal). The inert pair effect is significantly weaker for Sn than for Pb, so I think what has happened is that while Sn gives up its 5p electrons with about as much completeness as Pb for 6p, Ca for 4s, or Sr for 5s (the examples we give), the 5s electrons are also contributing weakly, being still somewhat held by the individual Sn atoms and localised. I admit readily that this is completely my OR and I haven't found a source for it yet, but it is not unheard of elsewhere in the table: the α-γ phase change in Ce comes from the localisation of the 4f electron (source), so if the s-electrons are partially delocalised in Sn and not at all in Pb it would adequately explain the difference in crystal structures, and the partial delocalisation accounts for the structures being different but not completely different.
    • Well, my OR train of thought for this persuades me that this would be a good thing to include! Now to find a real source for it. Double sharp (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
John, that's alright with me. I have lost the idea that many stars is the thing to aim for and that every obstacle is bad. Inversely, I think obstacles are good as they pose chances for improvement.
As for this one: I don't know if I'll be able to find anything sourced, but I'll give it a try. Not yet sure if I want to have it in, but let's see when/if I have found a source.--R8R (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Crystal chemistry of tetrahedral structures (Pathé 1964, p. 13) says that the structure of white tin can be derived from that of gray tin by compressing the tetrahedra of the latter along their cubic axes. So white Sn effectively has a structure intermediate between the tetrahedral structure of germanium and grey tin, and the fcc structure of lead, consistent with the general trend of increasing metallic character going down any representative group. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a note to this effect. Sandbh (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the answers. I could keep making suggestions for a while yet but I think we are safely above the level of a Chemistry FA. Inasmuch as I can comment after 130 edits I now support this candidate. --John (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support and your improvements on prose! I've taken some notes from your go-overs on how to write my future texts.--R8R (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, it's been fun and I've learned a lot. A further question, sorry. We have Like the lighter members of the group, lead exhibits a tendency to bond to itself; it can form chains, rings, and polyhedral structures. in the lead, and we have brief mention in the organometallic section of chains, but there's nothing about rings or polyhedra. This means the claim is not referenced either. Would it be possible to write something about this, or remove it from the lead? --John (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The rings and polyhedra are mentioned above when discussing Zintl ions; I'll make it clearer that this is what they are. Double sharp (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, added a brief explicit mention of rings and polyhedra. Double sharp (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! If these are discrete covalently bonded moieties, could we call them "molecules" in the lead? --John (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
They are discrete covalently bonded moieties, but I'm not sure if "molecules" sits well as a term for them, since they are charged (there's a good reason why they're called Zintl ions). ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking good...

lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC - this sounds odd to me - I'd say from 3000 BC in this case.
since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians - ditto here
These two have actually been discussed in the beginning of this review and we've agreed "since" is okay for our AmE purposes here.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, missed that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In Europe, lead production only began to revive in the 11th and 12th centuries, - "revive" looks a bit funny here. I always think of it either as a transitive verb or in the passive
According to Merriam-Webster, intransitive "revive" is fine. Maybe that's another ENGVAR thing?--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably. I couldn't imagine writing it this way in British English, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen this construction used in American English somewhere. Double sharp (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
During the period, lead mining proved important - you can remove this - the next sentence spells it out anyway

:::A good one, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but lead is more common than most of these metals, and lead-bearing minerals are easier to mine and process than those of many other metals - cumbersome, why not just, "Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but are [generally/for the most part] less common and more difficult to extract from parent ores"
Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
One disadvantage of using lead is its toxicity, which explains why it has been phased out for some uses --> "Lead's toxicity has led to its phasing out for some uses"
Good, done.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

prose and comprehensiveness on point otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your time! Much appreciated.
(Again, I'm sorry to have forgotten to say it when first replying to the comments.)--R8R (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

  • From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.
For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The point is not that the sample must be cut; the point is that the sample must be pure, and freshly cut samples are purer until they undergo passivation in the air.
The source says, "В свежем срезе свинец является блестящим металлом серо-голубого цвета, который сохраняется в сухом воздухе, но быстро тускнеет в присутствии влаги." Google Translate translates it to "In a fresh cut, lead is a glistening gray-blue metal that persists in dry air, but quickly fades in the presence of moisture."--R8R (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the Russian citation with an English one. Sandbh (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe I did try doing this before and I generally like having English-language sources whenever possible. This is definitely sort of information that should exist in English, I just didn't get to find it (in English).--R8R (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The "new" reference ("Writers of Eminence") was written in 1880...? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, there are still many references to Polyanskiy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
From what R8R says (which accords with my experience looking for this), there may not be a good equivalent to Polyanskiy in English which is similarly comprehensive as a source. There are a great deal of good sources in other languages that languish untranslated (I am still waiting for a translation of the more recent editions of Holleman & Wiberg from German, for example), so I would be willing to make an exception for sources like this when they are very good. Double sharp (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I've replaced the 1880 reference with a reference to G&E (1997). I understand (and support) the desire to have English-language sources in English Wiki instead of foreign-language sources whenever we can have an easy opportunity to have the ones in English; therefore, I've also replaced many references to Polyanskiy that were sufficiently easy to replace with references to other books (G&E, Ullmann, etc.) Those remaining are quite hard to replace, or at least so I found them; maybe there's a chance that that's been mentioned somewhere but this will require inadequate amount of work to find them.--R8R (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, "malleable" redirects to "ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.
How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?
Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The wikilink that I refer to is in the lead section. Regarding your suggestion of "often classified", lead is one of three elements that fit all of the criteria of heavy metals. I think its status as a heavy metal is more important than being "malleable", more so given that we already say that it is soft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I can agree on having "heavy metal" back, but does it have to be on expense of mentioning its malleability? Here's a solution close to what we've had before: "It is soft, malleable, and a heavy metal." Do you think it's okay to go?--R8R (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Reworded further; please see now.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Both the above suggestion and the current statement are fine. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Atomic", paragraph 1: "The similarity in lead is caused by the lanthanide contraction—the decrease in element radii from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (71), and the relatively small radii of the elements after hafnium (72)." The first wikilink goes to "atomic radius", which seems fine, while the second link goes to "ionic radius". Is this intentional? If so, the sentence should use the full names of the types of radii to make the distinction clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice one! Yes, that second link doesn't belong there. Removed.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Bulk", paragraph 2: "It is the origin of the idiom to go over like a lead balloon." Shouldn't this be "to go down like a lead balloon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See the source: "go over" is AmE, while "go down" is BrE. We use AmE in this article, so it's "go over."--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should give both versions, though. BrE users will understand AmE spellings, but they might not know all the different AmE idioms. Normally this doesn't come up because idioms are not really used in the sort of writing found on WP, but when the idioms themselves are the things being covered, I think it is justified. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is sort of a minor detail I wouldn't want to interrupt the text with, but I've added a note (this is a fine solution here, I believe) mentioning the British version.--R8R (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Works perfectly for me; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 3: "Their isotopic concentration in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of other elements. For example, the relative abundance of lead-208 can range from 52.4% in normal samples to 90% in thorium ores." The former sentence needs further clarification. I suppose that what is meant is that the percentages of the different lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the quantities of elements from the three decay series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you basically got that right. Does it look okay now?--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "nuclides" could be referring to the isotopes of lead or to the uranium & thorium isotopes. How about this: "The concentration of lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of radionuclides from these three decay chains." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's only Th and U that matter (the rest being their daughters whose occurrence depends totally on that of their planets), so I'd just refer to them as "these thorium and uranium isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've edited it to mention Th and U explicitly as the parents; it should be clearer now. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 4: "Lead-214, -212, and -211 are present in the decay chains of uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235, so traces of all three of these lead isotopes are found naturally." Why are these isotopes listed in descending numerical order? Also, I recommend adding "respectively" to the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", paragraph 3: "Organic acids, such as acetic acid, dissolve lead in the presence of oxygen." That's interesting. Why is oxygen required? This reference discusses humidity, but doesn't seem to mention oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into any detail here. It's a very respected source, though -- it even has a template for wiki citations: {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "A further sesquioxide Pb2O3 can be obtained at high pressure, along with several non-stoichiometric phrases." Should this be "phases"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. This has been fixed, though, but you spotted it well.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "Many of them show defect fluorite structures in which some oxygen atoms are replaced by vacancies." Should this be "defective fluorite structures"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 1: "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe3)2]2 as well as Pb(η5-C5H5)2." Is it relevant that the former chemical is purple? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "These compounds are relatively stable—tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C—or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." The use of the double dash effectively sets aside the text inside. This leaves the remaining statement: "These compounds are relatively stable or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." However this does not make sense. The statement needs to be re-phrased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice one. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Tetramethyllead is no longer implied. Is that intentional? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I've re-read the text; it seems clear and correct to me.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "With sodium metal, lead readily forms an equimolar alloy that reacts with alkyl halides to form organometallic compounds such as tetraethyllead." My understanding is that an alloy is a mixture of two or more metals. (The article "Alloy" implies that non-metallic elements can be significant constituents.) For an alloy to be "equimolar" wouldn't this require the constituents to be present in equal quantities? In which case, this would only occur if the initial conditions included the elements in equal quantities? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand the general principle vaguely but I'm not sure if I can explain it well. Some metals dissolve in each other and some don't. If I recall correctly, the equimolar alloy is a good solution with a good mixed crystal structure rather than a set of lead pellets within sodium or vice versa (so that there is some bonding between the two elements). Some small excess of either metal should not influence bonding, or does that only locally.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
If that is indeed the definition of "equimolar" then the wikilink to "Mole (chemistry)" doesn't really make sense. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed the link.--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "Other organolead compounds are less chemically stable or unknown." I am unsure what "unknown" means in this context. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe the text originally read something like, "Other organolead analogs of organic compounds compounds are less chemically stable or unknown." The point is that there is no lead analog for every organic compound and lead analogs for many organic compounds don't exist. Do you think we should change the phrasing?--R8R (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
How about this: "Other organolead compounds are less chemically stable. For many organic compounds, a lead analog does not exist." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Good; done.--R8R (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A minor point: in "Origin and occurrence", subsection "In space", platinum and iridium have wikilinks, but the other elements do not. Why is this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Those elements not linked have been linked by this point already.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmm.... "Gold" and "osmium" were linked in the "Bulk" subsection. "Mercury" was linked in the "Isotopes" subsection. Those subsections are a long way before "In space". I suspect that most readers do not read the whole article from top to bottom. Anyway, I suppose it is not important. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "Prehistory and early history": "The Ancient Egyptians were the first to use lead in cosmetics, an application that spread to Ancient Greece and beyond." Was this lead metal, or a lead compound? This paper describes the artificial manufacture of two lead chlorides: laurionite and phosgenite. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, Egyptian black kohl was galena. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Kohl the mineral (which is not galena but a closely related mineral) is not even a lead mineral, but it always contains lead as an impurity. The source also mentions almonds, which are actually used in cosmetics for making kohl the cosmetic. It seems they mixed the mineral and almonds; ashes and ochre seem to be fine in that mix just as well (as long as we're only concerned with color-making for cosmetics). And also, the source explicitly mentions lead---not lead rust, lead oxide, lead sulfide, or anything---just lead.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The very article that you refer to states "Galena eye paint (later termed Kohl in Arabic from the Akkadian word for the cosmetic) was widely applied in Ancient Egypt. Upper eyelids were painted black and lower ones were colored green, as depicted in ancient texts that describe the use of both black galena and green malachite." The article also describes the use of frankincense. "Kohl" is too generic a term to be used for one specific mineral. I disagree with your implication that "Kohl the mineral" refers only to stibnite and no other mineral. "And also, the source explicitly mentions lead---not lead rust, lead oxide, lead sulfide, or anything---just lead." Did you read the reference? It states "Egyptian women apply galena mesdemet (made of copper and lead ore) and malachite (bright green paste of copper minerals) to their faces for color and definition." There are plenty of sources that describe the Egyptians using galena as a cosmetic. They (and other civilizations) also used white lead as a white cosmetic. I am also surprised that you have not responded to my comment about this paper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to keep you waiting. I'll get to this in the coming days.--R8R (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I've taken another go and I see you must've been right. Even the name "laurionite" is familiar to me. I believe I've shaken it off prematurely.
I've added the word "minerals." Is it good to go with?--R8R (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that you could have expanded this a little, but it's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "Classical era", paragraph 1: "Because silver was extensively used as a decorative material and an exchange medium, lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC, since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; by 1600 BC, lead mining existed in Cyprus, Greece, and Sicily." The grammar/syntax of the first part of the sentence (before the semi-colon) is not correct. Did the Phoenicians work deposits in Asia Minor since 3000 BC? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Copyedited and added more.--R8R (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • From "History", subsection "Middle Ages and the Renaissance", paragraph 2: "The use of such wine was forbidden in 1498 by a papal bull, as it was deemed unsuitable for use in sacred rites, but it continued to be imbibed and resulted in mass poisonings up to the late 18th century." Was it forbidden just for use in sacred rites, or was its recreational use also forbidden? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The sources only mentioned rites. I've researched for an hour or two to get an answer to this one and by now, I'm confident it dealt with these rites only.--R8R (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. In which case the sentence needs to be re-phrased. How about: "The use of such wine was forbidden for use in Christian rites by a papal bull in 1498, as it was deemed unsuitable, but it continued to be imbibed and resulted in mass poisonings up to the late 18th century." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've done it on behalf of R8R Gtrs (we are both part of the Elements WikiProject). I didn't see anything that could be improved in the sentence you gave. Parcly Taxel 02:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the "as it deemed unsuitable" part. To keep the prose grasp, we should minimize the number of words that don't add anything particularly new to the text. Otherwise, yes, sure.--R8R (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp

I'll heartily add my support based on all the improvements that have been carried out for this excellent element article. Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and kind words! (I'd want to add another word, but nothing falls on my mind. So just thank you!)--R8R (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

One small thing about the s-process graphic: alpha decay of 210Bi is a very minor branch and I think it may be better to not mention it entirely (also in the text). Perhaps we should also deemphasise the cycling from 210Po and beyond, because the cross-sections for neutron capture of 208Pb and 209Bi are very low, so this is actually not a very major contribution (10.1103/PhysRevC.70.065803); a lot more lead (about one-third of 206Pb and 207Pb) actually comes from the r-process from the decay of the elements in the Po–Ac valley. Double sharp (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on the Bi-210 bit. Will do. As for cycling, not yet so sure. IIRC, according to B2FH, this is an important factor. The paper you cite is more up to date, but I'd want to know that other authors confirmed this. B2FH has too much reputation to be simply overwritten by one paper.--R8R (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's just a minor detail in the picture, and I think we currently leave it vague enough to be fine. For instance, we don't say how much the cycling factor multiplies the observed abundance of Pb and Bi, and by not saying how major it is we don't make readers wonder how come capture past the closed shell is totally fine in the s-process and disfavoured in the r-process. Removing the alpha branching of 210Bi is more important, I think. (B2FH treats it as important, but in that time the alpha-decaying isomer was thought to be the ground state: now we know that it is an isomer and will quickly de-excite in a stellar environment and have no time to go to A = 211 before terminating the chain.) Double sharp (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it there. As for Bi-210, I'm trying to update the file and unfortunately, it won't work, but I'll keep trying.--R8R (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Must be a cache issue; it still shows the alpha decay of 210Bi at my computer at home, but it's gone on my phone. Given that, I have no further reservations. Double sharp (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

A well referenced and well written article on an important scientific topic. A few tiny points that don't really affect my support, but could be neater:

  • The white face became a "symbol of a Japanese woman", with lead commonly used in the whitener. Why is "symbol of a Japanese woman" in quotes? It's sufficiently vague that I don't think it needs to be marked as a direct quote, and if you do want it be a quote, it's not clear which of the three references cited in that sentence you're quoting.
Yes, it does seem like a phrase I'd rather treat as a quote rather than state. Moved one reference to show which one I am referring to and added a precise quote.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Exposure to airborne lead from the combustion of tetraethyl lead in gasoline during the 20th century has been linked with historical increases in crime levels, a hypothesis which is not universally accepted I'd add "...and subsequent decreases..." - the striking part of the hypothesis is the decrease in crime with the introduction of "unleaded fuel". Also, we actually have an article on the Lead and crime hypothesis which should be linked.
As for "decreases": yes, you're right. Done. As for link: this actually has been discussed this and I thought we'd reached an agreement on having that link! Added.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As with European industrialization, lead has had a negative effect on health in China. Something like "As was the case during European industrialization" might be clearer - it sounds like it's saying that European industrialization had a negative effect on health in China. Smurrayinchester 12:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure.--R8R (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, support. Smurrayinchester 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

  • Have I missed a source review for formatting and reliability above? If we still need one you can request it at the top of WT:FAC.
  • That aside, it looks to me that we've pretty well achieved consensus to promote here but pls jump in, reviewers, if I'm speaking too soon... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am still in the process of reviewing the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am reviewing every source, but it will take a while. See above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How are we progressing here? I'd really like to wrap this up soon. Axl, do you have more to add to your review? And Graeme Bartlett how is the source review looking? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I am perhaps one third of the way through a full review of the article. If you cannot wait any longer, I suppose that since several editors already support the article, you should close with promotion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
We can wait longer here, there is no particular rush as long as things are still progressing. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I got up to "e" with references. It showed that many references could be improved in some way, and perhaps 5% of facts were not supported by the supplied reference. But I don't expect that other featured articles are any better in this respect. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Now up to "G". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by edwininlondon

Sorry for being late to the party, but a few more comments from a non-expert:

  • Compounds of lead are usually found in the +2 oxidation state, rather than the +4 common with lighter members of the carbon group. -> this doesn't tell me unambiguously that lead is part of the carbon group. I would expect that in the first or second sentence.
  • lead's upper neighbor in group 14 ->I haven't been told that group 14 is the same as carbon group. In fact, because both were links I assumed they were different
These two make a good call. There is no need to use both terms. I've changed all to "carbon group." Really, very well spotted; this is why I love having non-pro reviews. Thank you already at this point for taking part.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The similarity in -> similarity of what?
Reworded this one.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the outer electrons are drawn towards the nucleus -> isn't that always the case? (excuse my ignorance)
No problem at all, quite the contrary; I like writing good accessible texts and this sort of comments is what helps to check what I might have missed. Yes, it is always the case. What the text is trying to say is this: Outer electrons are, of course, attracted to the nucleus because their charges have different signes. However, outer electrons are repelled from the inner electrons because have charges of identical signs; this is the "shielding" referred to in the text. Comparing lead (element 82) to tin (element 50), the charge of the nucleus is almost two-thirds higher but the "new" electrons (present in lead but not on tin) should have shielded the nucleus better so that the resulting attraction to the nucleus is weaker (this, to oversimplify it, is why the vertical periodic trends are a thing). However, 4f electrons don't shield as well as one could have imagined and lead's outer electrons should have been not as well drawn to the nucleus as they are. Hope this explains it.
Now that you got it (if you didn't, feel free to ask any further questions), is there any rewording you could suggest?--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I get it. I actually think it is better then to just remove this statement altogether. It only raises questions unnecessarily. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
You're right. Done.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • making the distance between nearest atoms in crystalline lead is unusually long -> superfluous is
Done, thank you.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It is the origin of the idiom  -> what is "It" referring to?
Density; clearified that.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • small amounts of copper or antimony -> antimony should be a link
Sure.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The beginning of the Inorganic compounds section feels repetitive: was this not already discussed in a previous section?
Sort of. The basic reasons why some lead's physical charactersitcs and chemical characteristics differ from those of the lighter carbon group elements are often identical. For example, the inert pair effect is mentioned first as a reason why lead's crystal structure is different than those of tin, germanium, etc. (in Bulk) and then as a reason why lead's oxidation states are different (in the beginning of Chemical characteristics) becuase it is both. However, I've removed one unnecessarily repititive sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • due to the Pb–C bond being rather weak -> How weak? What is the bond energy? I only ask because you just mentioned 98 and 356.
I think it's best we move from those numbers at all. It's the relative difference that matters here, not the values themselves.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • galena (a common lead mineral). -> I don't think we need the info in parentheses, already mentioned 2 paragraphs ago
Good.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  ; by 1600, lead mining existed -> BC I presume
Indeed.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Other researchers have criticized such claims, citing errors in linking the fall of Rome to lead poisoning, -> not much of an explanation I think
This is written this way only to stress the issue in the final claim ("false evidence"); some textual dramaturgy. Is it not okay?--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it could be better. Something along the lines of "Other researchers have criticized such claims, pointing out for instance that not all abdominal pain is caused by lead poisoning." Which is what I got from the 2nd source. I can't get to the first, but I'd prefer a bit more detail over the vague statements.Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable. I have used your suggestion except I added commas before and after "for instance," which, as I just checked, seems to be correct for AmE.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • sound deadening -> What physical aspect of lead makes it a good sound deadening material? Why?
Good one. This will require some phrasing and source referencing accurateness checking so it'll have to wait for a while; hopefully, I'll get to this tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Added.--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • lead in the early 21st century is in lead–acid batteries -> was already linked
Right. Fixed.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this well-illustrated, interesting article. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it; thank you for taking part. It's this sort of reception that really pushes me forward.--R8R (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I see there are quite a few issues still with the references:
  • 32 102 104 113 132 135 150 155 156 157180 190 202 219 all show up as red Harv errors. Half of those seem to come from V. Rich being either 2013 or 2014. Amazon BTW says it is 1994.
Edwininlondon (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there a particular way of how you find these? If there's an automated tool, I'd love to know as I've wanted to employ one.
I was told to install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see them highlighted. It's great.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, fixed these links. (Removed one as the source has been removed but the sentence it was supposed to support somehow wasn't.)--R8R (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Parcly Taxel

With the editing that has taken place since Edwinlondon's comments on 3 June, a few new Harvard errors have come up (I use the same Ucucha script): Bremholm, Gottschlich, Hunter, Insel, Klatt, "Lead Paint Information", Sohn, Writers of Eminence. Would you care to remove those unused references as well? There's also the OED citation, which is reported as an error by the same script; perhaps it could be expanded into a full citation so as to avoid the error.

As well as that, is there someone willing to continue the source review begun by Graeme Bartlett above? Nevertheless, I still support this candidate for FA status – the layout is the same as that of fluorine, the one I myself nominated, and the prose itself is very clear and tight. Parcly Taxel 02:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Done by nominator. I have no other issues. Parcly Taxel 09:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing my attention to this. And thank you for your support!--R8R (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Macedonia, home of Alexander the Great, deserves an article worthy of His Majesty's name! It is the will of the gods and the birthright of the Macedonians to both conquer and rule this little section of Wikipedia. Like the glorious Philippeion of Olympia, Greece erected by Alexander's one-eyed father Philip II, this article has been constructed for the glory of Macedonia (no, not that Macedonia you pleb). Although it has attained the rank of Good Article status, anything less than Featured Article status would be a shameful insult and blight on the cherished name and memory of the Argead dynasty.

Other editors and I have worked hard to bring to you the present incarnation of this article, which is well-sourced, well-illustrated (with all the appropriate copyright tags/licensing), meticulously proportioned and balanced, and linked to appropriate sub articles via Wikipedia:Summary style (e.g., History, Government, Rise of Macedon, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian army, etc.). In regards to the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size and the current size of this article, please view our community discussion and consensus (external link). I consider that talk page discussion as necessary reading before any of you raise any sort of objection about the article's size, which has been drastically reduced even since the successful GA nomination, thanks to the creation of new sub-articles (authored by yours truly and currently GA candidates if anyone's interested in reviewing them as well). I look forward to the nomination process and I hope that we can have a thought-provoking, civil discussion on how to improve the article if necessary. Kind regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "Philip II": Inconsistency. It would probably be best to use "Philip II" at first occurrence in each paragraph and "Philip" after that, unless there's another Philip involved.
  • "utilized": overutilized. Substitute "used" for some of these.
  • "allegedly sent two-hundred ships": alleged by whom? If you're pretty sure he didn't do this, delete this phrase, and if you're pretty sure he did it, based on the sources, drop "allegedly".
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another monumental achievement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As you've suggested, I got rid of the word "allegedly" in the sentence about Philip V's navy. However, I can find only two instances in the entire article where the word "utilized" has been employed. Are you sure that this represents an overuse of that term? Also, "Philip II" is numbered precisely because in that sub-section and in the next we refer to his son and one of his successors, Philip III of Macedon (or Philip III Arrhidaeus). In the following sub-sections we also discuss the reigns of Philip IV of Macedon and Philip V of Macedon. More than that, there's only one monarch in this entire article who has skirted the rule of repeatedly having a Latin numeral placed after his name (minus those monarchs who had unique names that weren't repeated), and that's Alexander the Great. He is mentioned once in the article as Alexander III of Macedon, yet we shorten this to Alexander or just Alexander the Great because that is how the general public knows him. This follows the rule of Wikipedia:Common names where, for instance, we refer to the politician Bill Clinton as such, not by his full name William Jefferson Clinton. Likewise, we do not use the full names or even the surnames of well known performance artists Bono (Paul Hewson) or Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). I actually attempted to have Alexander the Great mentioned as "Alexander III" in every instance, but these Latin numerals were removed by another editor. I did not want to engage in an edit war and I recognized the Wiki guideline about the use of common names, so that's why the article looks the way it does now. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to take the second paragraph of the lead, for instance: it's Philip II, then Philip, then Philip II again, and no other Philip has been mentioned. I think your basic approach is sound ... you want to keep reminding people you're talking about Philip II, but that gets tiresome so you mix in Philip. I just think that it's somewhat conventional to give the full name once in a paragraph and the short name thereafter, unless, in that paragraph, there are other Philips to consider. Again, great work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: thank you VERY much for pointing these out, as I was unaware of them. Another editor made some copyedits to the first few sub-sections recently and I hadn't noticed these specific changes in removing the Latin numerals after Philip's name in some places. I have edited the article to make it clear once again exactly which Philip of Macedon we are discussing in each and every instance. Once again, the only monarch who is allowed to shirk this rule is Alexander the Great, who is also named as Alexander III of Macedon in a couple places just to avoid any and all ambiguity. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
To be clearer, I meant "Philip II" at first occurrence in a paragraph and "Philip" thereafter, where it's unambiguous. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I should have added: use your discretion on what "unambiguous" means. In the second paragraph of the lead, no one else named Philip has been mentioned. Later on, you could argue that if another Philip has been mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, then "Philip" might be ambiguous. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)'s fine the way it is now, I think. Thanks once again for your review! Pericles of AthensTalk 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads, and I'm happy to see Tony working on that below. Two suggestions:
  • Is it possible to slide "Ancient: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]" over to the right, into a third line in the infobox, or to put it in a footnote?
  • "during most of its existence initially" is a little off; compare with "the whole time at first". One option is to start with "initially" and then put "during most of its existence" before the other two dynasties, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: hello again! I have shifted that pronunciation of "Makedonia" into a footnote as you've suggested. I've also reworded that sentence about the royal dynasties of Makedonia, although I did not use your suggested fix. The new sentence reads as thus: "The kingdom was founded and at first ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties." I think it sounds crisper this way. Sometimes simpler is better. --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps
  • Coins are considered 3D works and so should not generally use the PD-Art tag. Sculptural works definitely should not use this tag
  • File:Coin_of_Amyntas_III-161113.jpg needs a licensing tag for the photo
  • File:Pella_House_atrium.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
  • File:Aristoteles_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:20100913_Ancient_Theater_Marwneia_Rhodope_Greece_panoramic_3.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: hello! Thanks for taking a look at these. The source info for Pella House Atrium is now fixed. However, I have a couple questions. Should the coins still contain PD tags, just not PD-Art ones? Since they are ancient art? What should I do for sculptural works? I am confused, since you say the sculpture of Aristotle and Theatre of Rhodope need copyright tags for the original work. Please be specific as to which precise tags are needed for each of these items, and I will gladly fix them. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
PD-US and PD-70 would apply to most of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: hi again. I have done as you've requested and fixed the license tags for each image of a sculpted work of art or coin. Please let me know if there are any pictures that I might have missed or that need further editing. I have also enlarged each and every map image in the article as you've suggested (minus the map in the infobox of the lead section). I hope all of these latest edits suffice! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 15:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks well-written. I read the lead carefully:
    • "For a brief period, his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world, the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Could that be: "For a brief period his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world – the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Placement of the dash (or pair of dashes) affects the meaning; currently, with just commas it's ambiguous.
    • "advances in philosophy, engineering, and science were spread throughout the ancient world"—Is "throughout" an overstatement?
    • "and even possessed democratic municipal governments"—does one "possess" a government?
    • "New cities were also founded"—is "also" needed? Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tony1: hi Tony! Long time no see; I remember you reviewing more than one of my featured articles in the past. It's good to see that you're still around! Thanks for taking the time to review the lead section. I have decided to amend that section according to your suggestions. I did change "possessed democratic municipal governments" to "had democratic municipal governments," although I'm not quite sure if this change was necessary. The subject of this statement is "local governments", which I believe can possess things. Right? There are multiple definitions for the word "possess," one of them being "have as an ability, quality, or characteristic," as opposed to the more common definition: "have as belonging to one; to own," or "have possession of as distinct from ownership." I believe that my original intent in writing that sentence followed the first definition here. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Perecles, you're welcome. "while a few local governments within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had/possessed democratic municipal governments with popular assemblies" – I think simpler is better. But either way, it brings up something I didn't quite notice before: governments have governments? Perhaps it could be "a few local areas ... and even had governments with popular assemblies"? Tony (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tony1: ha! How did I not notice this before? I have reworded the sentence as follows: "The authority of Macedonian kings was theoretically limited by the institution of the army, while a few municipalities within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had democratic governments with popular assemblies." That's the most optimal solution, I think. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Support the sourcing, have not judged content. Source review - note that I haven't read the article itself. I reviewed this version. Gotta sweat some of the small stuff.

  • General comments
    • As with Sino-Roman relations, only the first place of publication listed on a book's title page is needed. See e.g. Chicago Manual of Style 14.135: "The place to be incuded is the one that usually appears on the title page but sometimes on the copyright page of the book cited—the city where the publisher's main editorial offices are located. Where two or more cities are given ("Chicago and London," for example, appears on the title page of the print edition of this manual), only the first normally included in the documentation."
    • I really don't like the use of ampersands. I can (begrudgingly) accept their use in individual citations for length reasons, but they should be replaced with "and" in the bibliography.
    • Given the quantity and length of some of your discursive footnotes, I'd recommend splitting them into a separate section. See WP:EXPLNOTE.
    • Should the Encyclopædia Britannica appear in further reading or external links? One, not both!
  • Citations
    • Why the full citations for Liddell and Scott in refs 9 and 10? Should be Liddell and Scott 1940.
    • You need to decide whether you're going to end all the citations with or without a period. ;-)
    • Ref 237 has a hanging semi-colon.
    • Not a fan of the quote in ref 266. I'd integrate it into the main article or put it into your own words. Same with ref 352 and 353. Note that it's not clear which ref covers the quote in 352.
    • "seems far less convinced" and "seems less convinced" read a little bit like OR, although I totally understand what you're trying to do there. I might suggest rewording to "Errington is more skeptical ..."
  • Sources section
    • E. J. Brill or Brill? Be consistent.
    • Ahmed's Chaghatai is from a self-published source.
    • Why are you citing a chapter by Bolman in a book written by Bolman? This should be cited in the usual style for books.
    • Is the 2002 edition of Bringmann in German? It's not coming up in Worldcat.
    • Chugg's Alexander's Lovers is by Lulu, a self-published source.
    • I'm not sure that A. Giuffrè was the editor of de Francisci's Arcana Imperii II? Worldcat has that as the publisher.
    • Hofmann's Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Griechischen - in German, I assume? Should be noted in the citation.
    • I wonder if there's a better source than Joseph, which appears to be the quasi-personal webspace for an OSU professor? If kept, you should standardize the citation to Joseph 2004 in ref 292.
    • Renault's The Nature of Alexander the Great ought to be cited to the original source. I'm not really doubting that Open Road Integrated Media messed with the text, assuming that the line "a focus on publishing ebook editions of older works of literature and nonfiction" in its Wikipedia article is accurate, but it really doesn't come across as reliable with a publisher like that. Full info is on Worldcat.
    • Why are you citing two different editions of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Pericles' reply

@The ed17: greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review this article as well as Sino-Roman relations, even after it's successful FAC. I've addressed each and every one of your points, with the sole exception of your quibble about quotations in the citations (now placed in a new "notes" section). However, I have removed one of quotations that you viewed as problematic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Per the Chicago Manual of Style and for that matter Harvard style, I have removed all the additional publication locations/cities.
  • I have removed all ampersands in the article that were not critical components to some of the URLs.
  • Encyclopædia Britannica now appears only in the "External links" section.
  • As I mentioned above, I have created a new "notes" ref group above citations for all those lengthy, discursive footnotes.
  • I fixed the inline citations from online sources, e.g. Liddell and Scott 1940.
  • All footnotes now contain uniform punctuation; feel free to point out any mistakes if they still exist. I'm pretty sure that I expunged every non-conforming, deviating instance of punctuation.
  • Changed "seems less convinced" to "is skeptical" per your suggestion.
  • Changed every instance of "E.J. Brill" to "Brill".
  • Chaghatai wasn't actually cited in the article, so that was simple enough to remove. I've also removed Chugg as you've suggested.
  • You are mistaken about Elizabeth Bolman. She is not the author of that book; she's the editor! It contains chapters written by various authors. She happens to be one of the authors writing some of the book chapters, not all of them.
  • Bringmann's 2002 publication must be in German. In either case the 2007 edition is in English. I simply forgot to add the translator's name (i.e. W.J. Smyth), which I have done a moment ago.
  • You're absolutely correct about A. Giuffrè being the publisher, not the editor. That was an honest mistake on my part, one that has now been fixed.
  • I have specified that Hofmann's book is in German.
  • I have fixed the online source citation for Joseph 2001. As for removing it, I'd like to see a second opinion on that. It's at least an academic source, i.e. a website hosted by an academic institution. It's also listed among other sources in that citation. If the citation relied on that single source, then perhaps it would be problematic. His opinion is at least supported by a few other authors who've had their books published by academic presses.
  • I have changed Renault's publication details as you've suggested.
  • Although I've removed the additional version of Worthington's Alexander the Great: a Reader, it exists there as a remnant of how the article was before I conducted a massive removal and shift of material into the existing sub-article Ancient Macedonians and new sub-articles History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom), per Wikipedia:Summary style.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the lengthy quotations in citations 266, 352, and 353, I've removed the first one and reworded the sentence in order to use my own words instead of a quotation. However, I'm keeping the quotations in 352 and 353 (after distinguishing which "Errington" source the quotation came from in citation 352). I don't see a problem with these, since they aren't incredibly lengthy, just single paragraphs each. It would be one thing if I quoted half of their books. Then we'd have a copyright issue. There are featured articles on Wikipedia, such as the one on Pericles, which utilize sizable quotations in the body of the article, let alone in the footnotes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems more like a pet peeve of yours than an actual Wiki guideline that must be followed. In either case, thanks once again for reviewing the article. I hope that you view my recent changes to the article as being satisfactory. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey PericlesofAthens, just a note that I've seen your reply and will return here asap. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: well, you can take your time, I think. This review doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyway. I remember the days of old (c. 2007-2011) when featured article candidates used to get 20 to 30 comments/supports/oppositions within a single week. Now the FAC page is something of a ghost town. Kinda spooky. And also very sad. --Pericles of AthensTalk 22:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: Times are changing, and not always for the better. :-/ Your changes look good. I've supported above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: thank you kindly for your support! Pericles of AthensTalk 19:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • tentative support - I like what I read - not seeing any glaring prose errors - the prose is good enough that I just slip into "reader" rather than "corrector" mode, which is a good sign. It appears comprehensive. I do wonder whether the History material is long compared with the rest of the material but then again, it is pretty convoluted. 85 kb of readable prose is pretty long, but I'm not hugely fussed by that. The only thing i'd definitely do is remove or drastically trim the see also section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: thanks for your support! I have followed your advice and removed about half of the links in the "See also" section. As noted above, the current size of the article has been reviewed by other active editors and a consensus has been reached that the prose size is appropriate. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but 85 kb is also a bit too high of an estimate since it includes the lead section. I just checked by doing the "page size" test, which always seems to include the lead section for some reason. The actual prose body is perhaps a bit closer to 80 KB in size. --Pericles of AthensTalk 00:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "Ancient Macedonians": is this commonly used as a proper noun? I would expect "ancient" to be an adjective modifying "Macedonian", and be lowercase – as it seems to be used in the article on ancient Macedonians.
  • Lead implies that Alexander was mainly motivated in his invasion of Persia by desire for retaliation against an invasion which had happened 100+ years before he was born: is this accurate?
  • Successor states mentioned in the lead in the paragraph before it is explained that Alexander's empire broke up upon his death: perhaps this should be reordered
Rise of Macedon
  • "Philip II practiced polygamy and married seven wives with perhaps only one that did not involve the loyalty of his aristocratic subjects or new allies." This clause is confusing. Does it mean that of Philip's wives, he married six for political reasons but the seventh perhaps for personal reasons?

Only read as far as the end of the section "Rise of Macedon" so far. I shall try to come back and finish the article off later today, but no significant concerns so far. Certainly the article is comprehensive and thoroughly referenced. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Pericles' reply

  • Changed "Ancient Macedonians" to "ancient Macedonians"
  • The Persian invasions of Greece during the first quarter of the 5th century BC witnessed events such as Xerxes' decision to burn Athens to the ground. The Athenians faced total destruction and subjugation yet prevailed at the naval Battle of Salamis. Meanwhile, as explained in the article, the Macedonians were allied vassals of the Persians and aided them during this invasion, yet broke this alliance once the Persians fled Greece. The Greeks had a long collective memory; the burning of the greatest city in the Greek world was not something they were just going to forget. Philip II and Alexander were no doubt eager to champion the Greek cause of invading Persia because it suited their political interests and enhanced their own prestige while at the same time placating their Greek subjects and allies, many of whom viewed the Macedonians as semi-barbarian. It was more or less a means of further cementing the Macedonians' Greek identity by addressing the chief concern of the Greeks, although the Spartans perhaps did not share this since they sometimes favored a loose alliance with the Persians. I'm not going to explain all of this in the article, since it is not the purpose of this article to do that. If someone wants to know more about the Greeks' heated obsession with vengeance and invading Persia, there are plenty of links to other articles that they can explore. This article is bloated enough and there is no need to expand it, least of all with a lengthy expose about the Greeks' reasoning behind the invasion of Persia.
Rise of Macedon
  • Yes, that's what it means. You and everyone else can read the "note" at the end of the sentence if you want to know more. In sum, Plutarch and Athenaeus argued that Philip's marriage to Cleopatra Eurydice was only for love and was spurred by a midlife crisis. The present-day historian Sabine Müller is skeptical about this claim. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • There is a "clarification needed'" in the Kingship and the royal court section.
  • "The reign of Philip II (359–336 BC)" As the three dynasties are mentioned above, I think it would be helpful to specify "The reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC)"
  • "Sparta was kept isolated" This sounds POV. It was no doubt Alexander's version. The Spartans would have said that even he did not attempt to conquer them.
  • "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC." This sounds more like an excuse than a reason, and I cannot see where it is supported in the main text.
  • "In the ensuing wars of Alexander the Great, Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire" The second 'Alexander' could be replaced with 'he'.
  • "the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." This appears to say that Greek civilisation started with Alexander. Maybe "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
  • "The Macedonian kings, who wielded absolute power and commanded state resources such as gold and silver, facilitated mining operations to mint currency, finance their armies and, by the reign of Philip II, a Macedonian navy." This is out of place as it follows discussion of the results of Alexander's conquests. I suggest moving it up to follow "subordinate to Achaemenid Persia", apart from Philip's navy, which could be added to comments about his army.
  • "the point where Macedonia enters the historical record, since very little is known about the kings before his reign." Presumably not just the kings - I would say "about the kingdom".
  • "Historian Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" This is too wordy. What is wrong with "suggests"?
  • "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to strike a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, yet this proposal was rejected." This does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to propose a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, but the offer was rejected."
  • "The Athenian statesman Pericles promoted colonization of the Strymon River" Why did this affect Macedonia? Was the river in Macedon?
  • "The latter was eventually besieged by Athens" Was Potidaea conquered?
  • "their capture of Therma and Beroea" I suggest "their capture of the Macedonian cities Therma and Beroea"
  • "Yet when Argos suddenly switched sides as a pro-Athenian democracy, the Athenian navy was able to form a blockade against Macedonian seaports and invade Chalcidice in 417 BC." This is an example of a stylistic quirk which I find very irritating, of the frequent inappropriate use of the word "yet", as if something surprising will follow, when there is nothing surprising about it. Another example is "Yet when Archelaus I was assassinated (perhaps following a homosexual love affair with royal pages at his court), the kingdom was plunged into chaos," It is not surprising that the assassination of the king plunged the kingdom into chaos. "Yet" is used 28 times in the article, and I think it would be helpful if you checked each one to see whether it is the right word in the context.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Reply by PericlesofAthens
  • @Dudley Miles: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I have fixed the clarification tag and wording in that particular sentence of the royal court sub-section.
  • I added "Argead king" before "Philip II" as you've suggested.
  • I reworded "Sparta was kept isolated" to "Sparta remained defiant", which is true in any case.
  • I have removed "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC" from the lead section and instead have provided an explanation of the underlying reasons for the Macedonian-led invasion of Persia in the "Rise of Macedon" sub-section.
  • Replaced that second "Alexander" with "he" as you have recommended.
  • I reworded that sentence in the lead so that it now reads as "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
  • I have decided not to shift the sentence about the powers of the Macedonian kings and the state resources at their disposal up to the place you have suggested (i.e. "briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia"), since I think it would awkwardly interrupt the narrative about Macedonia's early history. To be honest, this is the only suggestion of yours that I find strongly objectionable. Your other suggestions are superb, though. ;)
  • I have changed "about the kings" to "about the kingdom" as you've proposed for the History section.
  • I have changed "Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" to "Robert Malcolm Errington suggests".
  • I reworded the sentence about Alexander I serving as an Achaemenid diplomat to Athens.
  • I have clarified that the Strymon River was next to the Kingdom of Macedonia.
  • I have clarified that the Athenian siege of Potidaea was ultimately unsuccessful.
  • I have reworded the passage about the Athenian capture of Therma and Beroea.
  • I have expunged many instances of the word "yet" from this article and most certainly every extraneous use of the word. There are still instances of the word "yet", which I'm not sure will irritate you or not, but I feel as though performing a Nazi-style Holocaust of each and every "yet" is perhaps a bit much. Lol. The word "but" is obviously a fine substitute in many of these cases, so I've decided to mix things up a bit by using that conjunction a bit more often.
  • I look forward to further comments and suggestions. All the best, Pericles of AthensTalk 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
More comments
  • "led by Bardylis". Bardylis should be linked.
  • Chalcidian League. As you have said that the League was dissolved in 379, it would be helpful to explain that it was later re-established.
  • "The treaty stipulated that Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims and Amphipolis in return for the enslaved Athenians as well as guaranteed that Philip II would not attack Athenian settlements in the Thracian Chersonese." There are several problems with this sentence. 1. I do not understand "Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims". Athens could only relinquish its own claims, not Macedonian ones 2. What is meant by "coastal claims" - territory on the coast or the sea? 3. "in return for the enslaved Athenians" should be "in return for the release of the enslaved Athenians" 4. "guaranteed" should be "guarantees"
  • "Meanwhile, Phocis and Thermopylae were captured," Presumably by Philip, but it would be helpful to say so.
  • "Philip II was elected as the leader (hegemon) of its council (synedrion) and its commander-in-chief (strategos autokrator) of a forthcoming campaign to invade the Achaemenid Empire." I think this should be "the commander-in-chief"
  • "The Persian aid offered to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC highlighted Macedonia's strategic need" As the aid has not previously been mentioned, I would say "The Persians offered aid to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC, highlighting Macedonia's strategic need"
  • "Achaemenid encroachment, as Artaxerxes III" I suggest "Achaemenid encroachment, as the King of Persia, Artaxerxes III"
  • " the assassination of Philip II in 336 BC" The date should be in the previous paragraph.
  • "noting Philip II's choice to exclude Alexander" I would say "noting that Philip"
  • "the relegated position Alexander was given as regent of Greece" What was he relegated from and what does "regent of Greece mean?
  • "Nonetheless, Alexander III (r. 336–323 BC) was immediately proclaimed king" Why "Nonetheless"? Is there evidence that Alexander was suspected at the time?
  • "the Illyrian king Cleitus of the Dardani threatened to attack Macedonia, but Alexander took the initiative and besieged them at Pelion" The grammar is wrong here. Maybe besieged Cleitus or besieged the Dardani.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Bardylis is already linked in that sub-section, in the previous paragraph to be exact. Linking it twice in the same sub-section would be overkill.
  • I have explained that the Chalcidian League had been reestablished in 375 BC, well before their war with Philip II.
  • That sentence about "coastal claims" is a bit vague but the gist of it is correct; the Chalcidice peninsula was a contested territory claimed by both Athens and Macedonia, although it later formed part of Macedonia proper. There are also coastal territories along the Aegean, both to the east and west of the Chalcidice, that belong to Macedonia. For instance, the Strymon River empties into the Aegean to the east of Chalcidice and the territory between them was considered Macedonian. In either case I have reworded this troubling sentence, in order to avoid any and all confusion.
  • I have specified that the Macedonians captured Phocis and Thermopylae, although I did not say Philip II, because it would be redundant to write "Philip II" twice in the same sentence.
  • I changed "its" to "the" before "commander-in-chief", as you've suggested.
  • I have reworded the passage about the Persians under Artaxerxes III providing aid to Perinthus and Byzantion.
  • I have provided a link to "Regent of Greece", where readers can be redirected if they wish to know more about this historical office.
  • I have reworded that sentence to "choosing instead for him to act as regent of Greece and deputy hegemon of the League of Corinth".
  • I have reworded that sentence to "besieged the Dardani" instead of "besieged them", given that the clause of the sentence contains a singular noun (i.e. their king Cleitus).
  • Once again, thanks for the comments and for reviewing the article! Pericles of AthensTalk 13:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Further points.
  • Have you not given a detailed account of Alexander the Great's overseas conquests because you do not consider them relevant to an article about Macedonia?. As Macedonia's importance lies above all (so far as I know) in the spread of Greek culture resulting from his conquests, I think it is crucial.
  • "Leonnatus rescued Antipater by lifting the siege." Maybe "A Macedonain army led by Leonnatus rescued Antipater by lifting the siege."
  • "The beginning of Hellenistic Greece was defined by the struggle between the Antipatrid dynasty, led first by Cassander (r. 305–297 BC), son of Antipater, and the Antigonid dynasty, led by Antigonus I Monophthalmus (r. 306–301 BC)" Presumably both dynasties founded by Macedonian generals, but it would help to say so. Also Cassander r. 305-297 and Antigonus r. 306-301: as they reigned at the same time, which territories did they rule over?
  • " Antipater II killed his own mother and regent to obtain power" I thought at first you were talking about two different people - I would delete "and regent".
  • "Demetrius had his nephew Alexander V assassinated and was then proclaimed king in Macedonia" Demetrius was an Antigonid and Alexander an Antipatrid so how were they uncle and nephew? Also you say "king in Macedonia". If this means part of Macedonia, which part?
  • "which contributed to the rise of Rome now that Greek cities in southern Italy such as Tarentum became Roman allies". Perhaps "rise of Rome because Greek cites"
  • "the queen mother and regent Olympias II of Epirus" I think "the queen mother and regent of Epirus, [[Olympias II of Epirus|[Olympias II]]" would be clearer.
  • As a general point, I think the details of minor wars could usefully be cut down, as they sometimes become strings of names which do not add to understanding. I would be interested to know what other reviewers think.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Per your suggestions, I have reworded the passages regarding Leonnatus, Cassander and Antigonus I, Antipater II, Demetrius and Alexander V, Roman allies in southern Italy, and Olympias II of Epirus.
  • However, I don't think it's necessary to discuss the shifting borders that existed in Macedonia during the civil war between Cassander and Antigonus I, at least not prior to the fateful Battle of Ipsus. The "History" section is already bloated and verbose enough as it is; such details are better suited for the History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) sub-article. There's also little need to explain the fact that Alexander V was a nephew of Demetrius, given how much intermarriage occurred among the Macedonian nobility to cement marriage alliances between their clans. Again, it's another detail that's best left for the History sub-article.
  • Your suggestion that Alexander's conquests aren't given enough weight in the article is contradicted not only by the presence of an entire sub-section dedicated to them, but also by the fact that it is a frequently recurring theme in the rest of the article (which I'm now assuming you have not yet read in full). There are plenty of links directing readers to other articles about Alexander the Great and his conquests. They can learn more about them in those articles. The chief purpose of this article is to summarize the major events as they pertain to the Kingdom of Macedonia proper, via Wikipedia:Summary style. As such, it would be highly inappropriate to meander into other topics and divert too much attention away from the main subject just to accommodate some readers who would like to know more about Alexander's eastern adventures.
  • I disagree. Alexander's conquests created a large scale Macedonian empire and led to a long term Hellenization of the culture and language of large parts of the ancient world, especially Mesopotamia and Egypt, and they are a large part of why Macedonia was important in world history. A paragraph detailing his conquests would therefore be appropriate, particularly as you describe conflicts in these territories after Alexander's death. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion that we trim details about the "minor wars" that Macedonia fought in, because you haven't cited any specific examples. Which sub-section or sub-sections are you referring to specifically? What criteria are you using to pass judgment about any of these wars being minor ones instead of major conflicts, often with dire consequences for the kingdom? Pericles of AthensTalk 01:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: did you finish your review of the article? It has been two weeks since you posted comments here. Do you have any outstanding objections? I'd like to wrap things up here. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. I will try to finish in the next few days. See also the comment above. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 216 BC, Philip V sent a hundred light warships into the Adriatic Sea to attack Illyria, a move that did not go unnoticed by Rome" This sounds a bit odd. Was not Rome bound to notice?
  • "Although the Macedonians were perhaps only interested in safeguarding their conquered territories in Illyria,[172] the Romans were nevertheless able to thwart Philip V's ambitions in the Adriatic" I am not clear what you are saying here. You have said above that Philip's attempt to conquer Illyria failed, but now he is safeguarding his conquests - and what ambitions did the Romans thwart? (I assume that he had conquered part of Illyria and wanted to conquer the rest, but this should be clarified.)
  • "This assuaged the fear of Eumenes II that Macedonia could no longer threaten his lands in the Hellespont." The grammar seems to have gone wrong here. He feared that Macedonia could not threaten him?
  • "The preference of certain male offspring over others is questionable" Which male offspring?
  • "the king was at least occasionally pressured to oblige their demands." I think "agree to" would be better than "oblige"
  • "Although Macedonian cities nominally participated in Panhellenic events on their own accord". "on their own accord" does not sound right.
  • "Alexander the Great's royal squadron of companion cavalry were similarly numbered to the 800 cavalrymen of the sacred squadron". I assume this means that there were 800 in each, but it is not clear.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: I'm glad to see that you are back. Per your suggestions, I have reworded the passages regarding Illyria, the Adriatic, Eumenes II and the Hellespont, the unclear rules in the royal succession of male offspring of Macedonian queens, queen consorts, or even slave women, the participation of Macedonian cities in Panhellenic conferences/games/festivals, the royal squadron of Alexander the Great versus the sacred squadron of Philip V, and changed "obliged" to "agreed" in that particular sentence about the powers of the king versus the Macedonian royal council.
  • That being said, I did not belabor the point or go into a great amount of detail about the partial control of Illyria by Macedonia, since that is clarified in the very next paragraph that states "the Roman Republic negotiated the Treaty of Phoenice in 205 BC, ending the war and allowing the Macedonians to retain some captured settlements in Illyria." The article also never said anything about Philip failing to conquer all of Illyria or parts of it, only that his fleet of a hundred light warships were ordered to retreat once the Romans began patrolling the Illyrian coast. The article also says nothing of Philip being able to defeat Scerdilaidas of the Ardiaean Kingdom in Illyria. Indeed, the opposite was true, since Philip was forced to make peace with Scerdilaidas' successor Pleuratus III. I thought it was a tangential thing to mention, but perhaps this should be explained in the article to avoid confusion. However, I didn't want to get ahead of myself by mentioning all of this before explaining that the Treaty of Phoenice ended the First Macedonian War.
  • As for your rebuttal about the article requiring more information of Alexander's conquests, I agree that it is not a minor issue, but the problem I have with adding substantial new material is the obvious disobedience of the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size. Again, if you or other readers would like to know more about Alexander or his conquests, then perhaps we could spruce up the already existing History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) article to accommodate this information. Literally every section of this article ("History", "Institutions", "Society and Culture", "Technology and Engineering", "Currency, Finances, and Resources") describes the profound impact of his reign on Macedonia and other regions of his empire. A detailed narrative of how he conquered Egypt and Mesopotamia is completely unnecessary when we have the article Wars of Alexander the Great (and for that matter it didn't take much to conquer Egypt after the Siege of Gaza). If you have very specific statements you'd like to add to the "Empire" sub-section that you consider highly relevant, please list them here (preferably in descending order of importance). Otherwise I fail to see why we should disobey WP:SIZE by adding more material to the article when it could be easily added to the History article I created for this very purpose. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "In Macedonia, politics and religion were often intertwined." There is nothing specifically Macedonian about this as it is the case in almost all societies.
  • "Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, a similar institution did not exist in the Kingdom of Macedonia." I found this comment unclear. "maintained ancestral cults" links to an article about the Ptolemaic cult of Alexander, but it does not say that the Ptolemies claimed descent from Alexander. Another point is that it would also be clearer to say that in Macedonia kings were not worshipped rather than referring to a similar institution.
  • "The bedrock of the Macedonian economy and state finances were mainly supported by logging and by mining valuable minerals such as copper, iron, gold, and silver." In Macedonia itself or conquered territories? Also, what is meant by "bedrock of"? I would delete it.
  • "By the reign of Archelaus I" I would add "in the late 5th century".
  • "archaic, perhaps Homeric, funerary rites connected with the symposium" The linked article on 'symposium' confirms my impression that it was a drinking party in Classical Greece (or a banquet as stated in this article below). Is there evidence connecting it with archaic funerary rites?
  • "bas-reliefs of the Alexander Sarcophagus" Perhaps "bas-reliefs of the late 4th century Alexander Sarcophagus"
  • "The king was capable of exploiting the mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state, although these were often leased as assets". "capable of" sounds odd to me in this context. Maybe "Some mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state were exploited by the king, but they were often leased as assets"
  • You said that you have moved a lot of material to History of Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This is very helpful, but in my opinion there are still a lot of details in this article which belong in the sub-article. To pick a random example:
In 429 BC, during the height of the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, Perdiccas II sent military aid to the Spartans at Acarnania, but the Macedonians arrived too late, allowing the Athenians to prevail at the Battle of Naupactus.[29] Athens retaliated the same year by convincing Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but the Athenians eventually declined to offer the powerful Thracian ruler any naval support in Chalcidice, perhaps out of fear of his regional ambitions.[30] Sitalces retreated from Macedonia due to a shortage of provisions for the army during winter.[31] In 424 BC, Perdiccas II helped to persuade Athenian allies in Thrace to defect and ally with Sparta.[32] In return, the Spartan general Brasidas agreed to help Perdiccas II put down the revolt of Arrhabaeus, a local ruler of Lynkestis (in Upper Macedonia), although he expressed concern over the massive Illyrian army allied with Arrhabaeus and over leaving Sparta's Chalcidian allies exposed to Athenian attacks while the Spartan army was away.[33] At the Battle of Lyncestis, the Macedonians panicked and fled before the fighting began against the forces of Arrhabaeus, enraging Brasidas, whose soldiers looted the unattended Macedonian baggage train.[34] As a result, Perdiccas II promptly switched sides and allied with the Athenians instead, blocking Brasidas' Peloponnesian reinforcements in Thessaly and forcing Arrhabaeus and other rebels to surrender and accept the Macedonian king as their suzerain lord.

This could be shortened to e.g.

Perdiccas II sided with Sparta the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) between Athens and Sparta, and in 429 BC Athens retaliated by persuading Sitalces to invade Macedonia, but he was forced to retreat due to a shortage of provisions in winter. In 424 BC Arrhabaeus, a local ruler of Lynkestis in Upper Macedonia, rebelled against his overlord Perdiccas, and the Spartans agreed to help in putting down the revolt. However, at the Battle of Lyncestis the Macedonians panicked and fled before the fighting began, enraging the Spartan general Brasidas, whose soldiers looted the unattended Macedonian baggage train. Perdiccas then changed sides and aupported Athens, and he was able to put down Arrhabaeus's revolt.
  • The link to Arrhabaeus goes to a disambig.
  • The sections on institutions, society etc seem to me fine, but there is nothing on Macedonia's importance in spreading Greek culture to the wider ancient world, and I think you need a section on this. Even the brief the brief control over Afghanistan of Alexander and his successors had a lasting influence with several towns named after him, and in Mesopotamia and Egypt the legacy was deep and long lasting, unlike Europe outside Macedonia's immediate neighbours where (so far as I know) the Greek influence was mainly due to contact with Athens. I think you need a section on Macedonia's legacy, its nature, where it was deepest and how long it lasted. I also think, as I have said, that you need a description of Alexander's conquests, although a paragraph would be sufficient for this. The article at present has too much historical detail and not enough on why Macedonia mattered. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Pericles' reply
  • @Dudley Miles: welcome again and thanks for the reply. I have clarified that it wasn't just politics and religion that were intertwined; in this specific case I made it clear that I'm referring to political and religious offices being combined. Many ancient societies had this feature but not all of them.
  • Per your second suggestion above, the sentence now reads as thus: "Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, kings were not worshiped in the Kingdom of Macedonia."
  • I removed "bedrock of" in that one sentence, although it seemed fairly clear to me, a "bedrock" implying that it was the foundation for the economy.
  • I added "in the 5th century BC" in the sentence about the Homeric funerary rites and artistic trends.
  • Yes, there is evidence linking the symposium to funerary rites, considering how Hardiman's work (Oxford, 2010) would have been scrutinized by his academic colleagues and editors well before the publication of the major compendium containing his book chapter. Aside from that, the very same sentence ends with the following: "were typified by items such as the decorative metal kraters that held the ashes of deceased Macedonian nobility in their tombs." Since kraters were more commonly used in banquets as vessels for watering down wine, I'd say that this is a sufficient example demonstrating the aforesaid connection to the symposium.
  • I have amended the next sentence in question to read as thus: "For instance, trace colors still exist on the bas-reliefs of the late 4th-century BC Alexander Sarcophagus."
  • Per your suggestion, I've reworded the somewhat awkward "capable of" sentence as the following: "Some mines, groves, agricultural lands, and forests belonging to the Macedonian state were exploited by the king, but they were often leased as assets"
  • The link to the disambiguation page Arrhabaeus is intentional and I have made a (hidden) note of it in the article.
  • Although it contains a couple typos that required fixing, I absolutely prefer your crisper paragraph about Macedonia's involvement in the Peloponnesian War and the Battle of Lyncestis. I have decided to place it in the article with very few tweaks. If you have any more suggestions about how to remove excessive details via Wikipedia:Summary style, I'm all ears, because it is difficult for me to spot this sort of thing. It certainly helps to lessen the already bloated size of the article, teetering along the edges of acceptable standards according to Wikipedia:Article size.
  • As for your assertion that the article contains "nothing on Macedonia's importance in spreading Greek culture to the wider ancient world", I think this is totally hyperbolic if not flat out incorrect, considering how the article contains the following passages:
      • "In addition to the agora, the gymnasium, the theatre, and religious sanctuaries and temples dedicated to Greek gods and goddesses, one of the main markers of a true Greek city in the empire of Alexander the Great was the presence of an odeon for musical performances.[287] This was the case not only for Alexandria in Egypt, but also cities as distant as Ai-Khanoum in what is now modern-day Afghanistan.[287]"
      • "Alexander the Great was allegedly a great admirer of both theatre and music.[284] He was especially fond of the plays by Classical Athenian tragedians Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, whose works formed part of a proper Greek education for his new eastern subjects alongside studies in the Greek language, including the epics of Homer.[285] While he and his army were stationed at Tyre (in modern-day Lebanon), Alexander had his generals act as judges not only for athletic contests but also for stage performances of Greek tragedies.[286]"
      • "It was in the more bureaucratic regimes of the Hellenistic kingdoms that succeeded Alexander the Great's empire where greater social mobility for members of society seeking to join the aristocracy could be found, especially in Ptolemaic Egypt.[274]"
      • "Foreign cults from Egypt were fostered by the royal court, such as the temple of Sarapis at Thessaloniki, while Macedonian kings Philip III of Macedon and Alexander IV of Macedon made votive offerings to the internationally esteemed Samothrace temple complex of the Cabeiri mystery cult.[262]"
      • "Following his visit to the oracle of Didyma in 334 BC that suggested his divinity, Alexander traveled to the Oracle of Zeus Ammon (the Greek equivalent of the Egyptian Amun-Ra) at the Siwa Oasis of the Libyan Desert in 332 BC to confirm his divine status.[note 38] Although the Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires maintained ancestral cults and deified their rulers, kings were not worshiped in the Kingdom of Macedonia.[268]"
      • "The Macedonian historians Marsyas of Pella and Marsyas of Philippi wrote histories of Macedonia, while the Ptolemaic king Ptolemy I Soter authored a history about Alexander and Hieronymus of Cardia wrote a history about Alexander's royal successors.[note 43] Following the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great, the Macedonian military officer Nearchus wrote a work of his voyage from the mouth of the Indus river to the Persian Gulf.[293] The Macedonian historian Craterus published a compilation of decrees made by the popular assembly of the Athenian democracy, ostensibly while attending the school of Aristotle.[293]"
      • "The comedic playwright Menander wrote that Macedonian dining habits penetrated Athenian high society; for instance, the introduction of meats into the dessert course of a meal.[299] The Macedonians also most likely introduced mattye to Athenian cuisine, a dish usually made of chicken or other spiced, salted, and sauced meats served during the wine course.[300] This particular dish was derided and connected with licentiousness and drunkenness in a play by the Athenian comic poet Alexis about the declining morals of Athenians in the age of Demetrius I of Macedon.[301]"
      • "In addition to literary contests, Alexander the Great also staged competitions for music and athletics across his empire.[285]"
      • "Macedonian rulers also sponsored works of architecture outside of Macedonia proper. For instance, following his victory at the Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), Philip II raised a round memorial building at Olympia known as the Philippeion, decorated inside with statues depicting him, his parents Amyntas III of Macedon and Eurydice I of Macedon, his wife Olympias, and his son Alexander the Great.[311]"
      • "E. W. Marsden and M. Y. Treister contend that the Macedonian rulers Antigonus I Monophthalmus and his successor Demetrius I of Macedon had the most powerful siege artillery of the Hellenistic world at the end of the 4th century BC.[315] The siege of Salamis, Cyprus, in 306 BC necessitated the building of large siege engines and drafting of craftsmen from parts of West Asia.[316]"
      • "By the end of the conquests of Alexander the Great, nearly thirty mints stretching from Macedonia to Babylon produced standard coins.[324]"
      • "The only Macedonian cavalry units attested under Alexander were the companion cavalry,[242] yet he formed a hipparchia (i.e. unit of a few hundred horsemen) of companion cavalry composed entirely of ethnic Persians while campaigning in Asia.[246] When marching his forces into Asia, Alexander brought 1,800 cavalrymen from Macedonia, 1,800 cavalrymen from Thessaly, 600 cavalrymen from the rest of Greece, and 900 prodromoi cavalry from Thrace.[247] Antipater was able to quickly raise a force of 600 native Macedonian cavalry to fight in the Lamian War when it began in 323 BC.[247] The most elite members of Alexander's hypaspistai were designated as the agema, and a new term for hypaspistai emerged after the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC: the argyraspides (silver shields).[248] The latter continued to serve after the reign of Alexander the Great and may have been of Asian origin.[note 27] Overall, his pike-wielding phalanx infantry numbered some 12,000 men, 3,000 of which were elite hypaspistai and 9,000 of which were pezhetairoi.[note 28] Alexander continued the use of Cretan archers and introduced native Macedonian archers into the army.[249] After the Battle of Gaugamela, archers of West Asian backgrounds became commonplace.[249]"
      • "When his Macedonian troops threatened mutiny in 324 BC at Opis, Babylonia (near modern Baghdad, Iraq), Alexander offered Macedonian military titles and greater responsibilities to Persian officers and units instead, forcing his troops to seek forgiveness at a staged banquet of reconciliation between Persians and Macedonians.[98]"
      • "Continuing the polygamous habits of his father, Alexander encouraged his men to marry native women in Asia, leading by example when he wed Roxana, a Sogdian princess of Bactria.[103] He then married Stateira II, eldest daughter of Darius III, and Parysatis II, youngest daughter of Artaxerxes III, at the Susa weddings in 324 BC.[104]"
  • You're perhaps right that this is still an area that is lacking and could use a few more statements to press home the idea of the Macedonian impact on the ancient world. As for this theme deserving its own entire section, though, such as "Legacy" or "Cultural influence", I'm not so sure about that. I'd like to hear what others have to say about making such a large addition to an already excessively large article per WP:SIZE constraints. I'd like to see a little more justification for it, before we go about restructuring the article. At the very least I think it would be wise to add a few more statements about cultural influence as opposed to a detailed narrative of Alexander's conquests, which as I've said before, belongs in the separate "History" sub-article if anywhere. I think a few sentences discussing the Hellenistic Greek influence in Alexander's empire and on the succeeding Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires would suffice. I'm all ears if you have very specific suggestions, like the one you had about towns named after Alexander in Afghanistan. I wonder, though, if this sort of thing is more suited for the article Ancient Macedonians than this article, since "Ancient Macedonians" provides much better coverage of cultural issues, just as my article Government of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) offers a much more detailed, in-depth look inside the institutions of ancient Macedonia. --Pericles of AthensTalk 18:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Your comment on the symposium is very interesting. It is a pity this aspect is not covered in the Symposium article but that is of course not your fault. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • My comment on culture was worded badly. I was thinking of a summary along the lines (no doubt with errors) of: "Macedonia played a crucial role in making the Greek language and culture dominant for centuries in large parts of the ancient world. In Egypt the Greek language was a lingua franca, and Greek customs such as x and y were incorporated into Egyptian culture. Although the Ptolemaic regime ended with the Roman conquest in 30 BC, the Greek language was still widely used in Egypt until the x century." A similar summary of Macedonian infuence on Mesopotamia. The Seleucid regime in Persia and Afghanistan short lived, but influence seen in x and y lasted until z. Minimal Macedonian influence on political systems as the successor regimes claimed divine status, a concept abhorrent to the Macedonians and other Greeks. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: hi again. Your suggestions here for the contents of a hypothetical "Legacy" section are certainly reasonable, but some of them seem like a rehash of information that is already found in various parts of the article. For instance, there is already a sub-section that describes Koine Greek as a lingua franca and another (the "religious beliefs" sub-section) that explains the divine status of Macedonian monarchs versus that of other Hellenistic kingdoms. I think it would make more sense to beef up those existing sub-sections than to create a new one that simply repeats what is already found elsewhere. No? Is there a way we could create a "Legacy" section that introduces new information instead? Pericles of AthensTalk 03:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see that there is significant coverage of Macedonian influence on the wider ancient world. The section describing Koine Greek as a lingua franca is exclusively about Greece. The religious beliefs section is also about Greece, apart from a passing comment at the end - which could be moved as it would be more relevant in a summary section about Macedonian influence, as an example of where the influence failed because Alexander had adopted eastern and Egyptian views on divine rulership. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Firefly (TV series)

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

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

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

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

West Bengal

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

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

  • I'll try to check/address the issues mentioned here. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello! Thanks for bringing this article to FARC. I was the nominator of FAC of this article, and thereafter did try to maintain its quality, of course with the help of other editors. However, the article has been neglected for quite a while now. It will be excellent if this FARC process is continued beyond May 15 (I am hoping for some free time in real life after that date). With the help of other editors, we can surely save this FA! Thanks, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Comments This page does need some work but here are a few suggestions:
  • "91 million inhabitants"... as of when?
  • "making it similar in size to Serbia" is this a good comparison? Wouldn't it be better to compare it to other states in India?
  • " has borders with five Indian states" should be "borders five Indian states"
  • "West Bengal is the sixth-largest contributor" ... largest contributing state?
  • "It is noted for its cultural activities and the presence of cultural and educational institutions"... I don't know what this means specifically.
  • "stalwarts in literature"... I'm not sure that is the correct use of that word.
  • "to scores of musicians, film-makers and artists"... can't this be said for any state? What makes this state unique in this respect?
  • "playing association football besides cricket, the national favourite sport." This sentence is needlessly passive and can be rewritten to be more readable.
  • That's just my comments on the lead, have not had time to delve into the article itself. Mattximus (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dwaipayanc: It's now after May 15 - where are we at with addressing the concerns that have been raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi! Unfortunately I am very busy in real life and short of time for addressing the concerns. Still I am trying... I have covered only the history part. However I am not up to date with copy edit benchmarks, so there are problems even after I go through sections. Please let us have some more time. I'll try to get more people involved. Thanks a lot. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Casablanca (film)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

Review section

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

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include structure, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Notified: Frank Zappa

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it subverts several points in the criteria for featured articles (and because an attempt to address these issues was swiftly reverted)

  • Inappropriate structure Similar articles like Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson follow a logical structure which applies a division between "Biographical" and "Analytical" content. The bulk of the first sections ("Biographical") focuses on specific biographical detail, going from childhood to major career developments. The next sections ("Analytical") elaborate on the subject's personal beliefs, music style, legacy, etc. which are more general and apply to the subject's output, philosophy, and historical standing, not really the events of the subject's life.
Not only does Frank Zappa clutter these two aspects together in a very unfocused "oh by the way" fashion, it does so in spite of two already-existing "Personal views" and "Musical style" sections. Here are several excerpts that should be moved out to those sections:
  • (Religious views)

    Zappa recalled his parents being "pretty religious" and trying to make him go to Catholic school despite his resentment. He felt disgust towards organized religion (Christianity in particular) because he believed that it promoted ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

  • (Musical ethos)

    Zappa grew up influenced by avant-garde composers such as Varèse, Igor Stravinsky, and Anton Webern; 1950's blues artists Guitar Slim, Johnny Guitar Watson, and B.B. King;[22] R&B and doo-wop groups (particularly local pachuco groups); and modern jazz. His own heterogeneous ethnic background, and the diverse social and cultural mix in and around greater Los Angeles, were crucial in the formation of Zappa as a practitioner of underground music and of his later distrustful and openly critical attitude towards "mainstream" social, political and musical movements. He frequently lampooned musical fads like psychedelia, rock opera and disco. Television also exerted a strong influence, as demonstrated by quotations from show themes and advertising jingles found in his later works. ... Examples are "Plastic People" and "Brown Shoes Don't Make It", which contained lyrics critical of the hypocrisy and conformity of American society, but also of the counterculture of the 1960s. ... Nasal imagery and references appear in his music and lyrics, as well as in the collage album covers created by his long-time collaborator Cal Schenkel. ... [he] later acknowledged two of his music teachers on the sleeve of the 1966 album Freak Out! ...

Among reliable sources, there is so much detail regarding the themes, motifs, and idiosyncrasies of Zappa's work and philosophy that it would not be out of the question to have a separate article devoted to it, a la Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Although I'm not sure such action has to be taken, it should definitely be considered somewhere down the line.
  • Inconsistent citations Article has a mixture of {{cite book}}, {{sfn}} and manual harv cites, which I believe should all be converted to {{sfn}}, per its superior functionality.
  • Improperly placed non-free media Too many arbitrary sound clips with unclear significance.
  • Length of section headers The way it assigns yearly periods within yearly periods is overkill. "1973–75: Top 10 album" should be simplified to "Top 10 album", or better yet, "Apostrophe (')", the name of that top 10 album.

Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@DVdm, Ilovetopaint, Herostratus, Mrmoustache14, Friginator, Doc2234, A13ean, BenStein69, Kingflurkel, and The Gnome: Pinging members of the WikiProject and active users of the article's talk page. The FAR coordinators would appreciate more opinions on whether the article meets the featured article criteria. It would be useful for users to either declare "Move to FARC" if the article does not meet the criteria in their opinion or "Close without FARC" if it does, with a brief comment explaining their declaration. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Since there have been no further comments in the Review section, I have opened the FARC section. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Western Front (World War I)

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired


Review section

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

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

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

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

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Done
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
G'day, I've tried to tidy it up a little, and added some refs where I could find things in my (sadly limited) home library. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few citation needed tags. These are my edits: [20] I probably can't help much more, sorry. Please feel free to adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far; still tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we have the sources to fix referencing, and we'll get someone else to deal with prose. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Gill, Thomas; Libraries Board of South Australia (1974). The history and topography of Glen Osmond, with map and illustrations. Libraries Board of South Australia. p. 69. 
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